"Pulling this thread dismantles the entire Noah story."
Does it? Your proof is an if/then statement? Not enough.
As a debate I initiated relates: If is the most functionally useless word in the language because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. What is currently not true is that God could have saved everything or anything He wanted without an ark, because He did not save everything or anything He wanted without an ark - excepting the fishes of the sea and the on the ark.
The more germane point ignored is that to simply wave a wand and not allow the flood, which God initiated in the first place, would have allowed the people who were destroyed to continue their debauchery to the point that they would have denied themselves access to the most wonderful gift to man other than his life: the atonement of Jesus Christ. Expecting, by your generic pronoun use of God that you do not accept it yourself is entirely your choice, and that's the secondary point: the atonement is infinitely available to all who will accept it, and even if you don't agree with it, as the people of the flood who were destroyed did not. But, they were in a worse condition than that. They had the potential too sin further; to sin against the Holy Ghost, a sin so egregious, infinitely more serious than murder, there is no redemption from it, even if they later wanted to do so. Yes, the flood pre-dated Jesus, but, as said, the atonement is infinitely available, backward and forward in human history to all who will accept it before they reach the point of no return - sin against the Holy Ghost.
As the destroyed were about to cross that barrier of no return, God acted to take their mortal lives, and their mortal lives only, before they doomed their souls to damnation to a place with no doors. This was actually an act of love, by His preventive act, because it allowed them the opportunity to eventually repent of their less serious sins, if they were of a mind to accept the Lord's atonement. Same with the people of Sodom & Gomorrah; an act of ultimate love. God is a God of love, and He desires that we maintain our free agency, because if we remain obedient to Him by our agency, death by any means is not the end; it is merely a door. A door to further righteous living in glory with Him, if we are obedient now. The is why He allows suffering, because even death does not mean the end if we accept the atonement of Christ, and then act to be of service to others, demonstrating our gratitude to God for His gifts to us.
Thank you. Glad to be of service. However, I must advise, and should have in my previous commentary, that I do not believe a God can be evil. I respect God as a title, and not as a name of an omnipotent being, and, as a title, refers to a person who has achieved perfection in every respect, whereas evil is a complete lack of perfection. It is chaos. However, from a strictly logical argument, which may entertain concepts that are not true, the possibility of an evil god must be considered.
I have erred even at the outset, proving the point that perfection is, indeed, a mountain, not a mole hill. Please read the title of the debate as "Does a good, perfect person [not just a man] struggle with evil."
I don't use Windows, either, anymore. I've always had a Mac, but, with my familiarity with Windows, I prefer using Word for Mac, which functions much better than it does for Micronuts. I am broke on the pane of windows. Are you on Mac and Pages? Although I am friends with oromagi, I, too, am suspicious of the record. But since I agree with your position, I chose to not engage. However, since, I have done exactly that, taking a debate position with which I disagree, just to see if I could pull it off.
This is a 4-month old challenge. Why is there no debate? No arguments? Just a claim? Great subject, but it lacks substance. As I have familiarity with all holy writ noted, I am greatly disappointed. When this dies, if you don't raise it again, I will, but not from your claimed perspective.
Good grief! Did I write that first paragraph in my vote reasoning without editing it, or what? "...but by acceptance but by allowing a debate to proceed..." ?! What a mash! I apologize
By the way, your argument is very well prepared. Great beginning. I had not heard about your reference to the apparent human signature in the virus RNA. Wow!
Hope you're not offended by my previous comment on sources. I see you are, like me, new on the site. I wondered, too, how to deal with sourcing, and discovered what I already knew in Word about reference notes, and found the sequence works. There may be a better way...
The origin of your issue with posting sources is closer to home than the site. It functions perfectly well in accepting text with embedded source notes.
1. prepare your document in Word
2. As you compose, when needing to reference a source, click on <insert>, <footnote>
3. In the pop-up box, under <location>, select <endnotes> which will collect all source references at the end of the document. [The other selection, <footnotes> will collect them at the foot of each page.] The notes are automatically assigned numeric sequence, and enters the number both within the text, and at the end of the document. Enter your reference in each end note as you compile them.
4. Copy/paste your text, not including the endnotes into the argument entry box as usual, and make a note in the text that your sources are listed in the comments section.
5. Enter the comments section, copy/paste your endnotes into the comment box. Done.
Being first to comment on a debate that has been posted for a month is troublesome. I just found this one and am intrigued by the arguments so far.
I have a few comments, just general observations.
1. I am troubled by the challenge to limit the period of the flood to 4,000 years. The Holy Bible, and its description of creation, notes the creative segments as "days." However, the Hebrew is Yom, יום, and it significance varies from a single day to a "period" of undefined duration. We cannot assume for simplicity sake that the individual segments of creation were 24-hour periods. Common sense with our gained knowledge of geological phenomena does not allow for such high-speed creation. I'll assume that God would follow natural law, and not black magic. After all, what's the hurry? Creation may have occupied billions of years. What is tat to a Being of infinite duration, and for whom "Time" is inconsequential. Does that crumble anybody'e cookie?
Also, specifically in the generations noted in Genesis, there are genealogical gaps. That means unaccounted for passage of time and possibly generations of it. So what? Why not just accept that the Bible is not as chronologically accurate as we might wish it was. What if Noah was 10,000 years ago? 20,000? To quote a the most innocent [tongue-in-cheek] investigate woman in history, "What difference does it make, now?"
Second, the conundrum of the storage of animals, food, water, hay, whatever, I like ascribing to ancients more capability and innovation that the TV show, Ancient Aliens, will grant them. According to that show, our ancestors were straw man dummies, who, without alien intervention, we would still be poking goats. What if, rather, Noah were a sort of genetic engineer, managing a floating laboratory of DNA samples of every beast and fowl on earth? if God can teach Noah how to build a ship, I suppose he can also teach a little genetic theory along the way. After all, I don't think Noah built his ship, maybe christened "Rome," in one day. No need for fish on board. As one of you suggested, Genesis allows for the creatures of the sea to survive. Yeah, the water would have been mightily diluted from salt water by that much rain, but, who knows? Since God can make an ass talk [Numbers 22:], I suspect He can make fish breath brackish water for an interim period. 300 days? 400? 200? Refer to the lady with answers above.
Thanks for your suggestions on definitions. I suppose it would be good to use the "Full Description" section when launching a new debate to offer definition. Too late now. However, I think a counter argument of Jesus being multiple figures might just confuse matters. On the other hand, I have accepted this debate being a firm believer in Jesus Christ, so the whole effort is contrary to my sensibilities. Nevertheless, There are 5 argument sessions, so I might need an added argument depending on the course my opponent takes, and "clones" is as good as any.
It appears by logicae's argument in round 1 that the purpose of FICA taxes are not acknowledged in the argument, but are noted on every paystub produced by every employer to its employees. By the argument, we are to understand that the government merely spends money to support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to the tune of $2.3 trillion, and, apparently, that money comes out of our pockets for everybody. Nope. Re-enter FICA taxes. FICA taxes are withdrawn from every employee, and matched dollar for dollar for each employee by the employer. And each dollar I paid in FICA while working [now retired] was earmarked FOR ME. FICA started as MY MONEY [plus the contribution of my employers], and continues to be MY MONEY, not yours, or anyone else's. This is NOT a socialist agenda, as I suspect logicae believes, nor is it even a welfare expenditure. The other $645B logicae argues is up for discussion, but the $2.3T is not party to "welfare" benefits because they are not shared from one big pot.
The parameters [definitions] offered for this debate, specifically with regard to "rare" is far too excessive at 30% to ave any meaning relative to the overall premise that only men are affected by poverty. For example, in an entirely different matter of an issue affecting a portion of the population, "rare" is defined as far less than 30%. According to NIH https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases - a rare disease in the United States is one affecting 200,000 people, or less, or 0.06% of the population. Not that disease and poverty are necessarily related, but that the condition of "rare" is considered so much less. Another factor: what is the most rare eye color? According to the World Atlas, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/only-two-percent-of-the-worlds-population-have-this-trait/ar-BBT3LTR
only 2% of the world's population has green eyes. That's rare. 30% is not. Therefore, on its face, I consider this debate as useless by definition.
No, I've decided citation is the better part of valor. I'm no Plato, but I do admire the man greatly, taught by my older brother who was a huge fan, but is now dead. I put his copy of The Republic in his hand in his casket. But thanks for the kind words.
Footnotes to Round 1 arguments:
1. https://www.oed.com
2. https://www.oed.com
3. Gardner, Sir Alan, Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd Edition, revised, Oxford University Press, London, 1949
4. The Holy Bible, New Testament, James 1: 5 Note: all use of the Bible herein uses the KJV.
5. The Holy Bible, New Testament, James 1: 2 - 6
6. Qur’an, The Imans 3: 169 – 170 Note: all uses of the Qur’an, except reference to the opponent’s reference, is The Koran, translated by N.J. Dawood,
5th edition, Penguin Books, London, 1993
7. RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion…” Argument round 1
8. RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion…” Argument round 1
9. Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 3 - 5
10. Holy Bible, New Testament, Matthew 5: 10 – 12
11 RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion” Argument round 1
12 RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion” Argument round 1
13 Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 6 - 11
14 McLaughlin, John L. (2000). "Elohim". In Freedman, David Noel; Myer, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible
15 OED: OE Homily (Corpus Cambr. 41) in K. G. Schaefer Five Old Eng. Homilies (Ph.D. diss., Columbia Univ.) (1972) 61 Ac hwæt wite ge þissum
hælende se is genemned Crist?
16 OED: 1. The name of God among Muslims and Arabic people in general.
17 https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-11-no-1-2010/name-titles-god-old-testament
You certainly did trounce me with sources. I know better, but I wanted to man the helm myself. I'm a stingy sailor. Set my own heading and didn't want to use a map. Ragnar really let me have it. Thanks, my friends. I am sufficiently ashamed on myself. [A turn of phrase my daughter spun when she was about five. Now has two children, nine and eleven, herself].
I am going to engage this debate from a Con perspective, even though I am a confirmed believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as well as a common man of Nazareth. It is engaged strictly as a personal challenge to take an opposing view, and I accept the challenge to keep any religious aspect of my argument out of the argument, but for Biblical reference if deemed necessary. I do consider one definition of the Bible as historic and literary text, of value on these considerations, alone.
By the way, the assertion by Pro that states still depend on selection of electoral college delegates by the respective State governments is no longer true, although it was at one time. Every state now selects electoral college delegates by direct vote of the people through their designated choice, by name, of presidential candidates.
As a professional statistician [certified Six Sigma Black Belt, retired], I made a study of the effect of popular vote vs. electoral college, using the 2016 election as raw data for the study. I compared how many states, in order of population, largest first [CA], and descending to the least [WY], were required to elect the president strictly by popular vote. Then I did a comparative study of how many states, in reverse order of population, least first [WY] to most [CA], were required to elect the president, strictly by electoral college. I was not surprised by the results, given that I was already convinced that the electoral college voting method was superior to popular vote. This study confirmed it.
I found that in popular vote, it required only 24 states to elect the president; the first 24 states in largest population, and that victor would have been Clinton. Whereas, by electoral college vote, it required 40 states in ascending population order, least to most, to elect the president [Trump]. Which system appears to you to be the more equitable, and representative of all the citizens?
Pro [PliceSheep] alleges that the Electoral College unequally weights the vote in favor of Republicans, citing four instances [1876, 1888, 2000, 2016] wherein the Electoral College disagreed with popular vote to elect the President.
The 2000 election must be withdrawn from that list because it was neither the Electoral College, nor the popular vote, that gave Bush 43 the Presidency. It was the Supreme Court, given the failure of FL to declare a definitive winner of that State. The conflict should have been resolved in the House, which would have very likely voted as SCOTUS decided, given the R advantage of numbers in the House.
Moreover, in the history of the current major political parties, 14 Democrat Presidents have been elected, while 20 Republicans have been elected. There’s the skew, and, even if the claim of E.C. partisanship were true in three cases, removing the 2000 election, there are still more Republicans elected than Democrats, even though the Democrats began with Jackson [#6], and Republicans are first elected with Lincoln [#16]. With a 10-election advantage, Democrats fall short of Republicans, even considering the few failures of the E.C in agreement with the popular vote.
My opponent wants you to believe my argument centers on a conditional conjunction. Those of you who know what that is, raise your hands. I’ll wager many do not without looking it up. Go ahead, there’s no shame in learning more today than you knew yesterday.
Conditional conjunctions are not the enemy in language and they do not, on their own merit, support an always false conclusion, as my opponent claims. They exist because of what they are: a two-clause [it may be more, but my premise is a two-clause] statement, the first of which describes an action that occurred, or will occur if the other clause is a satisfactory conclusion. That if is what makes the conditional state, and only if the second clause is not satisfied is the condition a false statement.
Now, read my conditional conjunction: “If is the most useless word in any language, because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true.” The condition is, “if” is a useless word [I contend the most useless word] and will occur... “if.” The satisfaction clause is that only ‘not true’ occurs, and only in a current tense: Now.
Good subject, although personally, I agree with your Pro position. Nevertheless, I have two separate arguments against the proposal, but both have weaknesses, and two is not sufficient for the debate. I will hold for now, but, if within 12 days' time, you do not have a Con argument, I will engage.
Think again. Better; see the data. Both vas deferens and fallopian tubes can reconnect by completely natural, non-surgical means. Heard of stem cells? We all have them. They exist to regrow healthy tissue from damaged tissue. There are both specific [preprogrammed, if you will, to specific tissue type] and non-specific, generic stem cells. It's what they do. They do decline in numbers with age, but we start with millions of them. Also depends on the relative skill of the surgeon in the first place. Let's just say that all surgeons, like in any profession, are not top notch.
See the statistics. Vasectomies have a typical failure rate of 1%. That rises after five to ten years for the simple reason that the vas deferens can re-connect. As Dr. Micheal Crichton once said through Jurassic Park character, Ian Malcom, "Life finds a way."
In your #3 post, you speak of statistics, and specifically of the statistical success of using condoms vs. vasectomy. There is a process that is 100% effective if practiced with dedicated avoidance: abstinence. Mind over matter, my friend. Many clam it can't be done. When that's their decision; no, it can't. That does not speak to the impossibility of employing the tactic.
The thesis is "if... because" not "if... or" Read the thesis to the end, yeah? However, if you want to argue the point, enjoin the debate. This is not the place to do that, and I will not respond otherwise.
Amazing how many are willing to engage a one-on-none conversation of the subject by commentary rather than accept the debate challenge. For what? Quibbling about definition? Sorry, not in this to quibble. To the debate, then!
"Pulling this thread dismantles the entire Noah story."
Does it? Your proof is an if/then statement? Not enough.
As a debate I initiated relates: If is the most functionally useless word in the language because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. What is currently not true is that God could have saved everything or anything He wanted without an ark, because He did not save everything or anything He wanted without an ark - excepting the fishes of the sea and the on the ark.
The more germane point ignored is that to simply wave a wand and not allow the flood, which God initiated in the first place, would have allowed the people who were destroyed to continue their debauchery to the point that they would have denied themselves access to the most wonderful gift to man other than his life: the atonement of Jesus Christ. Expecting, by your generic pronoun use of God that you do not accept it yourself is entirely your choice, and that's the secondary point: the atonement is infinitely available to all who will accept it, and even if you don't agree with it, as the people of the flood who were destroyed did not. But, they were in a worse condition than that. They had the potential too sin further; to sin against the Holy Ghost, a sin so egregious, infinitely more serious than murder, there is no redemption from it, even if they later wanted to do so. Yes, the flood pre-dated Jesus, but, as said, the atonement is infinitely available, backward and forward in human history to all who will accept it before they reach the point of no return - sin against the Holy Ghost.
As the destroyed were about to cross that barrier of no return, God acted to take their mortal lives, and their mortal lives only, before they doomed their souls to damnation to a place with no doors. This was actually an act of love, by His preventive act, because it allowed them the opportunity to eventually repent of their less serious sins, if they were of a mind to accept the Lord's atonement. Same with the people of Sodom & Gomorrah; an act of ultimate love. God is a God of love, and He desires that we maintain our free agency, because if we remain obedient to Him by our agency, death by any means is not the end; it is merely a door. A door to further righteous living in glory with Him, if we are obedient now. The is why He allows suffering, because even death does not mean the end if we accept the atonement of Christ, and then act to be of service to others, demonstrating our gratitude to God for His gifts to us.
References, round 3
1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
2 Law, Faux*, Faux Law, Amazon Books, 2019. *[a pseudonym]
3 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html
4 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 2, clause 5
5 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 5, clause 2
6 Clinton, Hillary, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8079693/Im-investigated-innocent-person-America-Hillary-Clinton-snaps-documentary.html
7 https://www.politifact.com/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
8 Copyright credit to Ragni, Jerome and Rado, James, Hair, papp, Joe, producer, 1967, alterations by law, faux.
Thank you. Glad to be of service. However, I must advise, and should have in my previous commentary, that I do not believe a God can be evil. I respect God as a title, and not as a name of an omnipotent being, and, as a title, refers to a person who has achieved perfection in every respect, whereas evil is a complete lack of perfection. It is chaos. However, from a strictly logical argument, which may entertain concepts that are not true, the possibility of an evil god must be considered.
I have erred even at the outset, proving the point that perfection is, indeed, a mountain, not a mole hill. Please read the title of the debate as "Does a good, perfect person [not just a man] struggle with evil."
I don't use Windows, either, anymore. I've always had a Mac, but, with my familiarity with Windows, I prefer using Word for Mac, which functions much better than it does for Micronuts. I am broke on the pane of windows. Are you on Mac and Pages? Although I am friends with oromagi, I, too, am suspicious of the record. But since I agree with your position, I chose to not engage. However, since, I have done exactly that, taking a debate position with which I disagree, just to see if I could pull it off.
This is a 4-month old challenge. Why is there no debate? No arguments? Just a claim? Great subject, but it lacks substance. As I have familiarity with all holy writ noted, I am greatly disappointed. When this dies, if you don't raise it again, I will, but not from your claimed perspective.
Good grief! Did I write that first paragraph in my vote reasoning without editing it, or what? "...but by acceptance but by allowing a debate to proceed..." ?! What a mash! I apologize
By the way, your argument is very well prepared. Great beginning. I had not heard about your reference to the apparent human signature in the virus RNA. Wow!
Hope you're not offended by my previous comment on sources. I see you are, like me, new on the site. I wondered, too, how to deal with sourcing, and discovered what I already knew in Word about reference notes, and found the sequence works. There may be a better way...
The origin of your issue with posting sources is closer to home than the site. It functions perfectly well in accepting text with embedded source notes.
1. prepare your document in Word
2. As you compose, when needing to reference a source, click on <insert>, <footnote>
3. In the pop-up box, under <location>, select <endnotes> which will collect all source references at the end of the document. [The other selection, <footnotes> will collect them at the foot of each page.] The notes are automatically assigned numeric sequence, and enters the number both within the text, and at the end of the document. Enter your reference in each end note as you compile them.
4. Copy/paste your text, not including the endnotes into the argument entry box as usual, and make a note in the text that your sources are listed in the comments section.
5. Enter the comments section, copy/paste your endnotes into the comment box. Done.
References, round 2
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/donald-trump-ad-hillary-clinton-50-points-ahead/index.html
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/upshot/why-trump-had-an-edge-in-the-electoral-college.html
[3] https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/
[4] https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/
[5] Reiner, Rob, The American President, Sony Pictures, 1995
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html
[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/02/super-tuesday-democrats-looking-consolidate-broad-coalition/4927159002/
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/democratic-candidates-race.html
[9] https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-only-two-delegates-isnt-first-candidate-stay-race-this-long-1491334
[10] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/02/super-tuesday-democrats-looking-consolidate-broad-coalition/4927159002/
[11] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-sanders-sit-down-debate-format-push-health-concerns
[12] https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/politics/tom-perez-swearing-trump/index.html
[13] ibid.
[14] ibid.
Being first to comment on a debate that has been posted for a month is troublesome. I just found this one and am intrigued by the arguments so far.
I have a few comments, just general observations.
1. I am troubled by the challenge to limit the period of the flood to 4,000 years. The Holy Bible, and its description of creation, notes the creative segments as "days." However, the Hebrew is Yom, יום, and it significance varies from a single day to a "period" of undefined duration. We cannot assume for simplicity sake that the individual segments of creation were 24-hour periods. Common sense with our gained knowledge of geological phenomena does not allow for such high-speed creation. I'll assume that God would follow natural law, and not black magic. After all, what's the hurry? Creation may have occupied billions of years. What is tat to a Being of infinite duration, and for whom "Time" is inconsequential. Does that crumble anybody'e cookie?
Also, specifically in the generations noted in Genesis, there are genealogical gaps. That means unaccounted for passage of time and possibly generations of it. So what? Why not just accept that the Bible is not as chronologically accurate as we might wish it was. What if Noah was 10,000 years ago? 20,000? To quote a the most innocent [tongue-in-cheek] investigate woman in history, "What difference does it make, now?"
Second, the conundrum of the storage of animals, food, water, hay, whatever, I like ascribing to ancients more capability and innovation that the TV show, Ancient Aliens, will grant them. According to that show, our ancestors were straw man dummies, who, without alien intervention, we would still be poking goats. What if, rather, Noah were a sort of genetic engineer, managing a floating laboratory of DNA samples of every beast and fowl on earth? if God can teach Noah how to build a ship, I suppose he can also teach a little genetic theory along the way. After all, I don't think Noah built his ship, maybe christened "Rome," in one day. No need for fish on board. As one of you suggested, Genesis allows for the creatures of the sea to survive. Yeah, the water would have been mightily diluted from salt water by that much rain, but, who knows? Since God can make an ass talk [Numbers 22:], I suspect He can make fish breath brackish water for an interim period. 300 days? 400? 200? Refer to the lady with answers above.
Thanks for your suggestions on definitions. I suppose it would be good to use the "Full Description" section when launching a new debate to offer definition. Too late now. However, I think a counter argument of Jesus being multiple figures might just confuse matters. On the other hand, I have accepted this debate being a firm believer in Jesus Christ, so the whole effort is contrary to my sensibilities. Nevertheless, There are 5 argument sessions, so I might need an added argument depending on the course my opponent takes, and "clones" is as good as any.
Cited references from argument #1:
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/scientists-finally-read-the-oldest-biblical-text-ever-found-a7323296.htm
[2] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Flavius-Josephus
[3] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tacitus-Roman-historian
[4] https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/what-are-the-earliest-versions-and-translations-of-the-bible
References in argument 1
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
[2] https://www.aiga.org/design-director-hillary-clinton-presidential-journey
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-road-to-victory/507203/
[4] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/13/406250488/the-13-questions-hillary-clinton-has-answered-from-the-press
[5] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/democrats-dont-want-to-nominate-another-white-man-for-president-226977
It appears by logicae's argument in round 1 that the purpose of FICA taxes are not acknowledged in the argument, but are noted on every paystub produced by every employer to its employees. By the argument, we are to understand that the government merely spends money to support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to the tune of $2.3 trillion, and, apparently, that money comes out of our pockets for everybody. Nope. Re-enter FICA taxes. FICA taxes are withdrawn from every employee, and matched dollar for dollar for each employee by the employer. And each dollar I paid in FICA while working [now retired] was earmarked FOR ME. FICA started as MY MONEY [plus the contribution of my employers], and continues to be MY MONEY, not yours, or anyone else's. This is NOT a socialist agenda, as I suspect logicae believes, nor is it even a welfare expenditure. The other $645B logicae argues is up for discussion, but the $2.3T is not party to "welfare" benefits because they are not shared from one big pot.
Ah, yes. I missed your misdirection. Sue me. I hesitated to vote on this debate, but will consider more and engage a vote.
The parameters [definitions] offered for this debate, specifically with regard to "rare" is far too excessive at 30% to ave any meaning relative to the overall premise that only men are affected by poverty. For example, in an entirely different matter of an issue affecting a portion of the population, "rare" is defined as far less than 30%. According to NIH https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases - a rare disease in the United States is one affecting 200,000 people, or less, or 0.06% of the population. Not that disease and poverty are necessarily related, but that the condition of "rare" is considered so much less. Another factor: what is the most rare eye color? According to the World Atlas, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/only-two-percent-of-the-worlds-population-have-this-trait/ar-BBT3LTR
only 2% of the world's population has green eyes. That's rare. 30% is not. Therefore, on its face, I consider this debate as useless by definition.
No, I've decided citation is the better part of valor. I'm no Plato, but I do admire the man greatly, taught by my older brother who was a huge fan, but is now dead. I put his copy of The Republic in his hand in his casket. But thanks for the kind words.
Footnotes to Round 1 arguments:
1. https://www.oed.com
2. https://www.oed.com
3. Gardner, Sir Alan, Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd Edition, revised, Oxford University Press, London, 1949
4. The Holy Bible, New Testament, James 1: 5 Note: all use of the Bible herein uses the KJV.
5. The Holy Bible, New Testament, James 1: 2 - 6
6. Qur’an, The Imans 3: 169 – 170 Note: all uses of the Qur’an, except reference to the opponent’s reference, is The Koran, translated by N.J. Dawood,
5th edition, Penguin Books, London, 1993
7. RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion…” Argument round 1
8. RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion…” Argument round 1
9. Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 3 - 5
10. Holy Bible, New Testament, Matthew 5: 10 – 12
11 RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion” Argument round 1
12 RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion” Argument round 1
13 Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 6 - 11
14 McLaughlin, John L. (2000). "Elohim". In Freedman, David Noel; Myer, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible
15 OED: OE Homily (Corpus Cambr. 41) in K. G. Schaefer Five Old Eng. Homilies (Ph.D. diss., Columbia Univ.) (1972) 61 Ac hwæt wite ge þissum
hælende se is genemned Crist?
16 OED: 1. The name of God among Muslims and Arabic people in general.
17 https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-11-no-1-2010/name-titles-god-old-testament
You certainly did trounce me with sources. I know better, but I wanted to man the helm myself. I'm a stingy sailor. Set my own heading and didn't want to use a map. Ragnar really let me have it. Thanks, my friends. I am sufficiently ashamed on myself. [A turn of phrase my daughter spun when she was about five. Now has two children, nine and eleven, herself].
I am going to engage this debate from a Con perspective, even though I am a confirmed believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as well as a common man of Nazareth. It is engaged strictly as a personal challenge to take an opposing view, and I accept the challenge to keep any religious aspect of my argument out of the argument, but for Biblical reference if deemed necessary. I do consider one definition of the Bible as historic and literary text, of value on these considerations, alone.
By the way, the assertion by Pro that states still depend on selection of electoral college delegates by the respective State governments is no longer true, although it was at one time. Every state now selects electoral college delegates by direct vote of the people through their designated choice, by name, of presidential candidates.
As a professional statistician [certified Six Sigma Black Belt, retired], I made a study of the effect of popular vote vs. electoral college, using the 2016 election as raw data for the study. I compared how many states, in order of population, largest first [CA], and descending to the least [WY], were required to elect the president strictly by popular vote. Then I did a comparative study of how many states, in reverse order of population, least first [WY] to most [CA], were required to elect the president, strictly by electoral college. I was not surprised by the results, given that I was already convinced that the electoral college voting method was superior to popular vote. This study confirmed it.
I found that in popular vote, it required only 24 states to elect the president; the first 24 states in largest population, and that victor would have been Clinton. Whereas, by electoral college vote, it required 40 states in ascending population order, least to most, to elect the president [Trump]. Which system appears to you to be the more equitable, and representative of all the citizens?
Pro [PliceSheep] alleges that the Electoral College unequally weights the vote in favor of Republicans, citing four instances [1876, 1888, 2000, 2016] wherein the Electoral College disagreed with popular vote to elect the President.
The 2000 election must be withdrawn from that list because it was neither the Electoral College, nor the popular vote, that gave Bush 43 the Presidency. It was the Supreme Court, given the failure of FL to declare a definitive winner of that State. The conflict should have been resolved in the House, which would have very likely voted as SCOTUS decided, given the R advantage of numbers in the House.
Moreover, in the history of the current major political parties, 14 Democrat Presidents have been elected, while 20 Republicans have been elected. There’s the skew, and, even if the claim of E.C. partisanship were true in three cases, removing the 2000 election, there are still more Republicans elected than Democrats, even though the Democrats began with Jackson [#6], and Republicans are first elected with Lincoln [#16]. With a 10-election advantage, Democrats fall short of Republicans, even considering the few failures of the E.C in agreement with the popular vote.
My opponent wants you to believe my argument centers on a conditional conjunction. Those of you who know what that is, raise your hands. I’ll wager many do not without looking it up. Go ahead, there’s no shame in learning more today than you knew yesterday.
Conditional conjunctions are not the enemy in language and they do not, on their own merit, support an always false conclusion, as my opponent claims. They exist because of what they are: a two-clause [it may be more, but my premise is a two-clause] statement, the first of which describes an action that occurred, or will occur if the other clause is a satisfactory conclusion. That if is what makes the conditional state, and only if the second clause is not satisfied is the condition a false statement.
Now, read my conditional conjunction: “If is the most useless word in any language, because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true.” The condition is, “if” is a useless word [I contend the most useless word] and will occur... “if.” The satisfaction clause is that only ‘not true’ occurs, and only in a current tense: Now.
Good subject, although personally, I agree with your Pro position. Nevertheless, I have two separate arguments against the proposal, but both have weaknesses, and two is not sufficient for the debate. I will hold for now, but, if within 12 days' time, you do not have a Con argument, I will engage.
Think again. Better; see the data. Both vas deferens and fallopian tubes can reconnect by completely natural, non-surgical means. Heard of stem cells? We all have them. They exist to regrow healthy tissue from damaged tissue. There are both specific [preprogrammed, if you will, to specific tissue type] and non-specific, generic stem cells. It's what they do. They do decline in numbers with age, but we start with millions of them. Also depends on the relative skill of the surgeon in the first place. Let's just say that all surgeons, like in any profession, are not top notch.
See the statistics. Vasectomies have a typical failure rate of 1%. That rises after five to ten years for the simple reason that the vas deferens can re-connect. As Dr. Micheal Crichton once said through Jurassic Park character, Ian Malcom, "Life finds a way."
In your #3 post, you speak of statistics, and specifically of the statistical success of using condoms vs. vasectomy. There is a process that is 100% effective if practiced with dedicated avoidance: abstinence. Mind over matter, my friend. Many clam it can't be done. When that's their decision; no, it can't. That does not speak to the impossibility of employing the tactic.
The thesis is "if... because" not "if... or" Read the thesis to the end, yeah? However, if you want to argue the point, enjoin the debate. This is not the place to do that, and I will not respond otherwise.
Amazing how many are willing to engage a one-on-none conversation of the subject by commentary rather than accept the debate challenge. For what? Quibbling about definition? Sorry, not in this to quibble. To the debate, then!