Pro’s arguments are a series of 10 opposing conditions, virtually none of which expand on, let alone speak to Pro’s Resolution. The Resolution has five keywords: belief, practice, Christianity, direct inverse, and everything. We are left with the impression that, speaking of belief, practice, and Christianity, Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S.; worldwide, there are a few thousand separate denominations with differing doctrine in their details. [1] By insisting on separate doctrine regarding Christianity and its “direct inverse,” whatever that happens to be, that “direct inverse” is asked to differ by “everything.” A direct inverse-style debate would be a debate of proposed arguments and rebuttals of light, and its direct inverse, dark. In this debate case, religious belief and practice. The polar opposite of such is non-belief and non-practice, regardless of what the religions may be. Otherwise, merely claiming belief in one religion any more than another is not a direct inverse, but merely different. For example, relative to position, clock hands pointed at 12 and 6 are in direct inverse position, whereas at 2 and 5, the hands are merely in different, random positions. Just so, Christianity and Islam, for example, are merely different, but not in direct inverse belief or practice. A simple comparison of their respective holy writ, the Holy Bible, and the Qur’an, will demonstrate the claim.
For example, the familiar Christian doctrine, “do unto others…”[2] is a shared doctrine with Islam: Qur’an, The Hadith #13 Even one example defeats the Resolution’s demand of “everything.” Thus, Pro’s Resolution, and his attempt to justify it by argument, fails.
Pro’s ten X v. Y arguments may be entertaining, vulgar though several of them are, but they give nothing to support the Resolution. I am fully aware by the vulgarity that Pro thinks little of Christianity; that’s fine. To each their own. But Pro’s vulgarity goes to the point of personal attack. In his arguments, I am said to be stupid, retarded, and evil for being a Christian. Such language violates DA Code of Conduct, and I call Pro on such references. Further, he accuses Christians of disgusting sexual action, and claims God, who, by Pro’s argument, is not supposed to exist, says, “Go ahead and own slaves and stone gays masturbate, but better not masturbate or smoke weed.” [3] I challenge Pro to offer book, chapter and verse from whence that quote is cited from the Holy Bible.
Pro offers no definitions, particularly for “direct inverse.” Since no argument by Pro in R1 demonstrated direct inverse, let’s explore why it is not demonstrated in his arguments. Direct inverse is otherwise known as polar opposite. The Resolution demands that the direct inverse of Christianity must differ from Christianity by “everything.” All doctrine must oppose Christianity to qualify as a direct inverse.
Is Islam a direct inverse of Christianity? No, they are merely different because Islam is not a religion with tenets in “everything” that is the direct inverse of Christian tenets. In fact, the two share many tenets, such as above, and such as being humble, forgiving, and generous. The keywords of Pro’s challenge [belief, practice, Christianity, everything] simply do not merit having direct inverses of anything, if not all that Satan represents — a familiar personage or concept of Christianity, but also of Islam, except the name recognized in the latter is Iblis, [4] and that there is not a comparative opposite volume of unholy writ on which satanist converge around common, if not identical tenets of “faith,” or whatever term applies as its opposite — but Pro did not entertain the subject of satanic belief or practice, nor beliefs and practices of any description. Therefore, Pro’s Resolution, and his arguments, fail.
NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] has kept temperature measurement records since 1997, and over the next twenty years, not even a blink in geologic time, reported measurements in their Annual Report. The problem is, as you accuse our human insensitivity to "climate change," the highest temperature measurements have not been in consistently consecutive years as activists claim. Further, 11 years in those 20 were not even in the top ten hottest years, so it would seem we're looking at natural variation, not a trend. Further, I am professionally familiar with measurement tools and their calibration, and I ask: how many global measurement stations are there in the world? Are they all using the same measurement equipment? Is the equipment used the optimum equipment for the measurement intended? Is the accuracy of the equipment meet the ten-times-accuracy required to assure accuracy of measurement for whatever the allowed tolerance is? How accurate and timely are the calibration schedules for these measurement devices? These are just a few of the measurement questions that must be asked. And I'll tell you, from professional experience: the data collected is not recognizing the importance of these questions, resulting in flawed data. So, what are your expectations, again, regarding the accuracy of measuring "climate change?" Inaccurate data means what for accurate conclusions?
I just voted on this debate, but I was not allowed to enter the point value - it defaulted to 1 point, whereas in the body of my vote, I arrived to the following: Con - 5 points; Pro: 2 points.
Given the format of the Resolution as a question, you need to identify your position; was it justified, or not. It is not at all clear just because you have initiated and challenged the debate. A no-infomation Description is not sufficient when a Resolution is offered as a question.
Coming back?
You do not own a house. Truth
You do not own your car, outright, if you are even legally allowed to drive. Truth
I believe my reference was that you take advice from your sock puppet, not that you are one. Truth.
My, my, carrying a grudge for over a month? Get over yourself, punk.
There is still no mystery to the notion that youth is wasted on the young. I am still in the top ten in debate, which says something for staying power. Let's see if you rank as well when you have engaged as many debates. Hint: I don't gloat when I win. A lesson lost on a child. If you want to wear "sock puppet," be my guest. Tough? You have no idea what that is. You will.
Having argued this from one side, though I honestly cannot currently recall if it was in Debate, or in Forum, I'll play. Good luck, Intel. This will be fun. Enjoy
If you only want a 3-round debate, call it a 3-round debate. What's the sense of trading first-and-last round waivers [what you call "forfeit]? This even contradicts what is said in Help Center on debates: that as for arguments [including rebuttal, defense] "The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate." A four-round debate has argument in all four rounds by each opponent. To me, the initiator who waives a first round is a coward, wanting see the opponent's hand before revealing their own. Seems to me, you initiate a debate, you have the courage to present your argument first, whether you are Pro or Con.
Normally, once I've begun a debate, and posted the beginning argument, I avoid comments until after voting is completed, to avoid influence on voters. Although you posted your question prior to my posting of my first round, I did not see it before I posted. I don't think it will influence anyone who may vote because you are correct: by definition, free will depends on the co-existence of both both good and evil, which is why the Resolution is worded as it is.
Oh, boy! Forget that mention in my R1, I.e- something about not feeling my age [71]. Just pulled a muscle between the groin and knee. What can a doctor do about a pulled muscle? Nada. "Stay off your leg and let it heal," Doc will say. I can figure that out on my own, thanks. Well, don'tcha know, I tried a chocolate chip cookie pill. Didn't work for the pain, but, satisfying nonetheless. Meanwhile, I feel ashamed saddled to a cane. Not for long!
It would appear, based on action taken by Mod [SupaDudz] today, that my opponent has been banned until 9/5 for alt usage, which will cause a forfeiture of at least R2. I have already composed argument for R2, and, as there will be no Pro R2, with rebuttal of my R1, I need no further rebuttal, and I can post my R2 immediately [in 12 days +]. I also have some of R3 composed [not new argument]. Pro may not achieve an R3, either. We'll see. Too bad, I was looking forward to this, as I have had additional thoughts on the matter. What is it about the Internet that fosters aliases? Why can't we just be ourselves? We can't be anyone else; they're already taken.
By your definition of God, I, a confirmed theist, would meet your definition of an atheist; that God, as defined, does not exist. It's an odd position for me, as I totally disagree that God is defined as you have; without a physical body. Yes, I am fully aware of the various scriptures that say God is a spirit, and some of them even add that to properly worship God, we must worship him in spirit. Tell me how we do that as physically embodied, but not just spirits. We are physical bodies and spirits. In my view, God is no different, except that his physical body is perfect, as ours will one day be. Perhaps there is an interrupt here the scriptures do not adequately explain. Maybe they once did, and those explanations were removed in translation from Hebrew and Greek in order to convey an agenda to explain how God can be everywhere at once. There are other explanations. With technology, we see dignitaries and celebrities on TV around the world. I'm suspicious that God's tech is superior to ours.
As it has naught to do with this debate, I will explain partially - for everyone's information to avoid self-promotion & trying to remain aligned with DA policy - that there is a specific reason why I insist that any reference to me, on this site, is completely in lowercase and lowercase only. I have explained this before more fully long ago, in Forum, and, in fact, it's in my profile, which I expect exists for the purpose of members to get to know one another, and regret having to repeat it.Thank you, Ragnar, for your input.
Congratulations to fauxlaw, who has struck out, and is, therefore, out of competition in Comments during this debate; his preferred condition, in any event. I'll take my two quocs and head for the ranch.
Before this debate begins, having heard official commentary by Ragnar, and making a final preliminary comment, the name is fauxlaw [lowercase], Con, or opponent. All others, such as "punk," cross the conduct line by a polite request. Fair warning.
Pro’s rule #7 stipulates: “Fauxlaw cannot participate.” Should Pro attempt my removal by Mod, let me assure: I am not that member. That member does not exist. I depend on exact representation. My membership profile clearly indicates I am “fauxlaw," and I therefore claim admissibility. Pro knows I am sticky with details. They're important, and ought to be recognized.
How does Con avoid having nothing but kritiks? On the other hand, how does Pro avoid having nothing but kritiks, particularly Pro's exception, which is superlative kritik?
I look forward to this one dying unaccepted; best for all.
Look, my friend. Stop airing your dirty laundry in public. It is an influence on voters, as Ragnar said in his #21. STOP IT. Use PM. I will note for you, since it is already noted in my R1 and R4, that you:
1. Had ample opportunity [10 days] to change your resolution, before I accepted the debate. You chose to leave it as is.
2. My R4, referring to my R1, paragraph I, including all sub-paragraphs I.a thru I.d, that you had ample time to defend your Resolution, and chose to ignore it. R1 was not my last round. My R4 merely repeats. Learn the distinction between argument and rebuttal. I've explained it in R4, as well.
I'm pleased you accepted the debate. I will enjoy this one and enjoy debating you in particular. To be honest, I prepared my challenge without preparing at least a first round in advance. Don't know why; I usually do. So, I will not post R1 for a couple of days while I collect my thoughts. Sorry, but it will be posted well before the deadline. Good luck.
Y'all are starting to engage a preliminary glimpse of what the nature of my argument will be, and, that, dear friends, is for the debate. This format, as opposed to the Forum, is not the free exchange of ideas, but is structured, and, by necessity, restricted to the eventual participants, at which point, only my opponent will have the necessity of discourse. Sorry to be so blunt, but a bit of a leap of faith on the potential nature of my debate is all you get, and that has been revealed by the Description and the Resolution. The rest is for debate, should anyone take it up.
I am referring to the whole. Our body of knowledge is much less than the potential, which is what I argue is "endless." In a sense, I argue that claiming God is omniscient may be a fallacy, which is specifically why I did not make this a religious debate, but one of philosophy. Do we ever reach a boundary of knowledge beyond which there is nothing? I say: No.
Categorically disinterested in entertaining still another identical debate I've already engaged twice as a debater and at least once as a voter. Not interested in another, because:
1. It's been debated to death
2. I simply do not engage debates that have waived rounds. The initiator of a debate needs to have the top frame of the first round, and every round thereafter. The policy states there shall be argument in every round [including rebuttal, and defense], so waiving, to me, is contrary to that policy. If Initiator doesn't have the courage to present argument first. I don't believe the debate should done.
3. In no debate I've had, or seen on this site has the Pro position [that there is systemic racism in America] been able to demonstrate by citation of any current legal statute, federal, state, or local, or government or private industry policy that dictates the acceptance of racial animus. If Pro wants to argue that it once was so, there's plenty to demonstrate, but the resolution is always given in present tense, meaning current conditions, not historic.
4. If the initiator cannot define terms, I refuse to do it for the Initiator.
5. 3,000 characters is too few to engage a subject this complex.
The rule, “no new argument in the last round” is a different statement than “no argument in the last round,” whether one includes rebuttal, or not. I’ll get to rebuttal later. Suppose our debate is: “Resolved: sod is not a better way to have a lawn in a new area of yard than planting seeds.” If you are instigator and Pro, I, as Con, having the last frame of the round, should not present a new argument: planting sod will provide instant lawn. That gives you no opportunity to reply by rebuttal. But if I have offered that argument in an earlier round, I am open to defending the argument in my last frame, such as by saying, “In five years, what’s the difference? You have the desired lawn.” having already given you opportunity to rebut it.
To answer your question, I agree with no new argument, as the rule you defined in Description actually says. I have no problem repeating an argument made in a previous round in the last round, but it should not have new evidence provided for it. I consider that defense, rather than calling it argument.
Relative to rebuttal, rebuttal is not really argument. Rebuttal attacks an opponent’s argument from a perspective of relevance, assumption, and impact of an opponent’s argument, even if that rebuttal is given in the final frame of the last round. You are making a case against the opponent, not bolstering your own case.
Therefore, for clarification, when I forbid new argument in the last round, I also stipulate that rebuttal, defense, and conclusion are allowed in the last round for both parties.
Notice: somehow, I managed to omit the referenced source for the definition of. "[The burden of the proof] lies upon him who affirms not he who denies" that is in my R1, I.c paragraph. The source is. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/ei-incumbit-probatio-qui-dicit-non-qui-negat/
Thanks for voting. Would you like to vote on https://www.debateart.com/debates/3019-the-biblical-god-acts-fairly please? There are 3 days left, and it is at risk of going out as another no-vote tie. I've had quite enough of those
Being offended is everyone's right [or, choosing not to be offended]. Why one is offended is on them, entirely. Censorship is not the answer to being offended.
"Apollo 11 moon landings?"Plural landings? How many times did Apollo 11 land on the moon?
I should accept the debate and argue on that point, alone, because, for certain, while one landing was not a fake, additional landings of Apollo 11 certainly were. But, that would ridicule the debate.
Pro’s arguments are a series of 10 opposing conditions, virtually none of which expand on, let alone speak to Pro’s Resolution. The Resolution has five keywords: belief, practice, Christianity, direct inverse, and everything. We are left with the impression that, speaking of belief, practice, and Christianity, Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S.; worldwide, there are a few thousand separate denominations with differing doctrine in their details. [1] By insisting on separate doctrine regarding Christianity and its “direct inverse,” whatever that happens to be, that “direct inverse” is asked to differ by “everything.” A direct inverse-style debate would be a debate of proposed arguments and rebuttals of light, and its direct inverse, dark. In this debate case, religious belief and practice. The polar opposite of such is non-belief and non-practice, regardless of what the religions may be. Otherwise, merely claiming belief in one religion any more than another is not a direct inverse, but merely different. For example, relative to position, clock hands pointed at 12 and 6 are in direct inverse position, whereas at 2 and 5, the hands are merely in different, random positions. Just so, Christianity and Islam, for example, are merely different, but not in direct inverse belief or practice. A simple comparison of their respective holy writ, the Holy Bible, and the Qur’an, will demonstrate the claim.
For example, the familiar Christian doctrine, “do unto others…”[2] is a shared doctrine with Islam: Qur’an, The Hadith #13 Even one example defeats the Resolution’s demand of “everything.” Thus, Pro’s Resolution, and his attempt to justify it by argument, fails.
Pro’s ten X v. Y arguments may be entertaining, vulgar though several of them are, but they give nothing to support the Resolution. I am fully aware by the vulgarity that Pro thinks little of Christianity; that’s fine. To each their own. But Pro’s vulgarity goes to the point of personal attack. In his arguments, I am said to be stupid, retarded, and evil for being a Christian. Such language violates DA Code of Conduct, and I call Pro on such references. Further, he accuses Christians of disgusting sexual action, and claims God, who, by Pro’s argument, is not supposed to exist, says, “Go ahead and own slaves and stone gays masturbate, but better not masturbate or smoke weed.” [3] I challenge Pro to offer book, chapter and verse from whence that quote is cited from the Holy Bible.
Pro offers no definitions, particularly for “direct inverse.” Since no argument by Pro in R1 demonstrated direct inverse, let’s explore why it is not demonstrated in his arguments. Direct inverse is otherwise known as polar opposite. The Resolution demands that the direct inverse of Christianity must differ from Christianity by “everything.” All doctrine must oppose Christianity to qualify as a direct inverse.
Is Islam a direct inverse of Christianity? No, they are merely different because Islam is not a religion with tenets in “everything” that is the direct inverse of Christian tenets. In fact, the two share many tenets, such as above, and such as being humble, forgiving, and generous. The keywords of Pro’s challenge [belief, practice, Christianity, everything] simply do not merit having direct inverses of anything, if not all that Satan represents — a familiar personage or concept of Christianity, but also of Islam, except the name recognized in the latter is Iblis, [4] and that there is not a comparative opposite volume of unholy writ on which satanist converge around common, if not identical tenets of “faith,” or whatever term applies as its opposite — but Pro did not entertain the subject of satanic belief or practice, nor beliefs and practices of any description. Therefore, Pro’s Resolution, and his arguments, fail.
I rest my case for R1.
References
[1] https://medium.com/biblical-christian-worldview/how-many-christian-denominations-are-there-and-why-76f74de55a60#:~:text=“Estimations%20show%20there%20are%20more,globally%20(details%20here).”
[2] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 12 disgusting
[3] Pro’s R1 argument.
[4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Iblis
NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] has kept temperature measurement records since 1997, and over the next twenty years, not even a blink in geologic time, reported measurements in their Annual Report. The problem is, as you accuse our human insensitivity to "climate change," the highest temperature measurements have not been in consistently consecutive years as activists claim. Further, 11 years in those 20 were not even in the top ten hottest years, so it would seem we're looking at natural variation, not a trend. Further, I am professionally familiar with measurement tools and their calibration, and I ask: how many global measurement stations are there in the world? Are they all using the same measurement equipment? Is the equipment used the optimum equipment for the measurement intended? Is the accuracy of the equipment meet the ten-times-accuracy required to assure accuracy of measurement for whatever the allowed tolerance is? How accurate and timely are the calibration schedules for these measurement devices? These are just a few of the measurement questions that must be asked. And I'll tell you, from professional experience: the data collected is not recognizing the importance of these questions, resulting in flawed data. So, what are your expectations, again, regarding the accuracy of measuring "climate change?" Inaccurate data means what for accurate conclusions?
I just voted on this debate, but I was not allowed to enter the point value - it defaulted to 1 point, whereas in the body of my vote, I arrived to the following: Con - 5 points; Pro: 2 points.
Voting period ought not exceed 30 days. No, there is no standard suggested, but six months is excessive.
Given the format of the Resolution as a question, you need to identify your position; was it justified, or not. It is not at all clear just because you have initiated and challenged the debate. A no-infomation Description is not sufficient when a Resolution is offered as a question.
Coming back?
You do not own a house. Truth
You do not own your car, outright, if you are even legally allowed to drive. Truth
I believe my reference was that you take advice from your sock puppet, not that you are one. Truth.
My, my, carrying a grudge for over a month? Get over yourself, punk.
There is still no mystery to the notion that youth is wasted on the young. I am still in the top ten in debate, which says something for staying power. Let's see if you rank as well when you have engaged as many debates. Hint: I don't gloat when I win. A lesson lost on a child. If you want to wear "sock puppet," be my guest. Tough? You have no idea what that is. You will.
Thank you for voting
Both lose by forfeit
Having argued this from one side, though I honestly cannot currently recall if it was in Debate, or in Forum, I'll play. Good luck, Intel. This will be fun. Enjoy
If you only want a 3-round debate, call it a 3-round debate. What's the sense of trading first-and-last round waivers [what you call "forfeit]? This even contradicts what is said in Help Center on debates: that as for arguments [including rebuttal, defense] "The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate." A four-round debate has argument in all four rounds by each opponent. To me, the initiator who waives a first round is a coward, wanting see the opponent's hand before revealing their own. Seems to me, you initiate a debate, you have the courage to present your argument first, whether you are Pro or Con.
The proof of my Resolution relative to the necessity of comprehension is given in my R1, I, with citations [1] through [7].
Thank you for voting
Normally, once I've begun a debate, and posted the beginning argument, I avoid comments until after voting is completed, to avoid influence on voters. Although you posted your question prior to my posting of my first round, I did not see it before I posted. I don't think it will influence anyone who may vote because you are correct: by definition, free will depends on the co-existence of both both good and evil, which is why the Resolution is worded as it is.
Oh, boy! Forget that mention in my R1, I.e- something about not feeling my age [71]. Just pulled a muscle between the groin and knee. What can a doctor do about a pulled muscle? Nada. "Stay off your leg and let it heal," Doc will say. I can figure that out on my own, thanks. Well, don'tcha know, I tried a chocolate chip cookie pill. Didn't work for the pain, but, satisfying nonetheless. Meanwhile, I feel ashamed saddled to a cane. Not for long!
@ RM
Thanks for voting
Thank you for voting
It would appear, based on action taken by Mod [SupaDudz] today, that my opponent has been banned until 9/5 for alt usage, which will cause a forfeiture of at least R2. I have already composed argument for R2, and, as there will be no Pro R2, with rebuttal of my R1, I need no further rebuttal, and I can post my R2 immediately [in 12 days +]. I also have some of R3 composed [not new argument]. Pro may not achieve an R3, either. We'll see. Too bad, I was looking forward to this, as I have had additional thoughts on the matter. What is it about the Internet that fosters aliases? Why can't we just be ourselves? We can't be anyone else; they're already taken.
Thank you for your vote
By your definition of God, I, a confirmed theist, would meet your definition of an atheist; that God, as defined, does not exist. It's an odd position for me, as I totally disagree that God is defined as you have; without a physical body. Yes, I am fully aware of the various scriptures that say God is a spirit, and some of them even add that to properly worship God, we must worship him in spirit. Tell me how we do that as physically embodied, but not just spirits. We are physical bodies and spirits. In my view, God is no different, except that his physical body is perfect, as ours will one day be. Perhaps there is an interrupt here the scriptures do not adequately explain. Maybe they once did, and those explanations were removed in translation from Hebrew and Greek in order to convey an agenda to explain how God can be everywhere at once. There are other explanations. With technology, we see dignitaries and celebrities on TV around the world. I'm suspicious that God's tech is superior to ours.
As it has naught to do with this debate, I will explain partially - for everyone's information to avoid self-promotion & trying to remain aligned with DA policy - that there is a specific reason why I insist that any reference to me, on this site, is completely in lowercase and lowercase only. I have explained this before more fully long ago, in Forum, and, in fact, it's in my profile, which I expect exists for the purpose of members to get to know one another, and regret having to repeat it.Thank you, Ragnar, for your input.
Congratulations to fauxlaw, who has struck out, and is, therefore, out of competition in Comments during this debate; his preferred condition, in any event. I'll take my two quocs and head for the ranch.
selective adherence to grammar rules negates argument. "ur" is not grammatical, either, so, the matter may be stuffed. move on.
Before this debate begins, having heard official commentary by Ragnar, and making a final preliminary comment, the name is fauxlaw [lowercase], Con, or opponent. All others, such as "punk," cross the conduct line by a polite request. Fair warning.
Pro’s rule #7 stipulates: “Fauxlaw cannot participate.” Should Pro attempt my removal by Mod, let me assure: I am not that member. That member does not exist. I depend on exact representation. My membership profile clearly indicates I am “fauxlaw," and I therefore claim admissibility. Pro knows I am sticky with details. They're important, and ought to be recognized.
How does Con avoid having nothing but kritiks? On the other hand, how does Pro avoid having nothing but kritiks, particularly Pro's exception, which is superlative kritik?
I look forward to this one dying unaccepted; best for all.
thank you for your vote
I refer you to your definition of "likely"
Look, my friend. Stop airing your dirty laundry in public. It is an influence on voters, as Ragnar said in his #21. STOP IT. Use PM. I will note for you, since it is already noted in my R1 and R4, that you:
1. Had ample opportunity [10 days] to change your resolution, before I accepted the debate. You chose to leave it as is.
2. My R4, referring to my R1, paragraph I, including all sub-paragraphs I.a thru I.d, that you had ample time to defend your Resolution, and chose to ignore it. R1 was not my last round. My R4 merely repeats. Learn the distinction between argument and rebuttal. I've explained it in R4, as well.
I'm pleased you accepted the debate. I will enjoy this one and enjoy debating you in particular. To be honest, I prepared my challenge without preparing at least a first round in advance. Don't know why; I usually do. So, I will not post R1 for a couple of days while I collect my thoughts. Sorry, but it will be posted well before the deadline. Good luck.
I will read and vote on this debate
asked and answered
And I think your offering suggestions of interpretation of argument to a potential voter ought not be done during debate, either.
I think you ought to stop offering suggestions to anyone in current debate.
Y'all are starting to engage a preliminary glimpse of what the nature of my argument will be, and, that, dear friends, is for the debate. This format, as opposed to the Forum, is not the free exchange of ideas, but is structured, and, by necessity, restricted to the eventual participants, at which point, only my opponent will have the necessity of discourse. Sorry to be so blunt, but a bit of a leap of faith on the potential nature of my debate is all you get, and that has been revealed by the Description and the Resolution. The rest is for debate, should anyone take it up.
I am referring to the whole. Our body of knowledge is much less than the potential, which is what I argue is "endless." In a sense, I argue that claiming God is omniscient may be a fallacy, which is specifically why I did not make this a religious debate, but one of philosophy. Do we ever reach a boundary of knowledge beyond which there is nothing? I say: No.
I prefer to not comment during debate. Read again. Stop skimming. You have less than VII days. And, I have another round of rebuttal remaining, yeah?
Categorically disinterested in entertaining still another identical debate I've already engaged twice as a debater and at least once as a voter. Not interested in another, because:
1. It's been debated to death
2. I simply do not engage debates that have waived rounds. The initiator of a debate needs to have the top frame of the first round, and every round thereafter. The policy states there shall be argument in every round [including rebuttal, and defense], so waiving, to me, is contrary to that policy. If Initiator doesn't have the courage to present argument first. I don't believe the debate should done.
3. In no debate I've had, or seen on this site has the Pro position [that there is systemic racism in America] been able to demonstrate by citation of any current legal statute, federal, state, or local, or government or private industry policy that dictates the acceptance of racial animus. If Pro wants to argue that it once was so, there's plenty to demonstrate, but the resolution is always given in present tense, meaning current conditions, not historic.
4. If the initiator cannot define terms, I refuse to do it for the Initiator.
5. 3,000 characters is too few to engage a subject this complex.
Good Luck, again. I'll try to not screw up so bad this time.
The rule, “no new argument in the last round” is a different statement than “no argument in the last round,” whether one includes rebuttal, or not. I’ll get to rebuttal later. Suppose our debate is: “Resolved: sod is not a better way to have a lawn in a new area of yard than planting seeds.” If you are instigator and Pro, I, as Con, having the last frame of the round, should not present a new argument: planting sod will provide instant lawn. That gives you no opportunity to reply by rebuttal. But if I have offered that argument in an earlier round, I am open to defending the argument in my last frame, such as by saying, “In five years, what’s the difference? You have the desired lawn.” having already given you opportunity to rebut it.
To answer your question, I agree with no new argument, as the rule you defined in Description actually says. I have no problem repeating an argument made in a previous round in the last round, but it should not have new evidence provided for it. I consider that defense, rather than calling it argument.
Relative to rebuttal, rebuttal is not really argument. Rebuttal attacks an opponent’s argument from a perspective of relevance, assumption, and impact of an opponent’s argument, even if that rebuttal is given in the final frame of the last round. You are making a case against the opponent, not bolstering your own case.
Therefore, for clarification, when I forbid new argument in the last round, I also stipulate that rebuttal, defense, and conclusion are allowed in the last round for both parties.
Congratulations for winning the debate. Well done.
I'll not comment either way - inappropriate, but I know Benjamin would agree, we hope you and others find a means to vote.
Notice: somehow, I managed to omit the referenced source for the definition of. "[The burden of the proof] lies upon him who affirms not he who denies" that is in my R1, I.c paragraph. The source is. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/ei-incumbit-probatio-qui-dicit-non-qui-negat/
Thanks for voting. Would you like to vote on https://www.debateart.com/debates/3019-the-biblical-god-acts-fairly please? There are 3 days left, and it is at risk of going out as another no-vote tie. I've had quite enough of those
Thanks for voting
I would like to know how one quotes what has not yet been said.
Breathe, cowboy. If all you're about is spreading a message, you're in the wrong gig. Go to Forum.
Being offended is everyone's right [or, choosing not to be offended]. Why one is offended is on them, entirely. Censorship is not the answer to being offended.
As a potential voter, it would be inappropriate to add comment at this time.
"Apollo 11 moon landings?"Plural landings? How many times did Apollo 11 land on the moon?
I should accept the debate and argue on that point, alone, because, for certain, while one landing was not a fake, additional landings of Apollo 11 certainly were. But, that would ridicule the debate.