fauxlaw

Here is what you're missing: There have always been chickens. There have always been humans. There is no beginning of either one, or any other life form. That's what eternity means. Just as in mathematics, you do not have a line that begins at a point and extends in to infinity. That is a ray. A line extends into infinity in both directions; there is no beginning and no end. Mathematics is the language of God. It is consistent and eternal. I know you don't accept that, but that's on you. Sorry for your finite. It's yours

An egg is a fertilized organism, meaning a male and female chicken successfully accomplished the re-zipping of their separate RNA sequences. Do not confuse an egg with an ovum. They are separate things. Oa ovum has a single strand of RNA. The sperm has a single strand of RNA. An egg has a double helix of DNA. It is not semantics. It is science.

You may think that's what it says, but the which directly refers to "participants take turns publishing their arguments" Thats "arguments," not "argumentation." That is the syntax of the language as written, not as you interpret. Your point falls.

I'm fine with the CofC, yet I'm listed as a 'no.'

It's the debate policy I'm suggesting needs clarification, because we disagree on whart it is saying relaitve to waiving arguments. That's not a CofC discussion. Please make me a yes on CofC.

I'm sorry I've swayed the argument off course. This was RM's argument of God creating evil before good.  Lt's get back to it. I'll argue that Jesus [the OT Jehovah], the Good,  was God's first born not just in the flesh, but His first born in the spirit, as well, and that Evil [Lucifer] was a later child. The linkage of Good and Evil is always listed in that order, and there's a reason for that. Consider that the sequence is not alphabetic. There's a reason for that. Think about it, as RM suggests.

You may have read Darwin's On the Origin of Species, but if you read his follow-up, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, it didn't compute. Evolution doesn't happen by selection of traits in a single generation by a single individual. A member of a species, male or female, may have mutation affect its DNA, but the expression [evolution] of that mutation does not occur in that creature's generation, but in its offspring by sex with another of it's species of the opposing sex. The "egg" of the chicken/egg logic is the result of that M/F union, not by the evolution of a single member of the species, M or F. One without the other is not going to create an egg to be the first expression of that species, and the egg will not, of itself, manage it, either, because it would not exist without the prior fertilization of ova and sperm from separate individuals. Darwin said as much. Even by manipulation of colors of flowers, which Darwin's experiments did, required, at some point, the union of stamen and pistil, with the desired manipulated mutation [color change] occurring in the following generation. I'll buy his explanation long before yours makes sense.

You wonder why your blocked. Clean up your act, I'll unblock. Profane is the last effort of an argument, and totally fails.

An "egg" [not to be confused with an ova] must derive from a single strand of the DNA helix, called RNA, from both male [sperm] and female [ova] chickens, and only occurs after fertilization when the M/F RNA strands re-combine to create a whole, distinct individual. The egg does not just "evolve" from whatever. It's not semantics, it's science.

Read it again. "The argumentation is the  stage..." [that's the entire scope of the debate, after its creation and challenge phases, beginning with round one, and ending with round n, as designated by the initiator.  The debate continues through the argumentation phase] "when participants take turns publishing their arguments..." ["arguments" being arguments/rebuttals/defense] "...the number of which..." ["which," referring to arguments, not argumentation] "is equal to the number of rounds in the debate." # Arguments = # rounds. Period. There is a distinction between argumentation [a phase of the debate including all rounds, combined] and arguments [presented in each round] That's what the policy says. It if means what you said, it should say as you've described, but it doesn't as currently worded.

Both of you are assuming my issue is contained within the CofC. It isn't. The policy [yes, it says it's outdated, but I see no evidence of it being updated] I'm speaking to is under <help><debates> which stipulates that the number of arguments shall equal the number of rounds, which means that waiving rounds is not allowed. Can I be any clearer?

AS there is nothing in the MEEP expressly discussing what "changes" to what policies are to be "updated," you're spitting in the wind. It will likely remain the same relative to rounds and arguments numbersa, and, as before, will; not be enforced. So, what change?

Explain your logic. There is no adolescent chicken, yet there is an egg. Tell me how that works. And I suppose there is some unembodied sperm flitting about [which does not survive well in an extended, exposed duration] that happens upon this unembodied egg, and, voila, without a means of gestating nourishment, manages to become a chicken. That's not only NOT logical, it is impossible.

Ditto on the boring and irriating, if I thought about it much. Thing is, I don't think about it much. Only when that rising, pounding hand rises long enough to start to stink. Doubt is the nemesis of rational thought, the odor of a backwater ditch.

Yes. been there.

Show me where it says creation wasn't thousands of years. Probably more. Don't show me Genesis. Who says when God created earth, it was where it is now? Or who says that God's reckoning was time as it is on earth? How long is a "day" on Venus, our closest neighbor, let alone somewhere else? You know, when I build something in my workshop, which does not, like Vegas, even have a clock where the action is, but when the piece is finished, it does not stay there, regardless. I move it to where it can be appreciated. Tell me definitively God did not do that with earth when it was completed. Go ahead. Make it good. I don't buy Adam six thousand years ago, either. In terms of time, you can take your sanctimonious bible interpretation and do whatever you wish with it. I have some suggestions.

You're welcome. Well deserved. [don't let it go to your head. I think you will not.]

My OED defines eternal as:  "a. Infinite in past and future duration; without beginning or end; that always has existed and always will exist" I take it at its word. Only a finite mind cannot conceive eternity. Being a Christian, why must I reject an infinite past? Make it good, because I'm no 6-day creationist.

This argument seems a bit like the chicken and egg question, which never made sense to me since an egg exists only because there was first the complete organism of all parts in which an egg ultimately developed as a means of procreation. But there is no beginning chicken, either. There have always been chickens. Trying to determine a first beginning status of good and evil is almost as unsatisfying because eternity is a construct of not only an infinite future, but also an infinite past, and the pair of concepts, good and evil, which are, after all, not physical constructed pieces of any being, but ideas of relevance occurring to beings. They are, as time itself, also co-extant in eternity.

I'll try to attend. Congratulations on your finish, Whiteflame.

Having lost one debate which I initiated to Oromagi, I found his explanation above to be valid points that are an accurate self-description. It doesn't matter that he reveals his technique because it is of no aid or advantage to the competitor. This does not mean he cannot lose, it just means you'd best bring your best game, if you have one. I have also reviewed other debates he has engaged for voting and I find the tactics he describes as a fair self-description. His arguments are laser focused and his rebuttals go to tyhe core of your arguments. If I described Oromagi in one word, I would say "relentless."There's no magic, no conspiracy, and no hanky-panky with powers that be.

Thanks. Mu\ch more to come.

First attempt of posting original artwork. This is a book cover [without text] for a historic fiction I've written, and now in editing process. Andrea Chase is my fictitious main character. She's single, wealthy, and wicked intelligent; the most dangerous kind of woman. The story is about her famous Renaissance ancestor and the ancestors friends, who happen to be fairly well known themselves. 

Meaning the entire debates section is "Outdated." So we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why is it even listed if it is all outdated? And why doesn't it get updated? come on, we got top go by somethiing.

Again, the occasional protocol of instigator waiving first round, whether they are pro or con, means that there are fewer arguments than stated rounds, which is determined by instigator, and that is against policy. Why doesn't anybody see that but me? Either change the policy, or enforce it, but it makes no sense to ignore it for whatever contrived reason.

Joe Biden said he will beat Joe Biden. I rest my case: He's a would-be idiot, but he doesn't get how it's done.

In the case of George Floyd, we see the very small percentage of an otherwise outstanding performance of law enforcement by dedicated officers. Hoping this is the worst of the small percentage of idiots who should not enforce their own choices. Some of us just need to be spoon fed in all respects. This officer, and his condescending companions who just watched the abuse with no interference, don't deserve the spoon, let alone the feeding. Hope they will face, and enjoy their room with no doors.

I concur with K_Michael's commentary regarding lack of moderation as well as their lack of communication. Not knowing at the time when I joined DDO they were already dead, I became easily frustrated that they would answer no questions. No wonder. 

Hillaryous Balloon Girl is a two-time failure as a candidate for the presidency.  2008, 2018. Tell me a two-time losing candidate for the presidency who has been eventually elected, or has, by succession, become the president.

The above, from K_Michael, highlights the issue of truthbomb's post. Plessey v. Furguson [1898] was a SCOTUS decision that got it right. Plessey was a black man, but a b&w photo of him [one exists] would make one think otherwise. As it happened, one of his eight greatgrandparents was black; the rest were white. Being 1/8, he was considered black. All this became an issue when he rode in a trolly car marked as for whites, only. He appeared to be white. However, because of his ancestry, he was considered black, and there was a trolly car marked for blacks only. In all other respects than the sign, the cars were identically in appearance and equipment. He was arrested for violating the state's segregation law. He appealed, and ultimately won his Supreme Court case. The court found that the sign, alone, caused segregation, and was, therefore, unconstitutional. So, here's a case where social demands overlooked genetics. This erroneous notion is over 100 years old.

I posed this question in a forum - I don't remember which one. However, after what I watched Biden say in an interview today or yesterday, I have to raise the question as my own topic because what he said was: "I'm going to beat Joe Biden." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/26/blog-posting/biden-beating-biden-social-media-users-misquote-bi/

So, I ask in absolute candor: If he succeeds, even in beating Donald Trump, who is going to be the President? I'm not kidding. 

I also have to ask considering the Biden gaffes that are now coming repeatedly as Biden ages another week, and has now come out of the basement: When are Democrats going to get a real candidate? This is pathetically funnier than having already been in 57 states, and having a few more to go. Oh, I know, y'all are going to tell me that Biden is just telling the truth. Biden is going to beat Biden. Yep. One way or another...

Yes, you do need money to make money, but you don't need a fortune to make one. You're on a good path. I first started with a $1,000 my father gave me. My first investment was a CD. When it matured, I added to it and rolled it over to another. Then I bought a fixer real estate n Silicon Valley. Fixed and sold. Repeated a number of times; learning the separate enterprises of building a house, one renovation at a time. This started in my late twenties. By 35, I'd made my first million. About 12% of my portfolio is direct in DJIA. Most is in real estate. Some in mutual funds, and some in high yield, high risk. I own two properties outright, rent one that is worth $1.3M, owned in Silicon Valley since 1978, one renter since 1992. He opposes owning real estate. Takes all kinds, but he takes real good care of the place. He's paid for the place by rental a couple of times over. He's committed to keeping the place until he dies, then, I'll sell it.

You #1 post

That is like asking if God put water on earth so that Maslov's law of basic survival needs would be valid. God's injunction to Adam and Eve was to have dominion over the earth and to subdue it. That injunction did not mean to rape the earth of her resources, but to study them, learn from them, cultivate them, and make use of them for their benefit. We are product of the earth. When Moses wrote that man is of the dust of the earth, and that we later understood that we would become, once again, dust of the earth upon death, all this is saying is that we are of the same elements of the earth, whether that was earth, air, fire, and water, or the periodic tables. So, product made of the earth  has benefit from product of the earth. If you like, we're symbiotic. That was the design, not specifically just for medical treatment, but for all treatment, including just appreciation of earth's wonders.

>>Rational Madman: The Copyright Act of 1976 may have a word to say about your claim that your "idea" was stolen by Stephen. That act declares that federal copyright protection extends to original works that are fixed in a tangible medium. Posting on this site meets that description of "tangible medium," but the operative word in this commentary is "original." Unfortunately, your earliest post of Feb 2019 follows, at least, by 27 years, or 2,000 years, the first century Gnosticism, some of whom alleged that Lucifer is Jesus. An Encyclopaedia of Occultism: A Compendium of Information on the Occult Sciences, Occult Personalities, Psychic Science, Magic, Demonology, Spiritism, Mysticism, and Metaphysics, Lewis Spence, 1993. 

You can out it back in ur pants now.

1. Yes

2. Yes 2

3. Yes, and add an ability to offer "Kudos" for a participant's particularly unique, exemplary  argument

4. No 1

1. I agree with Virtuoso in his #3 - define terms in description

2. On the revised debates page, there is a new sortable list by debate topic. The page used to show all topics and their count of debates, but those were eliminated and makes a search for a specific debate much easier, but it also lists thew number of debates on specific topics. The greatest number of debates on a particular subject is revealed.

3. A good argument blends your thoughts with a reliable, scholastic, peer-reviewed sources. Unless there is no other source [but there always is] I avoid Wiki like the plague. I think use of metaphor is helpful, but make sure the metaphor holds relative to the point of a specific argument. Strings of difference or mismatch unravel the best attempted metaphor.

"Random" is an operative, and debatable condition. Is it "random" that a planetary system of planet and orbiting moon[s], and semi-captured rogue bodies typifies a solar system of star or [binary] and planets,  and semi-captured rogue bodies typifies a galactic system of a center [black hole?] and orbiting solar systems , and semi-captured rogue bodies? Doesn't seem so random to me, just as Darwin said of biological systems that "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." [On the Origin of Species]

That's not so random, either. Yes, in number of variant types of forms, it may appear random [2 legs, four legs, six legs, more], but at a systemic level, it is not random at all. There are set forms, like planets, moons and stars, just as there are legs, and they vary in number, but always in sets of even numbered pairs or none at all, etc..

Not ignoring you, just want to think on a response. thanks.

However, everyone, including you, are talking around, but not to the stated policy prohibiting fewer arguments than rounds. So, what of the policy? Is it to be enforced, or not?

thanks, I understand

To your question at bottom, I could agree to a conduct point having double duty.

How does one vote, anyway. never done this before

I think adding a voting subject as you [I think] suggested to award point[s] for particularly illuminating debate argument, the nature of which would be left to the voter to determine. I think you called it "Kudos"  If the voter felt no such qualifying argument was had, the "Kudos" point would not be given to either side, or, if leaving it blank is a problem, a tie.

a valid, and clever argument. You'll pardon my objection and disagreement, but I know your stand and justification, and respect it.

"Are the morals of the Bible..." plural noun; plural verb conjugation.

The posit entirely depends on what one considers "morals." There are as many today as alleged genders, although the Bible identifies but two: M, F. So, the answer is: qualify your morals, I'll qualify their reliability to fidelity with the Bible in 2020. However, a short answer is: yes. What is accepted as God's word is true yesterday, today, and forever. That said, I can argue that such an attitude stands for me, but not necessarily another. We each must make that comparison for ourselves.

Why are you beating a dead horse? I quoted the policy to in my #1: the number of arguments [for each participant[] must equal the number of rounds. That negates any other argument for waiving, which is why I claim that no argument made for waiving, on this site, makes sense, Xs and Ys not withstanding, and regardless of DDO, or any other bloody site. That's the policy of this site. Fair enough?

And I say an instigator who does not want to argue first is unsure of their confidence in their own argument. Therefore, I reject that explanation.

Fair enough. 

What's God; an aardvark?

An analytical species: humanoid gods.

Like I said, we are not overpopulated; we are poorly distributed, and so is our fresh water and food. Fix that; your fire hydrant dribbles, at best.

Show me a successful, enduring socialist state. Just one. One that has lasted more than 40 years. There is one. The USSR. It lasted 75 years. Meanwhile, the American free market has endured 230 years, and counting. Do you know why?