I think the challenge to this debate will be to compare in a convincing way how the cultures of today and those in early 600 AD are similar with respect to minor attraction and how that differs from young matrimony. I mean you don't have to go back that far in American history to see adult men marrying minor-aged women.
Abortion will need to be well defined at the outset. Some consider miscarriage an abortion. Also in order to have a murder there must be a death of a life, so when life begins needs to be defined.
I'd like to vote on this debate, but I feel I must recuse myself on the grounds that 1) I am biased towards believing in God and if God did Rap, He would destroy all comers and 2) I wouldn't know a good Rap if it hit in me in the face.
Due to the fact we have only one more round where we can bring up new arguments. I would ask if you could specify any previous statements such as the list in Round 1 that you want me to address. I was under the understanding that I was not to address those questions until you brought them up further in the rounds. I guess we are in round 4 now. Good luck!
Ran out of room, so was only briefly able to add one small argument which honestly I was not able to finish. Hopefully, I'll have more space in the next round. I guess I got a little preachy, lol!
If you look at Genesis 1:6, "God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." He continues to say, "And there was evening, and there was morning—the ______ day for the next days. I'm a simple man, its sounds to me like a day is governed by the Sun and Moon, 24 hours?
At any rate, it's not a "hill" I'm willing to die on, like some Doctrines such as Soteriology. I would like to debate it though, I think that would be fun, but it would have to be with another Christian.
This debate would have made more sense being debated between 2 Christians; one a 6-Day Creationist and the other a Theistic Evolutionist. As a 6-Day Young Earth Creationist, I would welcome a shot at this debate in the future.
In retrospect, I think I may have come across a little harsh in my second argument. I had some trouble understanding what some of your questions were. I was a bit frustrated I guess. I'll try and do better in the following arguments. It's all good.
I would love to argue this debate, but when it comes right down to it I cannot prove God exists other than by circumstantial evidence. This is by design because the Bible even says in Hebrews 11:6, " And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." So Faith is the catalyst to believing in God and of course, Faith involves trust in the unseen. It's all about Faith.
I made a small mistake in my Round 1 argument. The paragraph that starts "My goal in this first argument is to simply state..." should actually say, "My goal in this debate is to simply state..." Change "first argument" to "debate."
Well since we agreed to argue about the omnipotence of the God of the Bible, maybe we should stick with that God. Obviously your first argument is using human logic to argue your side, which is fine, but outside of that, I think we should argue from the Bible.
Your opening statement caught me off guard. I have to shift my approach now. No problem though, I should have my opening statement up tonight sometime.
Further clarification...
Is this debate about the existence of God or are both sides making the assumption that God, at least, exists and the one side says He is not omnipotent and the other that He is omnipotent?
Is this a debate from the Christian Bible about the omnipotence of the "Biblical God?" What I mean is are both sides debating from the Christian Bible? Just trying to understand.
If I may, here is my short 1 sentence take on each of Con's "C" arguments along with a brief reason for why I voted for Pro. Perhaps I should have gone into more detail in the vote section?
C1: Ontology - Individuals do not exist therefore they can not have a moral code and therefore there is no moral obligation.
-Pro countered by invoking "epistemological nihilism" to this argument which I thought was a brilliant strategy and Pro's continued proposition that if Con does not exist he can not be voted for was very astute.
C2: Epistemology - Specific parts of a resolution can not be proven true therefore to use inductive reasoning to prove said resolution is a "fool's errand" (my words)
-In my opinion, this argument was a bit of non sequitur, though I enjoyed the geometric 2 plane theory. I say non sequitur because Con's statement that "inductive reasoning is false" does not have any supporting basis in truth and does not follow any other referenced argument. I don't believe Pro alluded to this argument, which I thought was wise since the argument was a non sequitur.
C3: Metaethics - I must admit I was a bit confused by Con's overall point of C3. It seemed to me that Con was arguing that morality is subjective due to the differences in cultures among people. But then Con opened with a point about relativity that all "moral statements are false," but that did not follow with the previous point about subjective reality.
-The fact that Pro somewhat conceded the moral subjectivity point makes this argument a valid rebuttal point for Con. However, the fact that Con's argument also concedes that there is some moral code among cultures even though there is a "fluidity" to that morality leaves open the point that morality does exist.
-This C3 argument begs the question is Con making an argument that morality does not exist or that it does exist? It would have been helpful if Con would have chosen a consistent argument and stuck with it. Pro's side of the debate was much more consistent, another reason to vote for Pro.
It seems to me that the description counteracts the resolution. The resolution states, "Israel has 'No Right to Exist.'" And yet in the description is the statement, "Does Israel have a valid claim to the land?" The two statements, "Israel has 'No Right to Exist." and "Does Israel have a valid claim to the land?" are two different statements. Also, the description begs the questions, "Define Israel?," and "Define the Land?" The burden of proof is heavily on Pro to define these terms in order for Con to accurately defend their side of the debate.
I'm confused why you and Trent0405 gave Con the points on Better Conduct? Didn't he forfeit Round 1? It seems to me that the best vote he could be awarded is a tie on Conduct. Am I missing something?
I've actually been doing your diet approach since the second week of November. I've lost 14 pounds so far. Although I haven't added the Rapamycin dose. Maybe I should try adding the Rapamycin dose and see if helps.
If you had four witnesses of a crime come into a courtroom and every one of their accounts agreed perfectly, you would probably question the veracity of their testimonies. The fact that the four gospel accounts do not agree exactly is a support for the truth of the resurrection. And even though they are not exact, they do not, in essence, contradict themselves.
I got very close to calling the argument vote a tie as did the last 2 voters. What flipped my vote was the dictionary.definitions. I felt very strongly that they could not be ignored. Yes, I understand Con wanted to minimize the effect of the dictionary definitions, but I felt that was a weakness in his argument.
If your current opponent does a FF I would be interested in swapping places with them and taking on the Pro side. I would ask one favor and that is along with the one translation I would be able to exegete passages using the original languages.
Interesting side note...
I was taking a Hebrew class and the instructor said the closest translation to the original O.T. Hebrew was the Youngs Literal Translation.
I simply felt that the standard English dictionary definitions were not to be ignored. And they state that a scientist is an expert in the natural sciences, which is what a Physician is.
Let me ask you this, Is a scientist only a scientist when they are conducting a scientific experiment?
It seemed to me from the debate description, that the burden of proof was shared even though this was never clarified. It did feel the burden of proof leaned more on Pro. I felt that the definitions of scientist which Pro stated from dictionary.com and others was very powerful and should be the standard when defining a universal term. I'm not negating your definitions and I applaud you for bringing it up in the debate- that was also powerful but at the end of the day the common English definitions should be the standard, you can't just dismiss them as "more record keepers than authorities." This I found to be a weakness in your argument. I really enjoyed the debate! Great read!
I plan on voting. I'll probably cast my vote early next week. I've read through the debate several times. It honestly is a bit baffling to me. I discussed it with my wife who has an Ivy League English degree and we've come to an agreement, lol.
I would like to continue with this debate since I had put thought and energy into my rebuttal before it became apparent to me that my opponent had been banned. Call me crazy, lol.
No worries. I could have elaborated more on the S&G, but limited it due to space. Con only had one violation on S&G that I found. Since I am to pick which side was better on S&G it clearly was Con. As far as an excessive violation of S&G I am unaware of where that line is? At any rate, I'll try to do better in the future.
I know the debate is finished, but just wondering why it's assumed it's a far-right militia. Are there no far-left militias? Some of those Antifa people are ruthless!
I did not know that you and @Speedrace were pals and you were just kidding around. I guess it was my bad, maybe I should have checked with @Speedrace first and asked him about it. Is it possible to appeal to the moderators and ask for the conduct point to go as a tie?
I was actually rooting on you to win, because I am secretly (or not) a President Trump fan. I do think he has been a good president. I go out of my way among my family and friends though to keep it to myself since most of them hate President Trump. It's a cross I bear I guess, lol.
I was specifically not judging you on waiving Round 4 but on using it to be nasty to your opponent. I did give you the win on the argument rounds. At any rate, isn't customary when waiving a round to simply type the word waive?
I think the challenge to this debate will be to compare in a convincing way how the cultures of today and those in early 600 AD are similar with respect to minor attraction and how that differs from young matrimony. I mean you don't have to go back that far in American history to see adult men marrying minor-aged women.
Agreed! This debate is worthy. I think I may attack this debate on the pro side one of these days.
Abortion will need to be well defined at the outset. Some consider miscarriage an abortion. Also in order to have a murder there must be a death of a life, so when life begins needs to be defined.
I'd like to vote on this debate, but I feel I must recuse myself on the grounds that 1) I am biased towards believing in God and if God did Rap, He would destroy all comers and 2) I wouldn't know a good Rap if it hit in me in the face.
Good luck!
No problem.
Due to the fact we have only one more round where we can bring up new arguments. I would ask if you could specify any previous statements such as the list in Round 1 that you want me to address. I was under the understanding that I was not to address those questions until you brought them up further in the rounds. I guess we are in round 4 now. Good luck!
Ran out of room, so was only briefly able to add one small argument which honestly I was not able to finish. Hopefully, I'll have more space in the next round. I guess I got a little preachy, lol!
If you look at Genesis 1:6, "God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." He continues to say, "And there was evening, and there was morning—the ______ day for the next days. I'm a simple man, its sounds to me like a day is governed by the Sun and Moon, 24 hours?
At any rate, it's not a "hill" I'm willing to die on, like some Doctrines such as Soteriology. I would like to debate it though, I think that would be fun, but it would have to be with another Christian.
This debate would have made more sense being debated between 2 Christians; one a 6-Day Creationist and the other a Theistic Evolutionist. As a 6-Day Young Earth Creationist, I would welcome a shot at this debate in the future.
It's hard to live a life free from faith in anything. Has it ever been done I wonder?
In retrospect, I think I may have come across a little harsh in my second argument. I had some trouble understanding what some of your questions were. I was a bit frustrated I guess. I'll try and do better in the following arguments. It's all good.
I would love to argue this debate, but when it comes right down to it I cannot prove God exists other than by circumstantial evidence. This is by design because the Bible even says in Hebrews 11:6, " And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." So Faith is the catalyst to believing in God and of course, Faith involves trust in the unseen. It's all about Faith.
I made a small mistake in my Round 1 argument. The paragraph that starts "My goal in this first argument is to simply state..." should actually say, "My goal in this debate is to simply state..." Change "first argument" to "debate."
Well since we agreed to argue about the omnipotence of the God of the Bible, maybe we should stick with that God. Obviously your first argument is using human logic to argue your side, which is fine, but outside of that, I think we should argue from the Bible.
Your opening statement caught me off guard. I have to shift my approach now. No problem though, I should have my opening statement up tonight sometime.
I accept! Good luck friend!
Further clarification...
Is this debate about the existence of God or are both sides making the assumption that God, at least, exists and the one side says He is not omnipotent and the other that He is omnipotent?
Is this a debate from the Christian Bible about the omnipotence of the "Biblical God?" What I mean is are both sides debating from the Christian Bible? Just trying to understand.
What a wonderful idea for a debate! Looking forward to reading it as it progresses!
If I may, here is my short 1 sentence take on each of Con's "C" arguments along with a brief reason for why I voted for Pro. Perhaps I should have gone into more detail in the vote section?
C1: Ontology - Individuals do not exist therefore they can not have a moral code and therefore there is no moral obligation.
-Pro countered by invoking "epistemological nihilism" to this argument which I thought was a brilliant strategy and Pro's continued proposition that if Con does not exist he can not be voted for was very astute.
C2: Epistemology - Specific parts of a resolution can not be proven true therefore to use inductive reasoning to prove said resolution is a "fool's errand" (my words)
-In my opinion, this argument was a bit of non sequitur, though I enjoyed the geometric 2 plane theory. I say non sequitur because Con's statement that "inductive reasoning is false" does not have any supporting basis in truth and does not follow any other referenced argument. I don't believe Pro alluded to this argument, which I thought was wise since the argument was a non sequitur.
C3: Metaethics - I must admit I was a bit confused by Con's overall point of C3. It seemed to me that Con was arguing that morality is subjective due to the differences in cultures among people. But then Con opened with a point about relativity that all "moral statements are false," but that did not follow with the previous point about subjective reality.
-The fact that Pro somewhat conceded the moral subjectivity point makes this argument a valid rebuttal point for Con. However, the fact that Con's argument also concedes that there is some moral code among cultures even though there is a "fluidity" to that morality leaves open the point that morality does exist.
-This C3 argument begs the question is Con making an argument that morality does not exist or that it does exist? It would have been helpful if Con would have chosen a consistent argument and stuck with it. Pro's side of the debate was much more consistent, another reason to vote for Pro.
I also wanted to add that a clear distinction should be made between Israel the People and Israel the Land. This will help me as a future voter.
It seems to me that the description counteracts the resolution. The resolution states, "Israel has 'No Right to Exist.'" And yet in the description is the statement, "Does Israel have a valid claim to the land?" The two statements, "Israel has 'No Right to Exist." and "Does Israel have a valid claim to the land?" are two different statements. Also, the description begs the questions, "Define Israel?," and "Define the Land?" The burden of proof is heavily on Pro to define these terms in order for Con to accurately defend their side of the debate.
I'm confused why you and Trent0405 gave Con the points on Better Conduct? Didn't he forfeit Round 1? It seems to me that the best vote he could be awarded is a tie on Conduct. Am I missing something?
I've actually been doing your diet approach since the second week of November. I've lost 14 pounds so far. Although I haven't added the Rapamycin dose. Maybe I should try adding the Rapamycin dose and see if helps.
If you had four witnesses of a crime come into a courtroom and every one of their accounts agreed perfectly, you would probably question the veracity of their testimonies. The fact that the four gospel accounts do not agree exactly is a support for the truth of the resurrection. And even though they are not exact, they do not, in essence, contradict themselves.
Now I know.
Before I submit my vote were there any debate rules that y'all agreed to that were not mentioned in the description?
I got very close to calling the argument vote a tie as did the last 2 voters. What flipped my vote was the dictionary.definitions. I felt very strongly that they could not be ignored. Yes, I understand Con wanted to minimize the effect of the dictionary definitions, but I felt that was a weakness in his argument.
If your current opponent does a FF I would be interested in swapping places with them and taking on the Pro side. I would ask one favor and that is along with the one translation I would be able to exegete passages using the original languages.
Interesting side note...
I was taking a Hebrew class and the instructor said the closest translation to the original O.T. Hebrew was the Youngs Literal Translation.
Enjoying the song battle! Keep up the great work!
Thanks for voting!
I sent you a pm. My quick answer to the Einstein question is yes he would be a scientist, but I elaborated in the pm.
I simply felt that the standard English dictionary definitions were not to be ignored. And they state that a scientist is an expert in the natural sciences, which is what a Physician is.
Let me ask you this, Is a scientist only a scientist when they are conducting a scientific experiment?
It seemed to me from the debate description, that the burden of proof was shared even though this was never clarified. It did feel the burden of proof leaned more on Pro. I felt that the definitions of scientist which Pro stated from dictionary.com and others was very powerful and should be the standard when defining a universal term. I'm not negating your definitions and I applaud you for bringing it up in the debate- that was also powerful but at the end of the day the common English definitions should be the standard, you can't just dismiss them as "more record keepers than authorities." This I found to be a weakness in your argument. I really enjoyed the debate! Great read!
I plan on voting. I'll probably cast my vote early next week. I've read through the debate several times. It honestly is a bit baffling to me. I discussed it with my wife who has an Ivy League English degree and we've come to an agreement, lol.
I would like to continue with this debate since I had put thought and energy into my rebuttal before it became apparent to me that my opponent had been banned. Call me crazy, lol.
Okay, understood. Thanks.
I see a line through your name. What does that mean? Are we still having the debate?
I accept the challenge! Good luck friend!
"buying a gun is literally suicide"
-That's a bit extreme. Plenty of people own guns and they are still alive.
Are you taking the position that people need an AR-15?
No worries. I could have elaborated more on the S&G, but limited it due to space. Con only had one violation on S&G that I found. Since I am to pick which side was better on S&G it clearly was Con. As far as an excessive violation of S&G I am unaware of where that line is? At any rate, I'll try to do better in the future.
I know the debate is finished, but just wondering why it's assumed it's a far-right militia. Are there no far-left militias? Some of those Antifa people are ruthless!
Unfortunately, it does not give me the option to edit or delete the vote.
I did not know that you and @Speedrace were pals and you were just kidding around. I guess it was my bad, maybe I should have checked with @Speedrace first and asked him about it. Is it possible to appeal to the moderators and ask for the conduct point to go as a tie?
I was actually rooting on you to win, because I am secretly (or not) a President Trump fan. I do think he has been a good president. I go out of my way among my family and friends though to keep it to myself since most of them hate President Trump. It's a cross I bear I guess, lol.
I was specifically not judging you on waiving Round 4 but on using it to be nasty to your opponent. I did give you the win on the argument rounds. At any rate, isn't customary when waiving a round to simply type the word waive?
Okay so then you're not conceding?
I want to cast a vote, but I want to know why you forfeited the final round.