"This debate is on "biological reincarnation," and as pro has conceded that he is not even making an argument for reincarnation, he simply concedes the debate. "
News flash, you assumed that reincarnation and biological reincarnation were the same thing.
Now you concede to that.
"This is a debate over reincarnation, or the beginning of a new life after death, in some sort of biological way. The burden is massive, the definition of reincarnation does even asserts as "philosophical," or "religious," as opposed to biological. "
You assumed what the debate was about. You thought you knew what it entailed and you thought you had it in the bag.
Now you're dictating what the debate topic is. A debate topic you didn't create and you're telling me how it's going to go .
Just admit you moved too fast in choosing to enter a topic you really had no clue about.
This is why I always offer people to ask questions to get an understanding first before they just jump on board.
Once you accept and I begin that first round, you have to be ready for anything I will broach and hope it is exactly what you have a counter for.
In your mind, you're just thinking reincarnation, plain as a day.
I never heard of the expression "biological reincarnation" before. So I can't assume what a person means coining those two terms together.
I try to stick with the facts .
I believe you are so hell bent on being right, you're disregarding my position, to strawman it and tell me where it's at.
Incredible.
"Recycling is not reincarnation"
Never said it was.
If you want to insist the topic is about reincarnation, the debate is over.
You have no arguments to rebut biological reincarnation. All you're prepared for is to argue against reincarnation whether you admit that or not.
I had a suspicion, somebody would read into the topic statement.
I mean when you have a habit of doing that, you do that with just about everything you read.
"Changing form is not reincarnation (see round 1). "
That's not my point. You see there, you just glossed over it. You said, "Changing form is not death ".
In death, the body does change form.
Are you aware of what bodily decomposition is?
I think you do . You didn't answer that question . The decomposition is changing the form. That's the point. You said being dead or death is not a changing form.
Now you want to switch the words up.
See I'm careful with words while you're sly, sloppy and hasty with them.
"Bodily Decomposition is not reincarnation"
Not the point as elaborated above.
"Here pro goes as far as to assert that by arguing the resolution he made, I am "cherry picking." The delusion here is self-evident and urges a decision for con. "
Stop reading into things. It's like this with every debate with you , it seems like.
Nah it's real most definitely people. You're living proofs of it .
I thought you had to complete debates to vote?
Just remove her voting permissions.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro was denying his position more than he was rebutting Con.
Over a billion Hindus believe in reincarnation.
2 billion Christian’s believe in resurrection. Which is simply the reincarnation of the soul.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter has to assess specific arguments presented by both sides in the debate. Generalizing about what one of the debaters did or didn't do in this debate is not sufficient, nor is detailing some background on perceptions of reincarnation.
**************************************************
I think this will be related to decomposition and eating things.