Solution To Raise The Number Of Active Accounts

Author: Public-Choice
DebateArt
Accounts

Posts

Total: 51
Topic's author
#31
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
I think we were discussing evidence for the Bible in general. That is an extremely vague topic, I agree. So do you want to settle on a particular facet of that?

Like whether the earth is just 6,000 years old or if a particular story in the Bible is historically accurate?

Or do you want to do psychology and the Bible's teaching on human nature?

Or what about if evolution is a factually accurate way of looking at creation?

The ball is in your court. Just make it specific enough.
#32
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
Make a debate about Noah, discussing if Noah was an antivillain or an antihero (or you can argue hero) with me on the 'antivillain' side of things.

I want you to make it relative to human beings and the world, not relative to God and his narcissistic narrative. I want alternative interpretations of the Bible completely wide open.
#33
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
That should be interesting. RM.
#34
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Shila
Like uncovering whose alt you are.
#35
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
--> @Shila
Like uncovering whose alt you are.
I don’t know anyone on DebateArt. I am also new to a Religion Forum. But I did find other religion forums over proselytizing and decided to try DebateArt. I haven’t received any feedback so I must be doing ok.

Topic's author
#36
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
 discussing if Noah was an antivillain or an antihero
I am not sure what you mean. Noah was the protagonist but neither in the story. It wasn't about Noah, it was about God purging the world of extreme evil.

not relative to God and his narcissistic narrative
We can have the Noah debate if you'd like, but I also would like to debate this one. I do not think God is a narcissist, but rather humans, as a species, have inflated egos.
#37
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @RationalMadman
 discussing if Noah was an antivillain or an antihero
I am not sure what you mean. Noah was the protagonist but neither in the story. It wasn't about Noah, it was about God purging the world of extreme evil.

not relative to God and his narcissistic narrative
We can have the Noah debate if you'd like, but I also would like to debate this one. I do not think God is a narcissist, but rather humans, as a species, have inflated egos.
Try to explain this.

Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them

Now that you know where we got our inflated egos from.
#38
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
If I am allowed to include the old testament in my analysis of God, I will argue God is narcissistic but I want huge time leniency and us to debate it a bit later on (I am getting rather busy irl now).

I want genuinely 2 week Rounds because I will need to not only collect a lot of bible verses in my analysis but make sure I don't accidentally plagiarise things from elsewhere. 
Topic's author
#39
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Shila
Now that you know where we got our inflated egos from.
I mean, if you forget about the whole sin and disobeying God and eating the apple and sin entering the world thing, that is...
#40
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,218
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@DebateArt.com
Nice! Just don't go crazy with it if you decide to put any ads on this site, please.
Topic's author
#41
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
If I am allowed to include the old testament in my analysis
Sure. I still don't think it'll help your case, though.
#42
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
Make the debate and I will discuss definitions and such in the comments.
#43
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @Shila
Now that you know where we got our inflated egos from.
I mean, if you forget about the whole sin and disobeying God and eating the apple and sin entering the world thing, that is...
That is how our inflated egos got deflated.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

#44
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,403
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
-->
@Mharman
Nah, I hate the ads as the next guy, so that won’t happen. 
#45
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
4D Why are you so obsessed with finding people's alts? Are you a mod or something? It must be an ego-boosting Sherlock Holmes thing for you or something. That or you feel like you have some control over your life through pointing out others' alt accounts.
#46
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Ehyeh
4D Why are you so obsessed with finding people's alts? Are you a mod or something? It must be an ego-boosting Sherlock Holmes thing for you or something. That or you feel like you have some control over your life through pointing out others' alt accounts.
It is important to exposed schizophrenic members among us.  

#47
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Sounds like RM must be projecting then. 
#48
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Ehyeh
--> @Shila
Sounds like RM must be projecting then. 
RM wants time to analyze God.

Read his request:
-->
@Public-Choice
RM: If I am allowed to include the old testament in my analysis of God, I will argue God is narcissistic but I want huge time leniency and us to debate it a bit later on (I am getting rather busy irl now).

I want genuinely 2 week Rounds because I will need to not only collect a lot of bible verses in my analysis but make sure I don't accidentally plagiarise things from elsewhere.

Topic's author
#49
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
Here is what I propose:

TOPIC:

Is the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible a Narcissist?

STANCES:

PRO must only argue that the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible is a Narcissist.

CON must only argue that the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible is not a Narcissist.

DEFINITIONS:

The following will determine the standards for this debate:

For theology definitions, theopedia.org will be used.

For Hebrew word definitions, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon will be used, available from biblehub.com.

For Greek word definitions, Thayer's Greek Lexicon will be used, available from biblehub.com.

For medical definitions, MedicineNet's dictionary will be used, available here: 

And if none of the above can provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used.

RULES:

By participating in this debate, PRO and CON agree to adhere to the following rules:

1. Use of logical fallacies are strictly prohibited. Any logical fallacy that exists in this Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies is banned from the debate. All logical fallacies shall be defined according to this Wikipedia webpage. Any deliberate usage of a logical fallacy results in immediate forfeiture and admittance of defeat. Accidental usage can be rectified by not using the fallacy again and moving on with the debate.

2. The rules and definitions of logic shall come from the webpage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_logic, and not Merriam Webster's online Dictionary or any other Wikipedia page. This debate shall be governed by the laws of logic, meaning burden of proof is required by both parties.

3. Usage of any propaganda technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this Wikipedia webpage, as an argument is banned:

4. Usage of any compliance technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this Wikipedia webpage, as an argument is banned:

5. The rules of grammar and proper English shall come from Grammarbook.com available here: https://www.grammarbook.com/ and they will be followed strictly. Deliberate attempts to use gibberish English result in forfeiture of debate by the person who committed the action.

6. Using definitions from any source or definition not already supplied and properly used within the rules arising from this description is banned, UNLESS there is not already a definition for either the specific word or root word(s) with which a definition may be constructed, in the approved sources.

7. For the purposes of this debate, evidence shall be defined by "something that furnishes proof," and "proof" shall be defined as "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning" statement shall be defined as "a report of facts or opinions." Opinions shall not be substituted for facts and facts shall not be substituted for opinions. And facts are inherently superior to opinions. [OR DIFFERENT QUALIFICATIONS AS PER THE NATURE OF THE DEBATE].

8. Sources are weighted according to their satisfaction of the Burden of Proof, with primary sources better satisfying the burden of proof than secondary and tertiary sources, all of which are defined by this webpage: https://crk.umn.edu/library/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-sources

9. Both PRO and Con agree to debating in good faith as per Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary Definition: "honesty or lawfulness of purpose." With lawfulness deriving from definition 1b for lawful: "constituted, authorized, or established by law." Both PRO and CON agree these debate rules and all else contained in this description are the law for the debate, unless any federal or state or other government laws make such act illegal. In which case, either party shall list the law barring them from agreeing to the debate rules in their entirety and amendments shall be made in the comments to accommodate such laws. Lying is banned and the person who lies forfeits the debate.

10. Voters agree to vote in favor of the party that was second to violate the rules, e.g. the first person to violate these rules shall be penalized by voters voting that the first person to violate the rules lost the debate.
#50
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
No. Narcissistic... Not a narcissist, only humans can be narcissists officially.

God of the Bible does not overestimate his infinite abilities and intellect, his narcissistic tendencies are in what he demands as what he sees as a  ego-fuelling reward for said abilities.

So, I will lose if it officially that he is a classical narcissist.
Topic's author
#51
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
Revision 1:

TOPIC:

Is the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible has Narcissistic Tendencies?

STANCES:

PRO must only argue that the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible has Narcissistic Tendencies.

CON must only argue that the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible does not have Narcissistic tendencies.

DEFINITIONS:

The following will determine the standards for this debate:

For theology definitions, theopedia.org will be used.

For Hebrew word definitions, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon will be used, available from biblehub.com.

For Greek word definitions, Thayer's Greek Lexicon will be used, available from biblehub.com.

For medical definitions, MedicineNet's dictionary will be used, available here:

And if none of the above can provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used.

RULES:

By participating in this debate, PRO and CON agree to adhere to the following rules:

1. Use of logical fallacies are strictly prohibited. Any logical fallacy that exists in this Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies is banned from the debate. All logical fallacies shall be defined according to this Wikipedia webpage. Any deliberate usage of a logical fallacy results in immediate forfeiture and admittance of defeat. Accidental usage can be rectified by not using the fallacy again and moving on with the debate.

2. The rules and definitions of logic shall come from the webpage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_logic, and not Merriam Webster's online Dictionary or any other Wikipedia page. This debate shall be governed by the laws of logic, meaning burden of proof is required by both parties.

3. Usage of any propaganda technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this Wikipedia webpage, as an argument is banned:

4. Usage of any compliance technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this Wikipedia webpage, as an argument is banned:

5. The rules of grammar and proper English shall come from Grammarbook.com available here: https://www.grammarbook.com/ and they will be followed strictly. Deliberate attempts to use gibberish English result in forfeiture of debate by the person who committed the action.

6. Using definitions from any source or definition not already supplied and properly used within the rules arising from this description is banned, UNLESS there is not already a definition for either the specific word or root word(s) with which a definition may be constructed, in the approved sources.

7. For the purposes of this debate, evidence shall be defined by "something that furnishes proof," and "proof" shall be defined as "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning" statement shall be defined as "a report of facts or opinions." Opinions shall not be substituted for facts and facts shall not be substituted for opinions. And facts are inherently superior to opinions. [OR DIFFERENT QUALIFICATIONS AS PER THE NATURE OF THE DEBATE].

8. Sources are weighted according to their satisfaction of the Burden of Proof, with primary sources better satisfying the burden of proof than secondary and tertiary sources, all of which are defined by this webpage: https://crk.umn.edu/library/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-sources

9. Both PRO and Con agree to debating in good faith as per Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary Definition: "honesty or lawfulness of purpose." With lawfulness deriving from definition 1b for lawful: "constituted, authorized, or established by law." Both PRO and CON agree these debate rules and all else contained in this description are the law for the debate, unless any federal or state or other government laws make such act illegal. In which case, either party shall list the law barring them from agreeing to the debate rules in their entirety and amendments shall be made in the comments to accommodate such laws. Lying is banned and the person who lies forfeits the debate.

10. Voters agree to vote in favor of the party that was second to violate the rules, e.g. the first person to violate these rules shall be penalized by voters voting that the first person to violate the rules lost the debate.