Our disagreement isn't about the definitions of objectivity and subjectivity, but about how they are applied. You appear to think subjectivity and objectivity can coexist, while I maintain they are mutually exclusive. For instance, you claimed some moral aspects are subjective while others are objective. I fundamentally disagree, as this appears to violate the law of non-contradiction by suggesting something can be simultaneously subjective and objective. For example, 1+1 always equals 2; this is an objective fact. In contrast, thinking it's morally wrong to steal cookies from the cookie jar is a subjective moral opinion.
dude, I don't have the ability. The most I could do is report and hope that a mod would remove it. So, instead of complaining to me. You should talk to Barney to remove the vote.
First of all, since no one voted, no one won. Second of all, the decision of who "Wins" or "loses" a debate is not determined by the debaters themselves. Its up to whoever votes and gives a justified reason for it. So, had people voted, it could have gone either way. Trying to argue you technically won debate receiving no votes because an Artificial intelligence model says so is ridiculous. Especially since AI do not have informed opinions and only respond based on what their algorithms permit.
You can lie if you must, but i never insulted you prior to (admittingly) becoming toxic. You called me lazy and accused me of brining irrelevant topics, to which I told you I didn't want to talk to you anymore due to your rude comments. You yourself became toxic purely by choice. Not by my actions.
Yeah, you did. Seriously, you just called me a blackmailer! I don't get how you think you can insult, apologize, then insult again and think you're in the clear, but that's just not how things work.
Do you see what I'm dealing with here? I have told you he keeps insulting me and doing everything he can to be annoying. You have told him that he is being problematic. What's his response? To continue the same behavior, and now he's falsely claiming I'm blackmailing him. Please do something as a moderator and make this stop. It's been going on for days now, and I think we've all had enough. This kills the fun of debating.
Heres proof he insulted and harassed me.
Insults:
"This guy is so lazy."
"Probably you are a kid, you do not know what you are saying and what that means."
"Kid grow up, you are asking me to give you physical evidence for a dream, lmao."
"Do not cry bro."
"Kid, you are already fked in debate why eating my brain here, you have not seen my toxicity yet. It's better you stop your poop eating monkey brain. And get the fk out of here."
Need I go on cause I can quote more?
Now the harassment:
Me: Please stop texting me. I enjoy a debate and argument but this is just pointless and obsessive. I'm not responding anymore after this comment.
Him: I have accepted lemming' lame vote and accepted easy win as the but you this comment"My report didn't get addressed yet" made me ne mumscruntize lemming argument again. Why complain now?
Did I not say in my last round there vote on my debate carefully, probably you did not see how it went on my previous debates. One vote on my previous debate was like lemming from Bella which I really wanted to get tested and checked but the problem is long gone.
All these matters are related to our afterlife and eternal life not some fun fare.
I take them seriously and I have taken it.
Alhamd ll Allah
May Allah guide us all ameen
Me: I have asked you to stop communicating with me, and you are still doing so. This is clearly harassment, and I have notified the moderators. My advice is to stop now. You are being disrespectful, and I have no desire to communicate with you further. At this point, I do not care if you win or not, as you are only annoying me. Leave me alone.
Him again: Who cares? Justice must be served. If you want someone to not disturb you just stop replying, it's childish if you feel harassment when someone argue for your argument.
I am experiencing significant challenges due to the current lack of substantive debate participation. The few individuals engaging in debate are often unproductive, hindering constructive dialogue. Insufficient moderation exacerbates this issue. Consequently, opportunities for meaningful engagement are severely limited.
Furthermore, even when debates occur, participants frequently fail to engage in good-faith discussion. Despite my commitment to this platform and the value of debate, a laissez-faire approach to moderation is demonstrably ineffective. This platform requires both enhanced monitoring and increased active participation to thrive.
At this point, I honestly do not care. I created this debate hoping to have a good discussion and open some minds to other viewpoints. However, all I received for my efforts was insults, religious intolerance, and toxic behavior.
I did everything I could to maintain respect and follow the rules. My opponent did the exact opposite, and the moderators did nothing and did not care. This is precisely why there is virtually no activity on this site.
The moderators don't do anything unless they are complained to, and even then, they only take half measures. Their excuse is that they are "off-hand" in leadership or that it is somehow not their job.
It is self-evident that inadequate site moderation will lead to detrimental consequences.
Therefore, given the lack of activities in this app, the inability to ensure DebateArt remains a place of intellectual decorum by its administrators, and the disrespect I have received from my opponent, who should be reprimanded for his behavior, I will no longer be active on this site after this debate.
I express my gratitude to those users who have maintained ethical conduct and engaged in respectful debate throughout their time on this platform, and I will miss their contributions.
Moderators White Flower and Barney, I express profound disappointment in your leadership. You were entrusted with the critical, albeit challenging, responsibility of maintaining this site's functionality and upholding the honor and integrity of its debates against malicious actors. Your failure stems not from inability, but from a demonstrable lack of commitment. I trust this decision meets with your approval.
Regarding my competitor, I acknowledge my error in judgment. My misplaced confidence in your ability to maintain respectful conduct has resulted in a reassessment of my approach to future collaborations.
A structured debate, followed by a vote and the acceptance of its outcome, would have ensured a more amicable conclusion.
However, you chose instead to mock my ideologies, attack my character, and show an utter lack of human decency. Worst of all, you attacked other people for simply voting for me, citing poor conduct.
I would say you disappoint me, but that would require expectations, which you have proven to lack.
So, by all means, Trigger Lord, enjoy a website that not only does not hold you accountable for your actions but also chooses to allow them. Mods don't care if you act offensively, so feel free. I'm done (however, I have not conceded this debate). I have better things to do than to waste time here.
I have asked you to stop communicating with me, and you are still doing so. This is clearly harassment, and I have notified the moderators. My advice is to stop now. You are being disrespectful, and I have no desire to communicate with you further. At this point, I do not care if you win or not, as you are only annoying me. Leave me alone.
As I said, I am not debating with this with you anymore because your just a toxic troll and I am done hearing these stupid arguments that serve no purpose.
Do me a favor and just stop. I'm not capable of continuing an argument this unintelligent and repetitive. You've made your decision to be as toxic as usual, and we will see what the moderators do with it. Just so you know as well, the moderator who will be reviewing this has also agreed to review the comments that you have made, which I believe will further strengthen my point. So have a good day and please do not message me anymore because I will not respond to it.
"It was not mentioned in description that its allowed, and this is a debate site based on text, not video. Also, I have already explained why video arguments are rejected."
Once again, this is irrelevant because it is not a whole violation to bring the video in the middle of the debate. I have already told you repeatedly that I have discussed this with the moderators, and they concurred that you can use a video in a debate. Secondly, your reasoning is the very problem. You rejected it specifically because it was a video argument, and you didn't even bother to listen to it. White flower has already confirmed to me that you are not allowed to just ignore it simply because it's a video. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, that answer is not going to change.
"There are no voting rules which say that links are valid arguments."
That's because the link is not the argument. The video is.
"If someone just posts bunch of links in a debate and says that all arguments are there, I have no need to even open those links, since no argument was presented in debate itself."
According to your own logic, you had no reason not to listen to what I said, because every link I provided was accompanied by a written argument until round three. Second, a link to a video is not "a bunch of links." Third, there is no way to make a video on this site without providing a link, so your argument is self-defeating at best. Besides, we both know the real reason is due to our innate biases and the fact that you are a troll on here. You have no legitimate cause to argue but to argue it is the very reason I don't bother debating with you and literally anything that you do.
I didn't use personal experience in my argument. I provided links to evidence that was either in the form of a video or based on academic studies. Your whole argument for me making a contradiction was that my argument of personal experience somehow falls apart. My arguments never relied on personal experience. They relied on fields of study and tests that were conducted by scientists in those fields. Ergo, not my personal experience or based on a single individual. The only reason you call it a personal experience is because you refuse to acknowledge that you can observe something even if you cannot physically see it. There go. There was no contradiction except for your own backwards logic, which is apply to what I said.
Personal experience arguments requires either I'm basing it off of something I personally experienced, or an individual. I mentioned neither myself nor an individual in my arguments, and therefore there was no contradiction.
"So you think EEG makes you see people's dreams? I dont think so."
I never said that it allows you to see a person's dreams. I only said that it allows you to observe dreams because you are monitoring their brain activity, which are affected by dreams. I feel like I have to tell you that simply saying that you can observe something does not necessarily always mean you have to physically see it. For example, you cannot physically see wind, yet you can still observe it through measuring it. So if we can measure wind without seeing it, I don't see how we're not able to observe dreams through brain activity, even if we cannot see the dream itself.
"Monitoring brain activity and observing dreams arent same thing. As Pro has explained, science is limited and cant observe dreams"
Pro may have said that, however, my links which go into fields of study negate that because it goes outside of hearsay. So pro didn't actually explain anything. They merely said what they thought, and they had no scientific evidence to back it up. In contrast, I had scientific proof to show that we have the ability to monitor dreams through brain activity. So scientifically speaking, they are the same thing. And whatever pro set is irrelevant, because he can't provide any evidence where I did.
"As explained before, since science cant observe dreams, the only thing left is your personal experience examples"
Rank, which isn't true because I have provided evidence of scientists not only monitoring dreams through brain activity, but also performing experiments. So it's not personal experience examples because nothing I just said was based on personal experience. Everything I said was based on scientific fields of study, which is not a personal experience.
"such as some people being able to control what they dream."
Lucid dreaming is not a personal experience. Secondly, I justified that by providing a field of study that showed people being able to respond to people while asleep and dreaming. So no matter how you slice it, I never used a personal experience example. You simply call it a personal experience example because you refuse to acknowledge that scientists have the ability to monitor brain activity, which is considered to be equal to monitoring dreams. So your logic is faulty, and your claims are once again false.
I'm sorry, but is English not your forte? Did you miss the part where it was established that I can make a video in the form of an argument, and therefore claiming that written arguments are required isn't true? Did you also miss the part where I told you that I've already received a private message letting me know that you are not allowed to ignore videos just because they are not written?
"My reason for voting had nothing to do with either video link. I used arguments written in debate to give vote."
right. Which means that you violated the rules by ignoring what I said simply because I gave a video link rather than writing in a text. something that was both completely valid according to the rules of the science and also a rule violation as you're not allowed to ignore arguments just because of the form they are given.
"That doesnt mean you can observe dreams."
Yes, it does. because we can monitor brain activity through an EGG machine. and you thus need brain activity in order to dream that we monitor dreams through brain activity. Next thing you're going to tell me is that just because you need a needle to inject penicillin in the body that does not mean we can actually give people penicillin.
"No, observing a dream, as you have said yourself, is something you cannot do."
Not what I said. I said that you cannot see in what the other person sees in the dream itself. However, you can still monitor brain activity, which allows you to observe dreams. You're literally trying to argue we can't do things that we literally have machines for simply because you wanna be super technical out of your toxic behavior. No matter how technical you try to make it, the fact still remains that dreams can be monitored via brain activity. Anything else you wanna say? You make is relevant.
Yes they are that is the whole point they are hooked up to machines montitoring their brains and talking to them. Brain activity and dreams are the same thing. I am sorry if this simple concept escapes you but different words can have the same meaning.
"Monitoring brainwaves, again, has nothing to do with monitoring dreams. Spikes in neural activity also doesnt mean you are observing their dream."
Yes it does.
"In science, monitoring dreams is achieved by tracking brain activity through techniques like electroencephalography (EEG), which records electrical signals from the brain, allowing researchers to identify distinct patterns associated with different sleep stages, particularly Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep, when dreaming is most likely to occur"
"That has nothing to do with observing those images, ideas, emotions or sensations, let alone the cause of those."
According to you. However the scientific community says otherwise as my quote and link prove.
"Notice the words "in this view", so thats not Pro's position, but an explanation of the position held by someone else."
By saying that dreams are nothing more than images or physical phenomena, Pro is acknowledging the scientific point of view without challenging it. If Pro had said "While the scientific view is this" or "However, while the scientific view is this," then Pro would have challenged the scientific view. Therefore, Pro agreed that from a scientific view, dreams are nothing more than images or physical phenomena. Because they did not challenge it, they conceded that perspective as valid even if they did not agree.
"So your proof that monitoring brain means observing dreams is that some scientists came to conclusion about dreams?
Oh God...
So if I come to conclusion about your debate, then I have observed it, thus you now cannot even claim that I ignored your arguments.
Your own logic beats you."
If that were indeed what I was saying sure. However, that is simply you trying to procrastinate your own ideology onto my own. My proof that we are monitoring brain activity to observe dreams comes from the fact that scientists usually have technology to do so. which I have just given you a link to. And quoted on top of it, you cannot argue against the scientific ability to monitor dreams through brain activity when there's actually methods and technology to do so. So at this point, you're just trying to justify ignorance.
"You didnt write an argument, so you concede that your round 3 wasnt valid."
Incorrect, I may not have made in argument in writing. However, I still gave one in the form of a video, which is not against the rules. The person you are supporting has also claimed to have done this. So, your argument is pointless since your trying to justify voting for someone on the very premise you claim makes mine not valid.
"I understand that words confuse you, so you think "monitoring brain" = observing dreams, however thats obviously not true."
Monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity. Scientists can observe dreams by monitoring brain activity. Dreams can't happen without a brain, so monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity. So, I apologize that basic education escaped you.
"Which neither means that there was no contradiction in what you said, neither addresses the contradiction."
Which also subsequently means that, unless you can actually provide an example of said contradiction, we can't presume there is a contradiction for it to be addressed. You know your framework of argument is essential to arguing that someone made a joke that literally no one heard, and therefore it's still valid because it had to have happened even if no one heard it.
The contradiction in such a framework is obvious to anyone who's actually trying to be intellectual.
"It was literally mentioned over and over in the vote. You rejected personal experiences as evidence while using personal experiences as evidence."
I didn't use personal experience in my argument. I provided links to evidence that was either in the form of a video or based on academic studies. By all means quote me where I used a personal experience for myself or another person as a jet means to justify my position. If he can't do so, then you're obviously lying like you've done so many other times. I don't know what motivates you to act this way BK. But it's not a problem because I've already informed the moderators of your activity you're lying and you're obvious bias towards my position. So regardless of how many times you argue with me, or make a nonsensical argument that is essentially meaningless. your vote and your comments are going to be reviewed and I'm very confident your vote will be removed.
"So how is this relevent to our debate?
This can verify the content of dreams which dreamer has told us, it even proves my point."
No, it doesn't because the point of that field of study debunks the idea of dreams being influenced by divine messages because dreams can be affected by physical phenomenon in the real world thats the exact opposite of your pont.
"Dreamer telling dream during dream or after does it change the fact there it's subjective and personal."
The point of the study was not to determine what a person was dreaming about or what they thought they saw. The point was to show that people can respond to the outside world even when they are dreaming. This further supports the idea that dreams are the byproduct of physical experiences and stimuli. Meaning that your dreams are not defined in nature, but rather the result of what you experience in the outside world. which can still simulate what you've encountered in the dream based on what you hear and or told while sleeping.
" Clearly dream being spiritual are 100 percent related to interpretation. Content must be analyzed and then interpreted later to whatever has been seen in dream is related to reality or not. You must not be that childish to not understand this simple logic."
Understanding and agreeing are two different concepts. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's true. If scientists can show that your dream is influenced by what's happening around you while you're sleeping, or even prior to your sleep, then the content of your dream is not real. And because dreams are subjective, you can't prove that any part of them was divinely inspired.
Thank you for informing me that you supposedly made a video in the second round because that makes BK's arguments even weaker since he is giving you a better argument vote for obvious bias and completely ignored my argument on the basis that I made a video that supposedly doesn't count yet he allowed you to make a video as well.
Also atheism wasn't a factor in this until YOU brought it up. I argued against your position on a purely scientific basis. Not an atheist one. You brought atheism on by mocking my atheistic opinions and then declaring rudely that all who voted for me were atheist as well. I also never negated your dream argument and I addressed it. There was nothing in your argument I did not address.
"Links arent arguments. Links are sources. Arguments are what you write in debate."
Yes, however, when you are making an argument that's supported by sources that makes it valid. Your whole claim was that my empirical evidence was negated by the fact that, supposedly, scientists can't monitor the human brain. The fact I post links with arguments that proved otherwise is an argument of itself. If I were not making the argument that scientists can monitor the human brain, why would I post a link that proves it?
"They are legit if voters accept them. I have provided reasons why I didnt accept a link as argument."
Not true in fact, I just had a private conversation with White flower who agreed you can't simply ignore a video argument. Secondly, it is not making a link argument by posting a link as the video. The video is the argument the link is simply the method in which you can review it. I'm sorry, but you're not gonna make a very convincing argument here, especially when you're clearly going against the rules.
"Plus, I have read votes of other voters, and there was no mention of you solving the obvious contradiction of your case. So if you solved the contradiction in your video, sure, I will delete my vote myself, but given how blatant the contradiction is, I dont think you addressed the contradiction anywhere."
That is because the other voters didn't find a contradiction in what I said. So you're not really making a whole lot of sense there. in order for me to address a supposed contradiction. It has to be pointed out and proven. I have made no such contradictions and therefore you cannot use that as a reason as it lacks any foundation.
"Watching people sleep and talk in sleep is not observing their dreams."
Actually it is because there not simply "Watching them" they are connected to machines that allow scientists to monitor brainwaves and thus see spikes in neural activity. We may not be able to see in their minds eye what occurs in the deram but we very much monitor brain activity in dreams.
"No, Pro clearly said that science cannot observe dreams. If you are done with your little outburst, we can move along."
Actually the pro said and I quote
"From a scientific standpoint, a dream is a sequence of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that typically occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep, particularly REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep. According to studies in neurobiology, dreams are often the result of brain activity as the mind processes information, emotions, and memories from waking life. The brain, in this view, generates dreams as a natural byproduct of its nightly maintenance and consolidation of knowledge."
How do you think scientist's came ti this conclusion that the pro said? By MONITORING BRAIN ACTIVELY. Something you both said I never showed and are now lying and saying the Pro did not acknowledge.
First of all your argument was the last argument to be made in the debate. So how exactly am I to respond to a personal video? especially in the debate that is over by that point? Secondly, I never dropped any argument whatsoever, which is my entire point. Every argument you made when it was my turn, I addressed. and I offered rebuttals, which again proved that BK is being the incredibly biased.
"There is nothing scientific been discussed here."
You literally have been arguing that your argument fits well with Islam and science and now you are saying that "nothing scientific" is being discussed here. make up your mind.
"Bro seriously?
You said I have not put any source and yet you have confirmed my source and in fact explaining it. See my source can he checked so now where is your argument that I did not put any scientific source. Also you said URL is actually accepted source. Bro I have been debating for very long. It's not good now. You are not being sincere here."
Ignoring the fact you're not making any sense at this point. I never said you didn't put any source. I said that you didn't put any scientific based sources to justify your position. All your sources have been either pseudoscience or theologian in nature. And I already proved that by literally going to your sources and researching and finding that they are pseudoscientific in nature or irrelevant to the point you were trying to argue. I'm sorry, but you can't twist what I say because I'm very consistent.
"The arguments from video werent presented in debate itself, so they can be ignored."
Makes zero sense. I submitted the link in the debate for voters to see and review and mods have said videos are just as legit as written arguments. So, your claim is both false and still against the rules.
"However, I have read other votes as well, and nothing in them seems to affect my vote."
Irrelevant. You still willingly admitted to ignoring arguments, which is a violation and you lied saying I did not challenged Pros arguements despite written evidence saying otherwise.
"Your "empirical evidence" was negated by obvious fact that science cannot observe dreams."
Nice try, but I submitted multiple sources that demonstrated that scientists can indeed observe dreams. In fact one of my sources highlighted an experiment that showed people being tested to be responsive to dreams when asked questions. More over, I explained in my arguments that scientists can monitor brain activity while someone is sleeping. Pro even acknowledged this. So, nothing was negated but your own inbility to be fair since you did not bother reading what I wrote or reviewed the evidence.
Another fun fact for you: Benjamin Libet himself believed that his theories showed that humans have free will. He believed that we can negate an action at the last second, and that the purpose of his experiments was to show that the brain can unconsciously choose to do an action before a person can actually commit the action. If the debate had been about free will, that would be relevant. However, we are talking about dreams and their meaning, not whether people have free will.
None of it supports religious interpretations of dreams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
Also his theories remain only theoretical instead of true. https://www.google.com/search?q=are+benjamin+libets+thoeires+true+or+just+theortical&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1135US1135&oq=are+benjamin+libets+thoeires+true+or+just+theortical&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgYIBRAhGAoyBwgGECEYjwIyBwgHECEYjwLSAQkyMzQ0MWowajSoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
actually that's exactly what source are. you find a website or article (preferably reputable ones) that support your argument and you submit them as a URL for all to see. Anyway now that we have confirmed that you subscribe to pseudo scientific research to support your religious bias and incorrect belief that science and Islam go well together. How about you actually look at the sources I provided and prove how they are not valid since they come from the scientific community?
No you didn't. You are cherry picking the closest pseudo scientists you think will validate your beliefs. You have no response or rebuttal to the arguments I made which were devoid of religious bias and entirely based on the scientific community.
Fun fact, "Quantum Consciousness:" is regarded as Pseudo science. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness#:~:text=While%20many%20attempts%20at%20a,the%20%22binding%20problem%22).
Your religious views are not shared by everyone. For example, you believe that Islam is the oldest and one true religion in the world. However, there are much older recorded religions, and the earliest accepted date for the beginning of Islam dates back to the 600s when Muhammad lived. In fact, the Quran didn't exist while Muhammad was alive, which makes Islam younger than religions founded in the BC Era, such as Christianity. Also, your Quran says that Allah made the first man out of clay and dirt. However, biology disagrees because it has been proven that life can only come from other living creatures, and mud and clay are not living organisms and thus incapable of creating life.
The Quran is not a scientific text, so it cannot be used to prove anything scientific. In fact, using the Quran to support a scientific argument is the most unscientific thing you can do.
You did not give scientific sources. Nor did you give historical evidence. Science doesn't believe in religious theology nor validate it and History and theology are not the same thing. The Quran is not accepted universally as a historical book and hardly any of it can be defended from a scientific point of view.
I'm letting you know that your vote is likely to be removed soon because I've reported several violations. The first is your admission that you ignored my video argument intentionally. That's a violation because you cannot give someone the "better argument" vote and then justify it by admitting you didn't review the other arguments. You also lied and said that I "dropped" the arguments of the Pro, which is false, and that they went unchallenged, which the debate clearly shows otherwise. If you had conducted the vote fairly and simply said you didn't find my arguments convincing and gave clear examples of why, there would be no issues. However, all you did was show obvious bias, especially when you argue that the logical arguments of the Pro are somehow better than my empirical evidence, which you clearly did not review.
"Nope because, they are atheists not because you made solid arguements.
What they are claiming in RFDs I have dealt with it already and in great detail. I have talked in scientific prospect as well. But they only read half part of debate and gave decision.."
Your free to think that, but as it stands, you have no basis for that accusation. You also have shown no evidence that they only read "half" of the debate.
"If we know how flowers bloom, does it means God do not exist? Knowing the mechanism of something do not negate God."
That wasn't my point. My point was that religion and science are not the same because they come away with two very different conclusions for the same subject. When religion doesn't understand something, it will claim it's the work of their god. However, when science encounters the unknown, they observe, theorize, and test until they figure out the answer.
"They overlooked my whole debate and solid arguments. All dreams being physical and their interpretation could be spiritual was my argument.
I have proven it how science do not know about consciousness, let alone unconscious mind which govern dreams.
So disappointed"
They didn't "overlook" your arguments. They in fact addressed them directly. Their response to you was that you made good points, but failed to convince them because they found scientific arguments backed with academic sources more convincing then faith based arguments and personal experiences.
"Knowledge is not negation of God but proof of God. Christian apologist gave to he vibe and sentiment of science the opposition of theism. While science compliment Islam.
I should have been concise so that they cannot overlook my main arguments while I try to give as much info as I can. But tbh both votes are personal bias"
Nope. Knowledge is not proof of God because knowledge is not attributed to believing in a God. According to that logic, I should believe God is the reason 2 + 2 = 4. However, that equation will always be true regardless if one believes in God or not. Your knowledge is going to depend on your own efforts and willingness to learn. Not because God gave you the ability to learn. Islam and science also don't compliment each other because science is not in agreement that Allah is real.
"I will make YouTube video about this debate show how biased people are when they are atheists in debates."
Feel free too, but no one was being bias for being atheists. I did my job as con and provided counter arguments to your original arguments. The two people that voted so far only voted for me because they found my arguments, which were scientific based, more persuasive then your theologian arguments. That's not biased at all. If anyone showed bias it was you because you framed your argument in such a way that it only appealed to those of Islamic faith and essentially required voters to take Islam as the true faith, which would not sit well with any other faith or ideology.
"Can you see, that is why theism is just personal bias and falsehood of scientists who develop their career on their personal theories which are declared false later on.
If proven to be true then they get the idea from religion."
Theism and science are two different subjects. Science does not have any claims that gods are real or that things happen due to divine causes. Second, theories are neither personal nor are they inspired by religion.
When asked why flowers bloom in sunlight but not in shade or winter seasons, religious people will say it's because of God's divine will. Scientists, on the other hand, will explain that plants use sunlight to give themselves nutrients and help them grow. Scientists back up their assertions by explaining how they arrived at their theories and then demonstrating how they know their theories are true based on experiments that were conducted based on those theories.
Science is always evolving, and new discoveries can lead to theories being overturned or modified. However, that does not mean that the original theories were false; it is simply a reflection of the nature of science itself. What can be true 10 years or 100 previously, does not mean it will remain true now or even later.
Truly, I do not understand the point you are trying to make here. I brought up a fair point that making pre-assumptions and requiring people to accept them paints a limiting and unfair debate. So far your only counters were to claim my analogy is flawed (but never showing it) and then try to accuse me of being "Annoying as fuck." Just because I made arguments you seemingly have no response to.
Now, your taking your subjective view point as if it is something we all have to go along with and we don't. You did not have an issue with how the host framed the debate. great for you. But that doesn't mean others can't offer other perspectives on that same issue. There is no reason to get upset over it or yell profanity. You can simply say you don't agree with me and that's fine. I would even love to hear your reasoning so I can offer clarity and a different perspective.
However, when you just came at me with aggression and then ignore everything I have to say and declare it flawed with no evidence and then end it with "I don't want to talk to you." Attitude. I take that as just simply being intolerant and it reminds me of PC culture where no matter what we say the other side will just turn it into an offense or frame it to somehow be a bad thing.
I may be old school in my reasoning, but I take the view that when we meet opposition or disagreement. We should do our best to avoid being offended unless actual hurtful things are said. We also should strive for understanding rather then seeking agreement. I don't subscribe to this (in my opinion) backwards line of reasoning where we meet disagreement with aggression, presume the other side has no merits at all (as I agreed with some of your points) and then when we run out of arguments end it with "I don't want to talk with you anymore." Just listen to what others say, Agree with some points (if you do agree with any that is) say you still disagree and end with a respectful jester of good will.
You are, of course. free to conduct yourself in any manner you wish and ignore what I am saying. But, I hope that you can at least see that perhaps maybe their is value in reconducting yourself in a more pleasent manner. good discussion and good day.
"Do you seriously see nothing wrong with this? Yeah, you could do that, but now the ENTIRE topic of the debate has been changed completely."
Not really. As Con, you need to make an argument as for WHY God the father and the Holy father are not different persons (which was the whole point originally) and you could do that by taking the atheist point of view that they aren't different because they don't exist. Now, because the host changed it to say that the Bible supports the idea or not, I see what your saying. However, You should not have to believe the bible is divine. You could take the point of Con and not be restricted by pre-assumed beliefs by arguing that the bible is interpretive rather than factual and therefore it could easily be argued that the Bible does not actually support it because its based on a persons interpretations rather than fact.
That would not change the topic at all. However, because you are REQUIRED to assume the bible is divine, such an argument would go against the rules and thus give pro an unfair advantage. You simply cannot justify giving one side an unlimited framework to choose from but then limit it greatly to another.
" Or do you just want to have the right to be as annoying as fuck? Because having someone barge in and completely derail the debate IS annoying, and I would never judge anyone for including a rule to prevent that. In fact, I'd encourage it."
Honesty i find this argument to be very narrow minded in reasoning and completely missing my point. No where did I say there should not be any rules. Nor did I imply you should be annoying. The ONLY way I see your argument making sense is if One person makes a debate and then the person who accepts it just says something moronic like, "I like potato's." THAT I agree would be very annoying indeed.
However, What I am arguing against is the idea that one must accept pre-determined beliefs in order to just participate in it. It is both bias, unfair, and limits the perspective that can be diverse and varies but maintains the original topic. I agree completely about needing to stay on topic and provided reasonable arguments. nevertheless, there is a fine line between making a rule of a debate that requires one to stay on topic and then making bias rules that force you to argue from a circular framework that you may not agree with and prevent you from offering different points of view.
Ask yourself this since you are a fellow atheist. Would it be fair for someone to make a debate about a religious figure or person and invite you to debate them but on the condition that you must accept that person was divine according to a particular religion? If the answer is no, then my point is as plain as day. If you still can't get it, then I honestly don't know how else to explain that true debates come from hearing ALL perspectives related to the topic and it is unfair to make debates with loaded pre-assumptions that must be accepted no matter what.
I don't understand how my analogy is flawed. If you think it is, then provide evidence. The fact that this is a doctrinal debate doesn't mean it has to be exclusively within Christian circle reasoning or standard of evidence. For every topic there are infinite perspectives to take. For example, if an atheist takes the debate (without the rule) they could argue that the father and the holy spirit are not distinct persons because neither exists despite the Bible's insistence that they might, and that is completely valid position that works well within the topic if a rule not requiring you to act as a Christian is never made .
"Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true is completely standard for this type of debate. It would be an odd choice not to include it." This argument is self-defeating because it is unfair to require participants to accept this assumption. This restriction forces them into a circular argument and prevents them from using their own perspectives and evidence. I don't think one has to act or agree with Christian beliefs in order to debate a Christian topic.
Why should anyone in a debate be told that they have to believe in something in order to argue for or against something? Suppose the debate is about whether capitalism supports private ownership and freedom. If the debate's rules require you to assume that capitalism is divinely inspired, would that be fair to someone who doesn't believe that or wants to make an argument that contradicts that premise?
Look at it from this perspective: Say I create a debate over tipping and asking if tipping 20% is considered cheap or fair. You, a person who has a passion about the concept of tipping and want to throw your hat in the ring is suddenly met in the rules that you must accept that tipping is the greatest thing ever. How can someone who wants to be con or pro truly offer their perspective if the very rules require you to claim you believe in something you do not? And if you decide to accept that regardless of your true feelings, what arguments can you make when your not allowed to say anything negative about tipping in general?
That's the problem with requiring prerequisites of opinions as conditions for accepting a debate. In the context of this debate, requiring that the person accept the bible as divinity inspired restricts those who might try to argue outside of Christian sources. it is also important for you to know that when this debate was originally made the title was "Are the God of the father and God of the holy spirt the different people" with the rule being added. He only changed it to the bible supports the nation because I made my point previously about the topic being closed to certain circles because of the requirement of needing both sides to agree to believe in the Bible as divine.
Plus, I told him he can do what he wants and that I was only trying to let him know the flaws of the approach. So, its not like I told him in any rude manner that he can't do what he wants or has to do something. And I mean this with total respect to all present, but people these days need to be able to take criticism better. Since I did not curse or insult anyone and have at up to this point maintained professional decorum. I shouldn't be talked it as if I spit in someone's food. I also further apologize if that is not how you meant it, but that is how it is seeming to me.
All i did was make an observation that every debate he makes requires that people accept pre-beliefs that others who may want to participate do not accept and that he should be more open about the diversity of opinions others have over religious concepts to include a more wider audience. I then tried to explain that point of view. So, far either my message has been misunderstood or people are getting overly offended by that simple statement. You don't have to agree and I am always happy to hear different point of view. However, I have a right to express my opinions no matter how it affects others. So, make a big deal out of it if you must. I am merely trying to provide another perspective.
Look you can do what you want. I am just telling you that the reality is there are a diversity of people with varying beliefs and that go for and against the bible and when you try to force people to agree to beliefs just for the sake of debating you, many do not partake. Do with that fact for what you will. I am just making you aware of it.
That's my point. Not everyone agrees that the bible is true. No one said YOU can't use the bible as the basis of your arguments. However, when you force others to do the same, you both deny their ability to put forth their own ideological thinking, and force them to stay within a circular reasoning that gives you an unfair advantage. Just as it is completely valid for you to use your faith as the basis of your argument, it would be valid for someone to say. "My opponents arguments may be based on the bible, but if we don't take that as a credible source and look at none theocratic based evidence we will find etc."
True debates are not conducted when you set rules that force people to accept beliefs they may not share.
See, your not going to get a lot of people accepting a debate where both parties have to agree that the bible is divinity inspired. Not everyone is Christian or even believes in God. You have got to add room for other beliefs or lack there of if you want challengers.
"I never disrespected you, in fact in this debate I remain to the point, I do not know why you felt disrespectful. Tbh this was my best debate regarding respect, check my other debates they were far worse."
And once again, you decide to lie as if it's actually going to do you any good. Where do I start? how about the fact that you literally made claims that I was intellectually dishonest simply because I disregarded your hearsay story? Or the fact that you literally mocked my atheism by claiming that I wanted to listen to other atheists, like Richard Dawkins, even though that that was never part of the discussion to begin with. In fact, literally everything I gave was scientifically based, which had nothing to do with atheism at all. You simply made mention of it to personally attack me and my character.
Your subsequent responses have been to curse at me and call me a child. And that is before we get into you lying about me bringing up irrelevant topics and accusing of laziness simply because I took time and effort to make a video. If you genuinely can't see any of that as disrespectful, then you have some serious mental issues. that or your sense of maturity never passed the age of 5.
Lastly, telling me to look at your other debates and declaring them as far worse is actually pretty unintelligent of you. because you're essentially saying that this is the norm for you to be disrespectful and even worse manners, as if that somehow absolved your horrible behavior here, It doesn't. If anything, it gives credence to everything I've said about you. The reason why you can't handle formal debate is because you simply don't have the maturity for it. You would rather lie about your opponents and disrespect them rather than genuinely have tolerance for what they say or understand their point.
" I never thought of disrespectful at any instance in debate. Everything I said was for the sake of arguemnt. I do not know why you felt that way. Can you mentioned where my tone was disrespectful in last 2 rounds plz?"
It has nothing to do with tone. It had to do with the fact that you claimed I did intellectually dishonest things, which wasn't true, that I was somehow using atheist testimonies, which also wasn't true. And and any other accusations which were blatantly false. Then you try to make a false case of victimhood by saying I was narrowing your view simply because I made arguments against religion. At no point did I stop you from using religion as an excuse. I merely criticize the fact that you can't prove it to be true.
What you did in the comments you have made subsequently afterwards are obviously offensive and meant to be hurtful. You're not even ashamed of yourself as you willingly call yourself a toxic person as if that is something to be proud of. if you had any common decency, you could see the fault in your display of behavior. However, you've made it clear that you absolutely lack this quality that most humans possess. I don't know if it's simply because you feel emboldened by the Internet. or if it's because you had a terrible life filled with influences that were equally as toxic as you are today. or it's simply the person you're choosing to be, no matter what someone says to you. Regardless of the truth, you are a toxic person and somebody who no one can respect because you can't respect others. telling me that you've been far worse with other people doesn't justify anything.
You may crave the final word, demand it even, but let's be clear: this communication breakdown? It's on you. All it would have taken to preserve any semblance of dignity was a simple agreement to disagree. But instead, you chose rudeness, disrespect. Perhaps nobody has had the courage to tell you this before, but you are not the center of the universe. When you act out, throwing tantrums and ignoring all wisdom and decency, you become something far worse than irrelevant. You become toxic, a presence people avoid, a voice they tune out. Respect is earned, and right now, you're deeply in debt.
Our disagreement isn't about the definitions of objectivity and subjectivity, but about how they are applied. You appear to think subjectivity and objectivity can coexist, while I maintain they are mutually exclusive. For instance, you claimed some moral aspects are subjective while others are objective. I fundamentally disagree, as this appears to violate the law of non-contradiction by suggesting something can be simultaneously subjective and objective. For example, 1+1 always equals 2; this is an objective fact. In contrast, thinking it's morally wrong to steal cookies from the cookie jar is a subjective moral opinion.
in terms of morality and life experience , yes.
dude, I don't have the ability. The most I could do is report and hope that a mod would remove it. So, instead of complaining to me. You should talk to Barney to remove the vote.
First of all, since no one voted, no one won. Second of all, the decision of who "Wins" or "loses" a debate is not determined by the debaters themselves. Its up to whoever votes and gives a justified reason for it. So, had people voted, it could have gone either way. Trying to argue you technically won debate receiving no votes because an Artificial intelligence model says so is ridiculous. Especially since AI do not have informed opinions and only respond based on what their algorithms permit.
So, no, no one won.
You can lie if you must, but i never insulted you prior to (admittingly) becoming toxic. You called me lazy and accused me of brining irrelevant topics, to which I told you I didn't want to talk to you anymore due to your rude comments. You yourself became toxic purely by choice. Not by my actions.
Besides, you should not have insulted me from the start. So, thank you for admitting to something you just denied.
Besides, when I told you to stop messaging me, you ignored me and claimed you didn't care and that it was "justice" to harass me.
Yeah, you did. Seriously, you just called me a blackmailer! I don't get how you think you can insult, apologize, then insult again and think you're in the clear, but that's just not how things work.
Do you see what I'm dealing with here? I have told you he keeps insulting me and doing everything he can to be annoying. You have told him that he is being problematic. What's his response? To continue the same behavior, and now he's falsely claiming I'm blackmailing him. Please do something as a moderator and make this stop. It's been going on for days now, and I think we've all had enough. This kills the fun of debating.
Heres proof he insulted and harassed me.
Insults:
"This guy is so lazy."
"Probably you are a kid, you do not know what you are saying and what that means."
"Kid grow up, you are asking me to give you physical evidence for a dream, lmao."
"Do not cry bro."
"Kid, you are already fked in debate why eating my brain here, you have not seen my toxicity yet. It's better you stop your poop eating monkey brain. And get the fk out of here."
Need I go on cause I can quote more?
Now the harassment:
Me: Please stop texting me. I enjoy a debate and argument but this is just pointless and obsessive. I'm not responding anymore after this comment.
Him: I have accepted lemming' lame vote and accepted easy win as the but you this comment"My report didn't get addressed yet" made me ne mumscruntize lemming argument again. Why complain now?
Did I not say in my last round there vote on my debate carefully, probably you did not see how it went on my previous debates. One vote on my previous debate was like lemming from Bella which I really wanted to get tested and checked but the problem is long gone.
All these matters are related to our afterlife and eternal life not some fun fare.
I take them seriously and I have taken it.
Alhamd ll Allah
May Allah guide us all ameen
Me: I have asked you to stop communicating with me, and you are still doing so. This is clearly harassment, and I have notified the moderators. My advice is to stop now. You are being disrespectful, and I have no desire to communicate with you further. At this point, I do not care if you win or not, as you are only annoying me. Leave me alone.
Him again: Who cares? Justice must be served. If you want someone to not disturb you just stop replying, it's childish if you feel harassment when someone argue for your argument.
There you go harassment and bullying.
I am experiencing significant challenges due to the current lack of substantive debate participation. The few individuals engaging in debate are often unproductive, hindering constructive dialogue. Insufficient moderation exacerbates this issue. Consequently, opportunities for meaningful engagement are severely limited.
Furthermore, even when debates occur, participants frequently fail to engage in good-faith discussion. Despite my commitment to this platform and the value of debate, a laissez-faire approach to moderation is demonstrably ineffective. This platform requires both enhanced monitoring and increased active participation to thrive.
At this point, I honestly do not care. I created this debate hoping to have a good discussion and open some minds to other viewpoints. However, all I received for my efforts was insults, religious intolerance, and toxic behavior.
I did everything I could to maintain respect and follow the rules. My opponent did the exact opposite, and the moderators did nothing and did not care. This is precisely why there is virtually no activity on this site.
The moderators don't do anything unless they are complained to, and even then, they only take half measures. Their excuse is that they are "off-hand" in leadership or that it is somehow not their job.
It is self-evident that inadequate site moderation will lead to detrimental consequences.
Therefore, given the lack of activities in this app, the inability to ensure DebateArt remains a place of intellectual decorum by its administrators, and the disrespect I have received from my opponent, who should be reprimanded for his behavior, I will no longer be active on this site after this debate.
I express my gratitude to those users who have maintained ethical conduct and engaged in respectful debate throughout their time on this platform, and I will miss their contributions.
Moderators White Flower and Barney, I express profound disappointment in your leadership. You were entrusted with the critical, albeit challenging, responsibility of maintaining this site's functionality and upholding the honor and integrity of its debates against malicious actors. Your failure stems not from inability, but from a demonstrable lack of commitment. I trust this decision meets with your approval.
Regarding my competitor, I acknowledge my error in judgment. My misplaced confidence in your ability to maintain respectful conduct has resulted in a reassessment of my approach to future collaborations.
A structured debate, followed by a vote and the acceptance of its outcome, would have ensured a more amicable conclusion.
However, you chose instead to mock my ideologies, attack my character, and show an utter lack of human decency. Worst of all, you attacked other people for simply voting for me, citing poor conduct.
I would say you disappoint me, but that would require expectations, which you have proven to lack.
So, by all means, Trigger Lord, enjoy a website that not only does not hold you accountable for your actions but also chooses to allow them. Mods don't care if you act offensively, so feel free. I'm done (however, I have not conceded this debate). I have better things to do than to waste time here.
Thank you all and goodbye.
I have asked you to stop communicating with me, and you are still doing so. This is clearly harassment, and I have notified the moderators. My advice is to stop now. You are being disrespectful, and I have no desire to communicate with you further. At this point, I do not care if you win or not, as you are only annoying me. Leave me alone.
Please stop texting me. I enjoy a debate and argument but this is just pointless and obsessive. I'm not responding anymore after this comment.
My report didn't get addressed yet
As I said, I am not debating with this with you anymore because your just a toxic troll and I am done hearing these stupid arguments that serve no purpose.
Do me a favor and just stop. I'm not capable of continuing an argument this unintelligent and repetitive. You've made your decision to be as toxic as usual, and we will see what the moderators do with it. Just so you know as well, the moderator who will be reviewing this has also agreed to review the comments that you have made, which I believe will further strengthen my point. So have a good day and please do not message me anymore because I will not respond to it.
"It was not mentioned in description that its allowed, and this is a debate site based on text, not video. Also, I have already explained why video arguments are rejected."
Once again, this is irrelevant because it is not a whole violation to bring the video in the middle of the debate. I have already told you repeatedly that I have discussed this with the moderators, and they concurred that you can use a video in a debate. Secondly, your reasoning is the very problem. You rejected it specifically because it was a video argument, and you didn't even bother to listen to it. White flower has already confirmed to me that you are not allowed to just ignore it simply because it's a video. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, that answer is not going to change.
"There are no voting rules which say that links are valid arguments."
That's because the link is not the argument. The video is.
"If someone just posts bunch of links in a debate and says that all arguments are there, I have no need to even open those links, since no argument was presented in debate itself."
According to your own logic, you had no reason not to listen to what I said, because every link I provided was accompanied by a written argument until round three. Second, a link to a video is not "a bunch of links." Third, there is no way to make a video on this site without providing a link, so your argument is self-defeating at best. Besides, we both know the real reason is due to our innate biases and the fact that you are a troll on here. You have no legitimate cause to argue but to argue it is the very reason I don't bother debating with you and literally anything that you do.
I didn't use personal experience in my argument. I provided links to evidence that was either in the form of a video or based on academic studies. Your whole argument for me making a contradiction was that my argument of personal experience somehow falls apart. My arguments never relied on personal experience. They relied on fields of study and tests that were conducted by scientists in those fields. Ergo, not my personal experience or based on a single individual. The only reason you call it a personal experience is because you refuse to acknowledge that you can observe something even if you cannot physically see it. There go. There was no contradiction except for your own backwards logic, which is apply to what I said.
Personal experience arguments requires either I'm basing it off of something I personally experienced, or an individual. I mentioned neither myself nor an individual in my arguments, and therefore there was no contradiction.
"So you think EEG makes you see people's dreams? I dont think so."
I never said that it allows you to see a person's dreams. I only said that it allows you to observe dreams because you are monitoring their brain activity, which are affected by dreams. I feel like I have to tell you that simply saying that you can observe something does not necessarily always mean you have to physically see it. For example, you cannot physically see wind, yet you can still observe it through measuring it. So if we can measure wind without seeing it, I don't see how we're not able to observe dreams through brain activity, even if we cannot see the dream itself.
"Monitoring brain activity and observing dreams arent same thing. As Pro has explained, science is limited and cant observe dreams"
Pro may have said that, however, my links which go into fields of study negate that because it goes outside of hearsay. So pro didn't actually explain anything. They merely said what they thought, and they had no scientific evidence to back it up. In contrast, I had scientific proof to show that we have the ability to monitor dreams through brain activity. So scientifically speaking, they are the same thing. And whatever pro set is irrelevant, because he can't provide any evidence where I did.
"As explained before, since science cant observe dreams, the only thing left is your personal experience examples"
Rank, which isn't true because I have provided evidence of scientists not only monitoring dreams through brain activity, but also performing experiments. So it's not personal experience examples because nothing I just said was based on personal experience. Everything I said was based on scientific fields of study, which is not a personal experience.
"such as some people being able to control what they dream."
Lucid dreaming is not a personal experience. Secondly, I justified that by providing a field of study that showed people being able to respond to people while asleep and dreaming. So no matter how you slice it, I never used a personal experience example. You simply call it a personal experience example because you refuse to acknowledge that scientists have the ability to monitor brain activity, which is considered to be equal to monitoring dreams. So your logic is faulty, and your claims are once again false.
"So no written arguments."
I'm sorry, but is English not your forte? Did you miss the part where it was established that I can make a video in the form of an argument, and therefore claiming that written arguments are required isn't true? Did you also miss the part where I told you that I've already received a private message letting me know that you are not allowed to ignore videos just because they are not written?
"My reason for voting had nothing to do with either video link. I used arguments written in debate to give vote."
right. Which means that you violated the rules by ignoring what I said simply because I gave a video link rather than writing in a text. something that was both completely valid according to the rules of the science and also a rule violation as you're not allowed to ignore arguments just because of the form they are given.
"That doesnt mean you can observe dreams."
Yes, it does. because we can monitor brain activity through an EGG machine. and you thus need brain activity in order to dream that we monitor dreams through brain activity. Next thing you're going to tell me is that just because you need a needle to inject penicillin in the body that does not mean we can actually give people penicillin.
"No, observing a dream, as you have said yourself, is something you cannot do."
Not what I said. I said that you cannot see in what the other person sees in the dream itself. However, you can still monitor brain activity, which allows you to observe dreams. You're literally trying to argue we can't do things that we literally have machines for simply because you wanna be super technical out of your toxic behavior. No matter how technical you try to make it, the fact still remains that dreams can be monitored via brain activity. Anything else you wanna say? You make is relevant.
"Nowhere in this source is dream being observed."
Yes they are that is the whole point they are hooked up to machines montitoring their brains and talking to them. Brain activity and dreams are the same thing. I am sorry if this simple concept escapes you but different words can have the same meaning.
"Monitoring brainwaves, again, has nothing to do with monitoring dreams. Spikes in neural activity also doesnt mean you are observing their dream."
Yes it does.
"In science, monitoring dreams is achieved by tracking brain activity through techniques like electroencephalography (EEG), which records electrical signals from the brain, allowing researchers to identify distinct patterns associated with different sleep stages, particularly Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep, when dreaming is most likely to occur"
https://www.google.com/search?q=explain+how+montoring+the+brain+is+montioring+dreams+in+science&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1135US1135&oq=explain+how+montoring+the+brain+is+montioring+dreams+in+science&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAtIBCTEzNDgwajBqNKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"Again, thats not observing dreams."
Again argument debunked.
"That has nothing to do with observing those images, ideas, emotions or sensations, let alone the cause of those."
According to you. However the scientific community says otherwise as my quote and link prove.
"Notice the words "in this view", so thats not Pro's position, but an explanation of the position held by someone else."
By saying that dreams are nothing more than images or physical phenomena, Pro is acknowledging the scientific point of view without challenging it. If Pro had said "While the scientific view is this" or "However, while the scientific view is this," then Pro would have challenged the scientific view. Therefore, Pro agreed that from a scientific view, dreams are nothing more than images or physical phenomena. Because they did not challenge it, they conceded that perspective as valid even if they did not agree.
"So your proof that monitoring brain means observing dreams is that some scientists came to conclusion about dreams?
Oh God...
So if I come to conclusion about your debate, then I have observed it, thus you now cannot even claim that I ignored your arguments.
Your own logic beats you."
If that were indeed what I was saying sure. However, that is simply you trying to procrastinate your own ideology onto my own. My proof that we are monitoring brain activity to observe dreams comes from the fact that scientists usually have technology to do so. which I have just given you a link to. And quoted on top of it, you cannot argue against the scientific ability to monitor dreams through brain activity when there's actually methods and technology to do so. So at this point, you're just trying to justify ignorance.
"You didnt write an argument, so you concede that your round 3 wasnt valid."
Incorrect, I may not have made in argument in writing. However, I still gave one in the form of a video, which is not against the rules. The person you are supporting has also claimed to have done this. So, your argument is pointless since your trying to justify voting for someone on the very premise you claim makes mine not valid.
"I understand that words confuse you, so you think "monitoring brain" = observing dreams, however thats obviously not true."
Monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity. Scientists can observe dreams by monitoring brain activity. Dreams can't happen without a brain, so monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity. So, I apologize that basic education escaped you.
"Which neither means that there was no contradiction in what you said, neither addresses the contradiction."
Which also subsequently means that, unless you can actually provide an example of said contradiction, we can't presume there is a contradiction for it to be addressed. You know your framework of argument is essential to arguing that someone made a joke that literally no one heard, and therefore it's still valid because it had to have happened even if no one heard it.
The contradiction in such a framework is obvious to anyone who's actually trying to be intellectual.
"It was literally mentioned over and over in the vote. You rejected personal experiences as evidence while using personal experiences as evidence."
I didn't use personal experience in my argument. I provided links to evidence that was either in the form of a video or based on academic studies. By all means quote me where I used a personal experience for myself or another person as a jet means to justify my position. If he can't do so, then you're obviously lying like you've done so many other times. I don't know what motivates you to act this way BK. But it's not a problem because I've already informed the moderators of your activity you're lying and you're obvious bias towards my position. So regardless of how many times you argue with me, or make a nonsensical argument that is essentially meaningless. your vote and your comments are going to be reviewed and I'm very confident your vote will be removed.
"So how is this relevent to our debate?
This can verify the content of dreams which dreamer has told us, it even proves my point."
No, it doesn't because the point of that field of study debunks the idea of dreams being influenced by divine messages because dreams can be affected by physical phenomenon in the real world thats the exact opposite of your pont.
"Dreamer telling dream during dream or after does it change the fact there it's subjective and personal."
The point of the study was not to determine what a person was dreaming about or what they thought they saw. The point was to show that people can respond to the outside world even when they are dreaming. This further supports the idea that dreams are the byproduct of physical experiences and stimuli. Meaning that your dreams are not defined in nature, but rather the result of what you experience in the outside world. which can still simulate what you've encountered in the dream based on what you hear and or told while sleeping.
" Clearly dream being spiritual are 100 percent related to interpretation. Content must be analyzed and then interpreted later to whatever has been seen in dream is related to reality or not. You must not be that childish to not understand this simple logic."
Understanding and agreeing are two different concepts. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's true. If scientists can show that your dream is influenced by what's happening around you while you're sleeping, or even prior to your sleep, then the content of your dream is not real. And because dreams are subjective, you can't prove that any part of them was divinely inspired.
Thank you for informing me that you supposedly made a video in the second round because that makes BK's arguments even weaker since he is giving you a better argument vote for obvious bias and completely ignored my argument on the basis that I made a video that supposedly doesn't count yet he allowed you to make a video as well.
Also atheism wasn't a factor in this until YOU brought it up. I argued against your position on a purely scientific basis. Not an atheist one. You brought atheism on by mocking my atheistic opinions and then declaring rudely that all who voted for me were atheist as well. I also never negated your dream argument and I addressed it. There was nothing in your argument I did not address.
"Links arent arguments. Links are sources. Arguments are what you write in debate."
Yes, however, when you are making an argument that's supported by sources that makes it valid. Your whole claim was that my empirical evidence was negated by the fact that, supposedly, scientists can't monitor the human brain. The fact I post links with arguments that proved otherwise is an argument of itself. If I were not making the argument that scientists can monitor the human brain, why would I post a link that proves it?
"They are legit if voters accept them. I have provided reasons why I didnt accept a link as argument."
Not true in fact, I just had a private conversation with White flower who agreed you can't simply ignore a video argument. Secondly, it is not making a link argument by posting a link as the video. The video is the argument the link is simply the method in which you can review it. I'm sorry, but you're not gonna make a very convincing argument here, especially when you're clearly going against the rules.
"Plus, I have read votes of other voters, and there was no mention of you solving the obvious contradiction of your case. So if you solved the contradiction in your video, sure, I will delete my vote myself, but given how blatant the contradiction is, I dont think you addressed the contradiction anywhere."
That is because the other voters didn't find a contradiction in what I said. So you're not really making a whole lot of sense there. in order for me to address a supposed contradiction. It has to be pointed out and proven. I have made no such contradictions and therefore you cannot use that as a reason as it lacks any foundation.
"No, you didnt."
Okay now we have you lying again.
https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-entered-peoples-dreams-and-got-them-talking
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284378#_noHeaderPrefixedContent
https://hms.harvard.edu/news-events/publications-archive/brain/nightmares-brain
"Watching people sleep and talk in sleep is not observing their dreams."
Actually it is because there not simply "Watching them" they are connected to machines that allow scientists to monitor brainwaves and thus see spikes in neural activity. We may not be able to see in their minds eye what occurs in the deram but we very much monitor brain activity in dreams.
"No, Pro clearly said that science cannot observe dreams. If you are done with your little outburst, we can move along."
Actually the pro said and I quote
"From a scientific standpoint, a dream is a sequence of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that typically occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep, particularly REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep. According to studies in neurobiology, dreams are often the result of brain activity as the mind processes information, emotions, and memories from waking life. The brain, in this view, generates dreams as a natural byproduct of its nightly maintenance and consolidation of knowledge."
How do you think scientist's came ti this conclusion that the pro said? By MONITORING BRAIN ACTIVELY. Something you both said I never showed and are now lying and saying the Pro did not acknowledge.
First of all your argument was the last argument to be made in the debate. So how exactly am I to respond to a personal video? especially in the debate that is over by that point? Secondly, I never dropped any argument whatsoever, which is my entire point. Every argument you made when it was my turn, I addressed. and I offered rebuttals, which again proved that BK is being the incredibly biased.
"There is nothing scientific been discussed here."
You literally have been arguing that your argument fits well with Islam and science and now you are saying that "nothing scientific" is being discussed here. make up your mind.
"Bro seriously?
You said I have not put any source and yet you have confirmed my source and in fact explaining it. See my source can he checked so now where is your argument that I did not put any scientific source. Also you said URL is actually accepted source. Bro I have been debating for very long. It's not good now. You are not being sincere here."
Ignoring the fact you're not making any sense at this point. I never said you didn't put any source. I said that you didn't put any scientific based sources to justify your position. All your sources have been either pseudoscience or theologian in nature. And I already proved that by literally going to your sources and researching and finding that they are pseudoscientific in nature or irrelevant to the point you were trying to argue. I'm sorry, but you can't twist what I say because I'm very consistent.
"The arguments from video werent presented in debate itself, so they can be ignored."
Makes zero sense. I submitted the link in the debate for voters to see and review and mods have said videos are just as legit as written arguments. So, your claim is both false and still against the rules.
"However, I have read other votes as well, and nothing in them seems to affect my vote."
Irrelevant. You still willingly admitted to ignoring arguments, which is a violation and you lied saying I did not challenged Pros arguements despite written evidence saying otherwise.
"Your "empirical evidence" was negated by obvious fact that science cannot observe dreams."
Nice try, but I submitted multiple sources that demonstrated that scientists can indeed observe dreams. In fact one of my sources highlighted an experiment that showed people being tested to be responsive to dreams when asked questions. More over, I explained in my arguments that scientists can monitor brain activity while someone is sleeping. Pro even acknowledged this. So, nothing was negated but your own inbility to be fair since you did not bother reading what I wrote or reviewed the evidence.
Another fun fact for you: Benjamin Libet himself believed that his theories showed that humans have free will. He believed that we can negate an action at the last second, and that the purpose of his experiments was to show that the brain can unconsciously choose to do an action before a person can actually commit the action. If the debate had been about free will, that would be relevant. However, we are talking about dreams and their meaning, not whether people have free will.
None of it supports religious interpretations of dreams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
Also his theories remain only theoretical instead of true. https://www.google.com/search?q=are+benjamin+libets+thoeires+true+or+just+theortical&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1135US1135&oq=are+benjamin+libets+thoeires+true+or+just+theortical&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgYIBRAhGAoyBwgGECEYjwIyBwgHECEYjwLSAQkyMzQ0MWowajSoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
actually that's exactly what source are. you find a website or article (preferably reputable ones) that support your argument and you submit them as a URL for all to see. Anyway now that we have confirmed that you subscribe to pseudo scientific research to support your religious bias and incorrect belief that science and Islam go well together. How about you actually look at the sources I provided and prove how they are not valid since they come from the scientific community?
No you didn't. You are cherry picking the closest pseudo scientists you think will validate your beliefs. You have no response or rebuttal to the arguments I made which were devoid of religious bias and entirely based on the scientific community.
Fun fact, "Quantum Consciousness:" is regarded as Pseudo science. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness#:~:text=While%20many%20attempts%20at%20a,the%20%22binding%20problem%22).
Your religious views are not shared by everyone. For example, you believe that Islam is the oldest and one true religion in the world. However, there are much older recorded religions, and the earliest accepted date for the beginning of Islam dates back to the 600s when Muhammad lived. In fact, the Quran didn't exist while Muhammad was alive, which makes Islam younger than religions founded in the BC Era, such as Christianity. Also, your Quran says that Allah made the first man out of clay and dirt. However, biology disagrees because it has been proven that life can only come from other living creatures, and mud and clay are not living organisms and thus incapable of creating life.
The Quran is not a scientific text, so it cannot be used to prove anything scientific. In fact, using the Quran to support a scientific argument is the most unscientific thing you can do.
You did not give scientific sources. Nor did you give historical evidence. Science doesn't believe in religious theology nor validate it and History and theology are not the same thing. The Quran is not accepted universally as a historical book and hardly any of it can be defended from a scientific point of view.
I'm letting you know that your vote is likely to be removed soon because I've reported several violations. The first is your admission that you ignored my video argument intentionally. That's a violation because you cannot give someone the "better argument" vote and then justify it by admitting you didn't review the other arguments. You also lied and said that I "dropped" the arguments of the Pro, which is false, and that they went unchallenged, which the debate clearly shows otherwise. If you had conducted the vote fairly and simply said you didn't find my arguments convincing and gave clear examples of why, there would be no issues. However, all you did was show obvious bias, especially when you argue that the logical arguments of the Pro are somehow better than my empirical evidence, which you clearly did not review.
I've come to the conclusion he's just going to argue no matter what. Don't waste the energy.
"Nope because, they are atheists not because you made solid arguements.
What they are claiming in RFDs I have dealt with it already and in great detail. I have talked in scientific prospect as well. But they only read half part of debate and gave decision.."
Your free to think that, but as it stands, you have no basis for that accusation. You also have shown no evidence that they only read "half" of the debate.
"If we know how flowers bloom, does it means God do not exist? Knowing the mechanism of something do not negate God."
That wasn't my point. My point was that religion and science are not the same because they come away with two very different conclusions for the same subject. When religion doesn't understand something, it will claim it's the work of their god. However, when science encounters the unknown, they observe, theorize, and test until they figure out the answer.
"They overlooked my whole debate and solid arguments. All dreams being physical and their interpretation could be spiritual was my argument.
I have proven it how science do not know about consciousness, let alone unconscious mind which govern dreams.
So disappointed"
They didn't "overlook" your arguments. They in fact addressed them directly. Their response to you was that you made good points, but failed to convince them because they found scientific arguments backed with academic sources more convincing then faith based arguments and personal experiences.
"Knowledge is not negation of God but proof of God. Christian apologist gave to he vibe and sentiment of science the opposition of theism. While science compliment Islam.
I should have been concise so that they cannot overlook my main arguments while I try to give as much info as I can. But tbh both votes are personal bias"
Nope. Knowledge is not proof of God because knowledge is not attributed to believing in a God. According to that logic, I should believe God is the reason 2 + 2 = 4. However, that equation will always be true regardless if one believes in God or not. Your knowledge is going to depend on your own efforts and willingness to learn. Not because God gave you the ability to learn. Islam and science also don't compliment each other because science is not in agreement that Allah is real.
"I will make YouTube video about this debate show how biased people are when they are atheists in debates."
Feel free too, but no one was being bias for being atheists. I did my job as con and provided counter arguments to your original arguments. The two people that voted so far only voted for me because they found my arguments, which were scientific based, more persuasive then your theologian arguments. That's not biased at all. If anyone showed bias it was you because you framed your argument in such a way that it only appealed to those of Islamic faith and essentially required voters to take Islam as the true faith, which would not sit well with any other faith or ideology.
"Can you see, that is why theism is just personal bias and falsehood of scientists who develop their career on their personal theories which are declared false later on.
If proven to be true then they get the idea from religion."
Theism and science are two different subjects. Science does not have any claims that gods are real or that things happen due to divine causes. Second, theories are neither personal nor are they inspired by religion.
When asked why flowers bloom in sunlight but not in shade or winter seasons, religious people will say it's because of God's divine will. Scientists, on the other hand, will explain that plants use sunlight to give themselves nutrients and help them grow. Scientists back up their assertions by explaining how they arrived at their theories and then demonstrating how they know their theories are true based on experiments that were conducted based on those theories.
Science is always evolving, and new discoveries can lead to theories being overturned or modified. However, that does not mean that the original theories were false; it is simply a reflection of the nature of science itself. What can be true 10 years or 100 previously, does not mean it will remain true now or even later.
Truly, I do not understand the point you are trying to make here. I brought up a fair point that making pre-assumptions and requiring people to accept them paints a limiting and unfair debate. So far your only counters were to claim my analogy is flawed (but never showing it) and then try to accuse me of being "Annoying as fuck." Just because I made arguments you seemingly have no response to.
Now, your taking your subjective view point as if it is something we all have to go along with and we don't. You did not have an issue with how the host framed the debate. great for you. But that doesn't mean others can't offer other perspectives on that same issue. There is no reason to get upset over it or yell profanity. You can simply say you don't agree with me and that's fine. I would even love to hear your reasoning so I can offer clarity and a different perspective.
However, when you just came at me with aggression and then ignore everything I have to say and declare it flawed with no evidence and then end it with "I don't want to talk to you." Attitude. I take that as just simply being intolerant and it reminds me of PC culture where no matter what we say the other side will just turn it into an offense or frame it to somehow be a bad thing.
I may be old school in my reasoning, but I take the view that when we meet opposition or disagreement. We should do our best to avoid being offended unless actual hurtful things are said. We also should strive for understanding rather then seeking agreement. I don't subscribe to this (in my opinion) backwards line of reasoning where we meet disagreement with aggression, presume the other side has no merits at all (as I agreed with some of your points) and then when we run out of arguments end it with "I don't want to talk with you anymore." Just listen to what others say, Agree with some points (if you do agree with any that is) say you still disagree and end with a respectful jester of good will.
You are, of course. free to conduct yourself in any manner you wish and ignore what I am saying. But, I hope that you can at least see that perhaps maybe their is value in reconducting yourself in a more pleasent manner. good discussion and good day.
"Do you seriously see nothing wrong with this? Yeah, you could do that, but now the ENTIRE topic of the debate has been changed completely."
Not really. As Con, you need to make an argument as for WHY God the father and the Holy father are not different persons (which was the whole point originally) and you could do that by taking the atheist point of view that they aren't different because they don't exist. Now, because the host changed it to say that the Bible supports the idea or not, I see what your saying. However, You should not have to believe the bible is divine. You could take the point of Con and not be restricted by pre-assumed beliefs by arguing that the bible is interpretive rather than factual and therefore it could easily be argued that the Bible does not actually support it because its based on a persons interpretations rather than fact.
That would not change the topic at all. However, because you are REQUIRED to assume the bible is divine, such an argument would go against the rules and thus give pro an unfair advantage. You simply cannot justify giving one side an unlimited framework to choose from but then limit it greatly to another.
" Or do you just want to have the right to be as annoying as fuck? Because having someone barge in and completely derail the debate IS annoying, and I would never judge anyone for including a rule to prevent that. In fact, I'd encourage it."
Honesty i find this argument to be very narrow minded in reasoning and completely missing my point. No where did I say there should not be any rules. Nor did I imply you should be annoying. The ONLY way I see your argument making sense is if One person makes a debate and then the person who accepts it just says something moronic like, "I like potato's." THAT I agree would be very annoying indeed.
However, What I am arguing against is the idea that one must accept pre-determined beliefs in order to just participate in it. It is both bias, unfair, and limits the perspective that can be diverse and varies but maintains the original topic. I agree completely about needing to stay on topic and provided reasonable arguments. nevertheless, there is a fine line between making a rule of a debate that requires one to stay on topic and then making bias rules that force you to argue from a circular framework that you may not agree with and prevent you from offering different points of view.
Ask yourself this since you are a fellow atheist. Would it be fair for someone to make a debate about a religious figure or person and invite you to debate them but on the condition that you must accept that person was divine according to a particular religion? If the answer is no, then my point is as plain as day. If you still can't get it, then I honestly don't know how else to explain that true debates come from hearing ALL perspectives related to the topic and it is unfair to make debates with loaded pre-assumptions that must be accepted no matter what.
I don't understand how my analogy is flawed. If you think it is, then provide evidence. The fact that this is a doctrinal debate doesn't mean it has to be exclusively within Christian circle reasoning or standard of evidence. For every topic there are infinite perspectives to take. For example, if an atheist takes the debate (without the rule) they could argue that the father and the holy spirit are not distinct persons because neither exists despite the Bible's insistence that they might, and that is completely valid position that works well within the topic if a rule not requiring you to act as a Christian is never made .
"Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true is completely standard for this type of debate. It would be an odd choice not to include it." This argument is self-defeating because it is unfair to require participants to accept this assumption. This restriction forces them into a circular argument and prevents them from using their own perspectives and evidence. I don't think one has to act or agree with Christian beliefs in order to debate a Christian topic.
Why should anyone in a debate be told that they have to believe in something in order to argue for or against something? Suppose the debate is about whether capitalism supports private ownership and freedom. If the debate's rules require you to assume that capitalism is divinely inspired, would that be fair to someone who doesn't believe that or wants to make an argument that contradicts that premise?
Look at it from this perspective: Say I create a debate over tipping and asking if tipping 20% is considered cheap or fair. You, a person who has a passion about the concept of tipping and want to throw your hat in the ring is suddenly met in the rules that you must accept that tipping is the greatest thing ever. How can someone who wants to be con or pro truly offer their perspective if the very rules require you to claim you believe in something you do not? And if you decide to accept that regardless of your true feelings, what arguments can you make when your not allowed to say anything negative about tipping in general?
That's the problem with requiring prerequisites of opinions as conditions for accepting a debate. In the context of this debate, requiring that the person accept the bible as divinity inspired restricts those who might try to argue outside of Christian sources. it is also important for you to know that when this debate was originally made the title was "Are the God of the father and God of the holy spirt the different people" with the rule being added. He only changed it to the bible supports the nation because I made my point previously about the topic being closed to certain circles because of the requirement of needing both sides to agree to believe in the Bible as divine.
Plus, I told him he can do what he wants and that I was only trying to let him know the flaws of the approach. So, its not like I told him in any rude manner that he can't do what he wants or has to do something. And I mean this with total respect to all present, but people these days need to be able to take criticism better. Since I did not curse or insult anyone and have at up to this point maintained professional decorum. I shouldn't be talked it as if I spit in someone's food. I also further apologize if that is not how you meant it, but that is how it is seeming to me.
All i did was make an observation that every debate he makes requires that people accept pre-beliefs that others who may want to participate do not accept and that he should be more open about the diversity of opinions others have over religious concepts to include a more wider audience. I then tried to explain that point of view. So, far either my message has been misunderstood or people are getting overly offended by that simple statement. You don't have to agree and I am always happy to hear different point of view. However, I have a right to express my opinions no matter how it affects others. So, make a big deal out of it if you must. I am merely trying to provide another perspective.
Look you can do what you want. I am just telling you that the reality is there are a diversity of people with varying beliefs and that go for and against the bible and when you try to force people to agree to beliefs just for the sake of debating you, many do not partake. Do with that fact for what you will. I am just making you aware of it.
That's my point. Not everyone agrees that the bible is true. No one said YOU can't use the bible as the basis of your arguments. However, when you force others to do the same, you both deny their ability to put forth their own ideological thinking, and force them to stay within a circular reasoning that gives you an unfair advantage. Just as it is completely valid for you to use your faith as the basis of your argument, it would be valid for someone to say. "My opponents arguments may be based on the bible, but if we don't take that as a credible source and look at none theocratic based evidence we will find etc."
True debates are not conducted when you set rules that force people to accept beliefs they may not share.
See, your not going to get a lot of people accepting a debate where both parties have to agree that the bible is divinity inspired. Not everyone is Christian or even believes in God. You have got to add room for other beliefs or lack there of if you want challengers.
"I never disrespected you, in fact in this debate I remain to the point, I do not know why you felt disrespectful. Tbh this was my best debate regarding respect, check my other debates they were far worse."
And once again, you decide to lie as if it's actually going to do you any good. Where do I start? how about the fact that you literally made claims that I was intellectually dishonest simply because I disregarded your hearsay story? Or the fact that you literally mocked my atheism by claiming that I wanted to listen to other atheists, like Richard Dawkins, even though that that was never part of the discussion to begin with. In fact, literally everything I gave was scientifically based, which had nothing to do with atheism at all. You simply made mention of it to personally attack me and my character.
Your subsequent responses have been to curse at me and call me a child. And that is before we get into you lying about me bringing up irrelevant topics and accusing of laziness simply because I took time and effort to make a video. If you genuinely can't see any of that as disrespectful, then you have some serious mental issues. that or your sense of maturity never passed the age of 5.
Lastly, telling me to look at your other debates and declaring them as far worse is actually pretty unintelligent of you. because you're essentially saying that this is the norm for you to be disrespectful and even worse manners, as if that somehow absolved your horrible behavior here, It doesn't. If anything, it gives credence to everything I've said about you. The reason why you can't handle formal debate is because you simply don't have the maturity for it. You would rather lie about your opponents and disrespect them rather than genuinely have tolerance for what they say or understand their point.
" I never thought of disrespectful at any instance in debate. Everything I said was for the sake of arguemnt. I do not know why you felt that way. Can you mentioned where my tone was disrespectful in last 2 rounds plz?"
It has nothing to do with tone. It had to do with the fact that you claimed I did intellectually dishonest things, which wasn't true, that I was somehow using atheist testimonies, which also wasn't true. And and any other accusations which were blatantly false. Then you try to make a false case of victimhood by saying I was narrowing your view simply because I made arguments against religion. At no point did I stop you from using religion as an excuse. I merely criticize the fact that you can't prove it to be true.
What you did in the comments you have made subsequently afterwards are obviously offensive and meant to be hurtful. You're not even ashamed of yourself as you willingly call yourself a toxic person as if that is something to be proud of. if you had any common decency, you could see the fault in your display of behavior. However, you've made it clear that you absolutely lack this quality that most humans possess. I don't know if it's simply because you feel emboldened by the Internet. or if it's because you had a terrible life filled with influences that were equally as toxic as you are today. or it's simply the person you're choosing to be, no matter what someone says to you. Regardless of the truth, you are a toxic person and somebody who no one can respect because you can't respect others. telling me that you've been far worse with other people doesn't justify anything.
You may crave the final word, demand it even, but let's be clear: this communication breakdown? It's on you. All it would have taken to preserve any semblance of dignity was a simple agreement to disagree. But instead, you chose rudeness, disrespect. Perhaps nobody has had the courage to tell you this before, but you are not the center of the universe. When you act out, throwing tantrums and ignoring all wisdom and decency, you become something far worse than irrelevant. You become toxic, a presence people avoid, a voice they tune out. Respect is earned, and right now, you're deeply in debt.