I don't want Raltar's vote, because his votes are worthless. He doesn't vote on what is. He votes on what his mind creates, like a true theist.
To destroy, in the way that I used the word, is to easily defeat. I easily defeated Mopac, therefore I destroyed him. I don't care if you agree with the word usage, and it certainly has absolutely no bearing on who won the debate.
I'm not some child who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. I get angry when I see a place of intellect taken over by idiots. You can't seriously tell me you don't find votes for Mopac in THIS debate to be idiotic. I clearly won dude. You'd have to be a complete imbecile to think Mopac won.
@Ramshutu Did you not read my comments to him? I pointed out two very specific things in his vote that were incorrect. Did you simply ignore them, or do you just feel like further annoying me by making bullshit comments? There was nothing vague at all about my "allegations." Oh, and showing all 5 of his arguments to be guilty of the exact same fallacy destroys an argument. That's how.
@Raltar: "and you clearly set this debate up knowing in advance what Mopac was going to do and in a way that would sabotage him while giving you an excuse to say nothing in defense of your own position."
Seriously? You think this debate would have been any different at all if I hadn't made rules? Dude, Mopac didn't even FOLLOW the rules! And I STILL beat him! The only reason I made those rules is because Mopac's argument is utterly fucking ridiculous and not worthy of debate, because he's essentially trying to "define" his god into existence. It's a pathetic and laughable excuse for an argument that you apparently support(what does that say about you, sir?). But, as I said, he ignored my rules and went on with his idiotic arguments, and I defeated them easily. I didn't even need to try, because trying to "define" something into existence is self defeating. All I needed to do is point out the fallacy and walk away.
It doesn't, but there appears to be nothing any of us can do about it. I had several issues with your vote, because several of your reasons given were invalid, such as claiming I have a burden of proof, when even if I hadn't written a description, I wouldn't have, because I'm not making a claim, and saying I didn't provide an effective rebuttal, when my rebuttal utterly destroyed Mopac's entire argument, which can be clearly and easily seen by anyone with the ability to read and interpret the English language. Your vote was full of bias. You were looking for any reason you possibly could to vote against me because I'm an atheist in a debate against theism, and when you couldn't find any valid reason at all, you made up reasons. I can't believe the mods actually allowed that vote to stand, but I'm glad they did, because it shows me how biased even the mods are, and shows me what to expect from this site in terms of objectivity in moderation, and likelihood of actually winning a debate based on the arguments instead of what the voter personally believes.
I may have still won, but the fact that Mopac got any votes at all proves that this isn't a very good site for debate.
It doesn't really matter whether you can see your own stupidity or not, because everyone else can. I don't expect to be able convince someone that they're wrong when they insist that they're right even in the face of overwhelming proof that they aren't. It would be quite insane of me to expect to change the mind of someone who is cognitively dissonant. It is good enough for me that every person, regardless of what they personally believe(atheist, theist, anyone) is going to take one look at the insanity of your words here, and understand that you are utterly, and indeed laughably, unreasonable.
It's actually not irrelevant nonsense. He is giving a very basic example of knowledge a priori to you. The fact that you clearly don't understand his example proves that you didn't even read my opening argument. I'd be willing to bet money that you completely ignored it and just posted yours, and ignored each subsequent argument I made, aside from reading the text so you'd have something to respond to. You have no idea what knowledge a priori is do you? This is mind boggling. A guy who thinks he can define gods into existence, as if a human construct(words) had some kind of magical power to create gods, further proves his ignorance by saying that an example of knowledge a priori is "irrelevant nonsense." lmao, I really hope the entirety of the members of this site have witnessed this debate, and all of the comments between Mopac, myself, and Ramshutu, because if they have, no one, atheist nor Christian, will ever take Mopac seriously again.
I'm sitting here shaking my head and wondering when Ramhutu is gunna finally realize that Mopac isn't interested in being correct. He's one of those people who will cling to a belief even in the presence of smoking-gun-proof that their belief is wrong. Continued debate with such people is quite literally insane, which leads me to a point I'd like to make to Ramshutu: Insanity, as I'm sure you know, is defined as the repeating of the same action numerous times, expecting different results. Being that you're clearly not insane, I can't begin to fathom why you still care to respond to this psycho anymore. A little enlightenment please?
I read Pro's opening argument, and immediately understood that he's a troll, and then read the beginning of both Con's opening argument, and Pro's R2, and realized they're both ad hom trolls, and this debate is useless and unworthy of reading, much less voting for. Good day.
"However, it still remains true that it IS an argument, even if a weak one. And Con never provided an effective rebuttal of this argument, other than to continuously complain that his opponent can't use the dictionary through the aforementioned 'No True Scotsman' fallacy."
I didn't effectively rebuttal his argument? Did you miss the part where I showed his argument to be guilty of the argumentum ad dictionarium fallacy, therefore proving it false? If proving an argument false isn't an effective rebuttal, then tell me sir, exactly what is? That needs to be corrected too.
Alright cool then. I didn't read through because I'm being harassed in messages from Mopac. I have warned him multiple times to cease his messages to me, but he keeps it up with mockery and insults. I have reported him to a moderator and blocked him.
I want you both to notice this statement in Raltar's vote:
"Aside from this, Con said nothing actually aimed at meeting his burden of proof to show that God doesn't exist."
This explicitly implies that I have a burden to prove that the god in question doesn't exist, and is used as reasoning for why he voted against my arguments. Being that I made no claim that this god doesn't exist, I have no burden of proof. His vote is therefore invalid and should be removed. This has nothing to do with whether or not he agrees with me. It has to do with valid reasoning. His reasoning is invalid. If he wants to correct his reasoning, and can reasonably show that Mopac's arguments were better(good luck with that), then his vote would be acceptable.
Exactly what is reasonable about him saying I am claiming a god doesn't exist when I'm claiming no such thing? Unless he's just stupid, he can clearly see he's wrong, so he deserves no benefit of the doubt. His vote is clearly biased, because his point has no merit. It's false.
Dude, stop grasping at straws. I don't believe gods don't exist. I never once said I believe that. Who are you to tell me what I believe? I am telling you that I DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW. Your vote is invalid.
Incorrect. Just because I don't claim gods don't exist doesn't mean I accept that they do. I'm an atheist. That means I lack a belief either way. I claim that I have no reason to believe gods exist, and so I don't. I have no burden of proof, because I've made no affirmative claim. Mopac is the sole bearer of the burden of proof.
For starters, Mopac never claimed his argument to be knowledge a priori. Secondly, it does not qualify, so even if he had, it'd be false. Reason: The word "bachelor" and "unmarried" apply to the same entity in question, and that entity is one that has been proven to exist. Therefore, unmarried is logically deducted without having to prove that the entity in question exists. Such is not the case for a god that has not been proven to exist. Your argument commits the false equivalence fallacy.
Raltar's vote reported. Reason: He claims that I am claiming that the Christian god doesn't exist, and therefore I have a burden of proof that I never proved. This is false, as I do not claim the Christian god does not exist. I never made any such claim, and never will. I therefore have no burden of proof. His vote is therefore invalid.
If a hockey player said the rule book of chess is the only source for he rules of chess, and the chess player said that his mother's definition of how to bake a cake to him feels like it applies to the rules of chess, who is right? The hockey player? Or the chess player? And why?
Answer: The hockey player. Why? Because neither the hockey player, nor the chess player, made the rules, therefore neither of them have the authority to say what IS the source of the rules. Only the creator of chess(god).
"As you know, this is a debate over the existence of [the Christian] God. So far however, I've heard little said about God, and mostly a lot of debate over Merriam Webster. I'm starting to think we should hold a debate on the existence of Merriam Webster."
lol, right?? It's the most annoying debate I've ever been a part of, and that's saying a lot, considering I've been debating against Christianity for the better part of two decades. Mopac doesn't even realize his argument is pure semantics, and being that semantics are a logical fallacy, that in and of itself invalidates his entire argument. I could've ended the debate right there, but mostly I'm humoring him.
"In the debate description, you say "the god in question can only be defined by the Christian bible."
In the first round of the debate you said, "The Christian bible does not give any definition of the Christian god."
Crazy isn't it?
"So basically you have set up a debate where the primary subject of the debate cannot ever have a definition, because the only source you will accept as valid supposedly doesn't provide a definition, based upon your own claim."
Ah but that's not my fault. It's the Christian god's fault for only having one thing in existence with the authority to define him, and having that thing not actually define him at all. It's ludicrous, but Christians buy into it so... well, what does that say about them then?
"It also seems like you are indirectly arguing in favor of the principle of Sola Scriptura, which is a rather odd angle for an atheist to take."
Absolutely not. Faith, and practice of faith, are words which represent things that exist independent of any theological belief system. However, a religious theism such as Christianity indeed bases itself entirely upon its respective scripture, therefore it is Christianity which holds Sola Scriptora, not I. I am simply acknowledging their rules for their religion.
To quote you: "As in, you wouldn't let me cite a book by another author who had a negative ***opinion*** of Obama?"
If you aren't citing opinions, then don't say you're citing opinions.
As to your question: Any source that isn't him would obviously need to be verified somehow as true. Only an idiot believes something is true when that supposed truth hasn't been verified to be true.
To what end? Opinions are utterly irrelevant in a debate of facts, so I would say go ahead and cite as many as you wish, as they are of no consequence to either of our arguments.
I would not insist that Obama's "memoir" is the only source usable to define him, because that memoir wouldn't be the only thing in existence with the authority to do so. For example, Obama himself would be a valid source. Michelle Obama would be a valid source(if Obama confirmed her definition of him being true, or if her words about him were verified somehow). However, the term "African American" has nothing to do with Obama, because Obama isn't from Africa. So, to answer your question: Yes, I would "scold" you if you attempted to use the term "African American" to describe Obama, but not for the reasons you just presented.
Debate with you really is pointless. I used your own "sworn to be correct" dictionary to show you the real definition of Gnosticism, yet you still deny it. You are a shining example of cognitive dissonance. Go look that one up. From this point forward, aside from our formal debate that has yet to be finished, I will not be responding to you.
I've just proven you wrong, showing you to be he uneducated one here, yet you call me uneducated? Do the words "hypocrisy" and "cognitive dissonance" mean nothing to you? Do you have no intellectual integrity? Do you not care to be right at all? Apparently not, as the only thing you apparently care about is having people agree with what you "claim" is true, without you having to actually give them valid reason to. You're a typical blind Christian. It's a pity. I was hoping you would be different.
#1 I'm saying your entire argument relies on a logical fallacy. The fact that that makes you look like an idiot isn't my fault. It's yours.
#2 gnosticism noun, often capitalized
gnos·ti·cism | \ˈnä-stə-ˌsi-zəm \
Definition of gnosticism
: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis
Taken from your own beloved dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gnosticism
#1 A dictionary not being academically respected doesn't make it wrong, nor does a dictionary being academically respected make it right. I'm an unknown musician, but I'm very good at what I do. Recognition, in the grand scheme of things, means very little. It commits the logical fallacy "argumentum ad verecundiam" (appeal to authority). This fallacy tries to prove an argument by saying that because an authority figure says it's true, it must be true, which is obviously false.
#2 You broke the word down into parts and tried to define it based on the meaning each individual part has, which is also false. The word "agnostic" is comprised of two parts, yet the word "Gnostic" is not related to the word "agnostic" at all, and has an entirely different meaning. Just because two words make up one word doesn't mean those two words alone go together.
Your favorite dictionary doesn't list this word. Go figure. But here's a definition for you:
omnibenevolent. Adjective. (not comparable) All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'. Its use is often with regards to the divine triad, whereby a deity is described to be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
I confined the debate to what the reality of it is for the sake of argument. No need to waste rounds coming to an agreement on something that is an undeniable reality. That reality is: The god in question here is the Christian god. Because of that, only the Christian bible has the authority(given by this god itself) to define this god. Not a dictionary, not any other person nor book, but the Christian bible alone. Mopac likes to argue semantics so he doesn't have to get into the "meat and potatoes" of an argument. It's an annoying avoidance of the purpose of this debate that I wish to do away with before it even begins. However, it seems Mopac has ignored this rule and continued with his useless semantic arguments. I'm not forfeiting. I'm biding my time so that I can thoroughly destroy him at his own game.
I'm new to this site, and didn't notice the inbox messages. I retract that statement, with apologies. Three days seems a bit much, but so be it. I will make the debate with your specifications now.
As I said, I challenged him/her/it to debate the same thing with me, and he/she/it declined. I guess he/she/it doesn't wanna debate a real debater. That little semantic would be refuted in the first round, and he/she/it would be screwed.
And that is, of course, ignoring the fact that the dictionary's definition of "God" is entirely irrelevant to the debate in the first place, since Mopac is referring to the Christian god, which can only be validly defined by the Christian bible, wherein this god has an entirely different definition.
Then he/she/it needs to explain why he/she/it accepts only that specific definition from that specific dictionary when the overwhelming majority of definitions given by dictionaries are a variation of the one I just gave you. That is a case of pure semantics, thus a laughably pathetic excuse for an argument.
God
ɡäd
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
As you can see, the dictionary defines "God" as a sentient entity, thus existence falls into question. There is no mention of "ultimate reality" or whatever nonsense Mopac is talking about. God is "the creator and ruler of the universe." One needs to prove the universe even has a creator, or a ruler, in order for that definition to matter at all in the context of whether or not this God exists, and even if one did somehow manage to prove the universe has a creator and ruler, one would then need to prove that this God is indeed the creator and ruler, and not some other such entity. But I guess you two geniuses don't grasp that concept do you?
By the way, I have never, do not, and will never claim that gods(any god at all) don't exist. I'd be just as delusional as theists are if I made that claim, because humans have no ability to prove nonexistence. I can no more prove gods don't exist than a theist can prove they/one do/does.
I don't know where you went to school and what they taught you there, but dictionaries don't hold proof of gods existing, so I'm not sure why you've mentioned the validity of such things.
@Raltar Alright then, you explain it. Pro did not prove his claims. All he did was cite some "sources"(in quotes because they aren't credible sources, as the sources equally did not prove their claims), and practically ignored Con's refutations. You can't win a debate without proving your claims, and the burden of proof lies with Pro. Therefore, Pro did not win this debate, yet people are voting for him. There are only two possible explanations for that: #1 people are, for whatever reason(I guessed bias) voting for someone they know didn't win, or #2 the voters are ignorant(have no idea how debates work).
@Admiral Stupidest? So I guess the concept of a site taking measures to ensure votes have merit and are actually based on the performance of both participants rather than people just rallying around the person whose ideology they agree with is too complicated for you to comprehend?
I don't want Raltar's vote, because his votes are worthless. He doesn't vote on what is. He votes on what his mind creates, like a true theist.
To destroy, in the way that I used the word, is to easily defeat. I easily defeated Mopac, therefore I destroyed him. I don't care if you agree with the word usage, and it certainly has absolutely no bearing on who won the debate.
I'm not some child who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. I get angry when I see a place of intellect taken over by idiots. You can't seriously tell me you don't find votes for Mopac in THIS debate to be idiotic. I clearly won dude. You'd have to be a complete imbecile to think Mopac won.
@Ramshutu Did you not read my comments to him? I pointed out two very specific things in his vote that were incorrect. Did you simply ignore them, or do you just feel like further annoying me by making bullshit comments? There was nothing vague at all about my "allegations." Oh, and showing all 5 of his arguments to be guilty of the exact same fallacy destroys an argument. That's how.
@Raltar: "and you clearly set this debate up knowing in advance what Mopac was going to do and in a way that would sabotage him while giving you an excuse to say nothing in defense of your own position."
Seriously? You think this debate would have been any different at all if I hadn't made rules? Dude, Mopac didn't even FOLLOW the rules! And I STILL beat him! The only reason I made those rules is because Mopac's argument is utterly fucking ridiculous and not worthy of debate, because he's essentially trying to "define" his god into existence. It's a pathetic and laughable excuse for an argument that you apparently support(what does that say about you, sir?). But, as I said, he ignored my rules and went on with his idiotic arguments, and I defeated them easily. I didn't even need to try, because trying to "define" something into existence is self defeating. All I needed to do is point out the fallacy and walk away.
It doesn't, but there appears to be nothing any of us can do about it. I had several issues with your vote, because several of your reasons given were invalid, such as claiming I have a burden of proof, when even if I hadn't written a description, I wouldn't have, because I'm not making a claim, and saying I didn't provide an effective rebuttal, when my rebuttal utterly destroyed Mopac's entire argument, which can be clearly and easily seen by anyone with the ability to read and interpret the English language. Your vote was full of bias. You were looking for any reason you possibly could to vote against me because I'm an atheist in a debate against theism, and when you couldn't find any valid reason at all, you made up reasons. I can't believe the mods actually allowed that vote to stand, but I'm glad they did, because it shows me how biased even the mods are, and shows me what to expect from this site in terms of objectivity in moderation, and likelihood of actually winning a debate based on the arguments instead of what the voter personally believes.
I may have still won, but the fact that Mopac got any votes at all proves that this isn't a very good site for debate.
It doesn't really matter whether you can see your own stupidity or not, because everyone else can. I don't expect to be able convince someone that they're wrong when they insist that they're right even in the face of overwhelming proof that they aren't. It would be quite insane of me to expect to change the mind of someone who is cognitively dissonant. It is good enough for me that every person, regardless of what they personally believe(atheist, theist, anyone) is going to take one look at the insanity of your words here, and understand that you are utterly, and indeed laughably, unreasonable.
It's actually not irrelevant nonsense. He is giving a very basic example of knowledge a priori to you. The fact that you clearly don't understand his example proves that you didn't even read my opening argument. I'd be willing to bet money that you completely ignored it and just posted yours, and ignored each subsequent argument I made, aside from reading the text so you'd have something to respond to. You have no idea what knowledge a priori is do you? This is mind boggling. A guy who thinks he can define gods into existence, as if a human construct(words) had some kind of magical power to create gods, further proves his ignorance by saying that an example of knowledge a priori is "irrelevant nonsense." lmao, I really hope the entirety of the members of this site have witnessed this debate, and all of the comments between Mopac, myself, and Ramshutu, because if they have, no one, atheist nor Christian, will ever take Mopac seriously again.
I'm sitting here shaking my head and wondering when Ramhutu is gunna finally realize that Mopac isn't interested in being correct. He's one of those people who will cling to a belief even in the presence of smoking-gun-proof that their belief is wrong. Continued debate with such people is quite literally insane, which leads me to a point I'd like to make to Ramshutu: Insanity, as I'm sure you know, is defined as the repeating of the same action numerous times, expecting different results. Being that you're clearly not insane, I can't begin to fathom why you still care to respond to this psycho anymore. A little enlightenment please?
Why would anyone ever debate if they didn't value truth? My mind can be changed quite easily. All one has to do is prove me wrong.
PGA2.0
Why are you still arguing with him dude? Nothing you say is going to change his mind. He embodies the definition of cognitive dissonance.
I read Pro's opening argument, and immediately understood that he's a troll, and then read the beginning of both Con's opening argument, and Pro's R2, and realized they're both ad hom trolls, and this debate is useless and unworthy of reading, much less voting for. Good day.
I just found another issue with your vote:
"However, it still remains true that it IS an argument, even if a weak one. And Con never provided an effective rebuttal of this argument, other than to continuously complain that his opponent can't use the dictionary through the aforementioned 'No True Scotsman' fallacy."
I didn't effectively rebuttal his argument? Did you miss the part where I showed his argument to be guilty of the argumentum ad dictionarium fallacy, therefore proving it false? If proving an argument false isn't an effective rebuttal, then tell me sir, exactly what is? That needs to be corrected too.
Alright cool then. I didn't read through because I'm being harassed in messages from Mopac. I have warned him multiple times to cease his messages to me, but he keeps it up with mockery and insults. I have reported him to a moderator and blocked him.
I want you both to notice this statement in Raltar's vote:
"Aside from this, Con said nothing actually aimed at meeting his burden of proof to show that God doesn't exist."
This explicitly implies that I have a burden to prove that the god in question doesn't exist, and is used as reasoning for why he voted against my arguments. Being that I made no claim that this god doesn't exist, I have no burden of proof. His vote is therefore invalid and should be removed. This has nothing to do with whether or not he agrees with me. It has to do with valid reasoning. His reasoning is invalid. If he wants to correct his reasoning, and can reasonably show that Mopac's arguments were better(good luck with that), then his vote would be acceptable.
Exactly what is reasonable about him saying I am claiming a god doesn't exist when I'm claiming no such thing? Unless he's just stupid, he can clearly see he's wrong, so he deserves no benefit of the doubt. His vote is clearly biased, because his point has no merit. It's false.
lol just give up bro. Raltar is just trying to find reasons to vote for Mopac because he agrees with him. He has no place voting on debates.
"God isn't The Ultimate Reality. That is your argument."
Incorrect. I never said "God" isn't the ultimate reality. I said you can't prove he is, and you didn't, so I win.
Now, I'm done arguing this point. From this point forward, I will only be commenting on false votes.
Dude, stop grasping at straws. I don't believe gods don't exist. I never once said I believe that. Who are you to tell me what I believe? I am telling you that I DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW. Your vote is invalid.
Incorrect. Just because I don't claim gods don't exist doesn't mean I accept that they do. I'm an atheist. That means I lack a belief either way. I claim that I have no reason to believe gods exist, and so I don't. I have no burden of proof, because I've made no affirmative claim. Mopac is the sole bearer of the burden of proof.
For starters, Mopac never claimed his argument to be knowledge a priori. Secondly, it does not qualify, so even if he had, it'd be false. Reason: The word "bachelor" and "unmarried" apply to the same entity in question, and that entity is one that has been proven to exist. Therefore, unmarried is logically deducted without having to prove that the entity in question exists. Such is not the case for a god that has not been proven to exist. Your argument commits the false equivalence fallacy.
Raltar's vote reported. Reason: He claims that I am claiming that the Christian god doesn't exist, and therefore I have a burden of proof that I never proved. This is false, as I do not claim the Christian god does not exist. I never made any such claim, and never will. I therefore have no burden of proof. His vote is therefore invalid.
"And that sounds like a false equivalency fallacy."
It's not.
"But when you are an atheist trying to prove that ***God doesn't exist***"
I'm trying to prove no such thing. Humans are incapable of proving that something doesn't exist.
If a hockey player said the rule book of chess is the only source for he rules of chess, and the chess player said that his mother's definition of how to bake a cake to him feels like it applies to the rules of chess, who is right? The hockey player? Or the chess player? And why?
Answer: The hockey player. Why? Because neither the hockey player, nor the chess player, made the rules, therefore neither of them have the authority to say what IS the source of the rules. Only the creator of chess(god).
"As you know, this is a debate over the existence of [the Christian] God. So far however, I've heard little said about God, and mostly a lot of debate over Merriam Webster. I'm starting to think we should hold a debate on the existence of Merriam Webster."
lol, right?? It's the most annoying debate I've ever been a part of, and that's saying a lot, considering I've been debating against Christianity for the better part of two decades. Mopac doesn't even realize his argument is pure semantics, and being that semantics are a logical fallacy, that in and of itself invalidates his entire argument. I could've ended the debate right there, but mostly I'm humoring him.
"In the debate description, you say "the god in question can only be defined by the Christian bible."
In the first round of the debate you said, "The Christian bible does not give any definition of the Christian god."
Crazy isn't it?
"So basically you have set up a debate where the primary subject of the debate cannot ever have a definition, because the only source you will accept as valid supposedly doesn't provide a definition, based upon your own claim."
Ah but that's not my fault. It's the Christian god's fault for only having one thing in existence with the authority to define him, and having that thing not actually define him at all. It's ludicrous, but Christians buy into it so... well, what does that say about them then?
"It also seems like you are indirectly arguing in favor of the principle of Sola Scriptura, which is a rather odd angle for an atheist to take."
Absolutely not. Faith, and practice of faith, are words which represent things that exist independent of any theological belief system. However, a religious theism such as Christianity indeed bases itself entirely upon its respective scripture, therefore it is Christianity which holds Sola Scriptora, not I. I am simply acknowledging their rules for their religion.
To quote you: "As in, you wouldn't let me cite a book by another author who had a negative ***opinion*** of Obama?"
If you aren't citing opinions, then don't say you're citing opinions.
As to your question: Any source that isn't him would obviously need to be verified somehow as true. Only an idiot believes something is true when that supposed truth hasn't been verified to be true.
To what end? Opinions are utterly irrelevant in a debate of facts, so I would say go ahead and cite as many as you wish, as they are of no consequence to either of our arguments.
I would not insist that Obama's "memoir" is the only source usable to define him, because that memoir wouldn't be the only thing in existence with the authority to do so. For example, Obama himself would be a valid source. Michelle Obama would be a valid source(if Obama confirmed her definition of him being true, or if her words about him were verified somehow). However, the term "African American" has nothing to do with Obama, because Obama isn't from Africa. So, to answer your question: Yes, I would "scold" you if you attempted to use the term "African American" to describe Obama, but not for the reasons you just presented.
Debate with you really is pointless. I used your own "sworn to be correct" dictionary to show you the real definition of Gnosticism, yet you still deny it. You are a shining example of cognitive dissonance. Go look that one up. From this point forward, aside from our formal debate that has yet to be finished, I will not be responding to you.
I've just proven you wrong, showing you to be he uneducated one here, yet you call me uneducated? Do the words "hypocrisy" and "cognitive dissonance" mean nothing to you? Do you have no intellectual integrity? Do you not care to be right at all? Apparently not, as the only thing you apparently care about is having people agree with what you "claim" is true, without you having to actually give them valid reason to. You're a typical blind Christian. It's a pity. I was hoping you would be different.
#1 I'm saying your entire argument relies on a logical fallacy. The fact that that makes you look like an idiot isn't my fault. It's yours.
#2 gnosticism noun, often capitalized
gnos·ti·cism | \ˈnä-stə-ˌsi-zəm \
Definition of gnosticism
: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis
Taken from your own beloved dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gnosticism
#1 A dictionary not being academically respected doesn't make it wrong, nor does a dictionary being academically respected make it right. I'm an unknown musician, but I'm very good at what I do. Recognition, in the grand scheme of things, means very little. It commits the logical fallacy "argumentum ad verecundiam" (appeal to authority). This fallacy tries to prove an argument by saying that because an authority figure says it's true, it must be true, which is obviously false.
#2 You broke the word down into parts and tried to define it based on the meaning each individual part has, which is also false. The word "agnostic" is comprised of two parts, yet the word "Gnostic" is not related to the word "agnostic" at all, and has an entirely different meaning. Just because two words make up one word doesn't mean those two words alone go together.
Your favorite dictionary doesn't list this word. Go figure. But here's a definition for you:
omnibenevolent. Adjective. (not comparable) All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'. Its use is often with regards to the divine triad, whereby a deity is described to be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
www.yourdictionary.com/omnibenevolent
I confined the debate to what the reality of it is for the sake of argument. No need to waste rounds coming to an agreement on something that is an undeniable reality. That reality is: The god in question here is the Christian god. Because of that, only the Christian bible has the authority(given by this god itself) to define this god. Not a dictionary, not any other person nor book, but the Christian bible alone. Mopac likes to argue semantics so he doesn't have to get into the "meat and potatoes" of an argument. It's an annoying avoidance of the purpose of this debate that I wish to do away with before it even begins. However, it seems Mopac has ignored this rule and continued with his useless semantic arguments. I'm not forfeiting. I'm biding my time so that I can thoroughly destroy him at his own game.
I'll be arguing for the claim in the title.
Apparently not.
Observe a real debate on this topic between Mopac and I. https://www.debateart.com/debates/309
I'm new to this site, and didn't notice the inbox messages. I retract that statement, with apologies. Three days seems a bit much, but so be it. I will make the debate with your specifications now.
As I said, I challenged him/her/it to debate the same thing with me, and he/she/it declined. I guess he/she/it doesn't wanna debate a real debater. That little semantic would be refuted in the first round, and he/she/it would be screwed.
And that is, of course, ignoring the fact that the dictionary's definition of "God" is entirely irrelevant to the debate in the first place, since Mopac is referring to the Christian god, which can only be validly defined by the Christian bible, wherein this god has an entirely different definition.
Then he/she/it needs to explain why he/she/it accepts only that specific definition from that specific dictionary when the overwhelming majority of definitions given by dictionaries are a variation of the one I just gave you. That is a case of pure semantics, thus a laughably pathetic excuse for an argument.
Oh, and let me add that I challenged Mopac to almost the same exact debate, and he/she/it declined. I wonder why.
God
ɡäd
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
As you can see, the dictionary defines "God" as a sentient entity, thus existence falls into question. There is no mention of "ultimate reality" or whatever nonsense Mopac is talking about. God is "the creator and ruler of the universe." One needs to prove the universe even has a creator, or a ruler, in order for that definition to matter at all in the context of whether or not this God exists, and even if one did somehow manage to prove the universe has a creator and ruler, one would then need to prove that this God is indeed the creator and ruler, and not some other such entity. But I guess you two geniuses don't grasp that concept do you?
By the way, I have never, do not, and will never claim that gods(any god at all) don't exist. I'd be just as delusional as theists are if I made that claim, because humans have no ability to prove nonexistence. I can no more prove gods don't exist than a theist can prove they/one do/does.
I don't know where you went to school and what they taught you there, but dictionaries don't hold proof of gods existing, so I'm not sure why you've mentioned the validity of such things.
@Raltar Alright then, you explain it. Pro did not prove his claims. All he did was cite some "sources"(in quotes because they aren't credible sources, as the sources equally did not prove their claims), and practically ignored Con's refutations. You can't win a debate without proving your claims, and the burden of proof lies with Pro. Therefore, Pro did not win this debate, yet people are voting for him. There are only two possible explanations for that: #1 people are, for whatever reason(I guessed bias) voting for someone they know didn't win, or #2 the voters are ignorant(have no idea how debates work).
@Admiral Stupidest? So I guess the concept of a site taking measures to ensure votes have merit and are actually based on the performance of both participants rather than people just rallying around the person whose ideology they agree with is too complicated for you to comprehend?