Not necessary but thank you. I only meant to give you some ammo to use in the debate, and judging by your win ratio, and clear understanding of the conflict, you have got it well in hand. I'll be back for the voting. Good luck.
I'm eager to see your responses, and arguments.
The assertion that Israel's war against Gaza is unjust and genocidal fails under scrutiny for three primary reasons: the legal basis for self-defense, the nature of Hamas’ military tactics, and the absence of genocidal intent or actions by Israel under international definitions.
Also, I present the moral conundrum which makes anti-Israeli's squirm:
If Israel is committing genocide, by withholding aid, or via aerial bombardment of areas hijacked by hamas death-cultists, or because through such bombardments civilians have died, then I'm afraid you need to call up your grandpa (Assuming you're from a country which fought in the second world war) and tell them they committed acts of genocide against the Germans. And if they didn't partake in any aerial campaign, they at least fought on a side which did. If that's something you're unwilling to admit, then you need to abandon your clearly flawed logic.
What should be argued, is that there needs to be a reorganization of international law which protects human life, but doesn't protect those who fight using asymmetrical warfare tactics like Hamas. Hamas knows there are idiots in the West who will scream and shout about genocide, genocide, genocide, and it knows that it can utilize civilian infrastructure, which it sees as a win-win situation. Either 1. Israel doesn't bomb civilian areas it is using and therefor its fighters don't die, or 2. its fighters die, but also civilians, so now it can send out a memo to Al Jazeera, or Al-Arabiya and before you know it, folks like NukeJelly are screaming Genocide, Genocide, hurting Israel's reputation further. Unfortunately, the war requires a realist approach, which will result in civilian casualties. The alternative is a war, and a world, in which terrorist organizations dictate the rules, right the outrage messages, and through time, eventually succeed because westerners simply don't have the stomach for realism.
NukeJelly supports what can be summed up as, weak warfare. It wasn't a regard for civilian or military infrastructure which won the war. Even though Germany at the very least didn't really utilize civilian structures the way Hamas does. No, the war was won because the German people lost the stomach for a conflict they were outmatched in, and neither the German army nor its people were offered any quarter. That's what won world war 2. NukeJelly, the second world war would've been much longer but for the nuclear weapons. I'm not arguing Israel should use its weapons in Dimona, however, overwhelming force will prevent Hamas from attacking again, not lying down and taking their rocket attacks. If that isn't allowed, then it will only be a matter of time until Hamas wins, because the Israeli people will lose their stomach, whilst the Palestinians (Who admit this), can wait years or generations because life is not just on this earth, but for all time, so who really cares about 76 years. That is who Israel is fighting, people who think in terms of centuries, not days. Kill the snake (Hamas) now, using realistic realist tactics, or wait another decade or two until Hamas gains the legitimacy and can fight Israel with better weapons, better numbers, and nation states behind them. Israel cannot, nor can it be expected to, take that, or wait for it.
Have you ever heard of parody? You're acting like I forged a statement to congress or something.
But because you sent a truly hilarious response, so comes more parody.
"Must break my own rule of commentary during debate...."
Translation: "I swore I wouldn't speak, but this affront to my legacy has forced my hand" further translation "How dare you disrupt the sanctity of my digital constitutional convention with parody"
"I never wrote those words, If I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction"
Translation: "Please respect the constitutional sanctity of my DebateArt comment section"
"That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always"
Translation: "I am above this, but also deeply wounded by it"
ITS PARODY!
You're responding like I forged the Magna Carta and stapled it to my resume. You can write all the fictional books about candy, mint shortages, shortages of letters (Manufactured a supply chain issue for a children's book?), and Constitutional angels, but I can't write a fake quote?
I did a quick google of your book, evidently I found other books too. I am less than impressed. Your Bio rang like a founding fathers, a true intellect, someone who James Madison would quote if he were still alive, but I must say I was disappointed to see that all your books were...... self published...... i.e. its a hobby, not a job.
Because I can't critique every part of the bios under your books, I will just critique your bio on here.
"Freelance writer and illustrator"
Translation: "I'm not just a thinker, I produce culture" should just write renaissance man.
"Business and personal experience in over 30 countries"
Translation: "You can't debate me, I've been everywhere" not enough elaboration either.
"Fluent in English, French, Italian, and Egyptian Hieroglyphs"
Translation: "I'm not just well-read - I can decode dead languages" (It's funny you label here that your fluent, but elsewhere you state it was just a university course.
"Enjoy gourmet cooking, gardening, woodworking, greeting card fabrication with original illustrations and verse"
Translation: " I am not bound by your narrow concepts of expertise"
"Two Phd's, History and English Lit"
Translation: "You better come correct - I'm academically untouchable" (Also, you have a double Phd, but working in what is essentially Quality Control in an industrial setting?)
"Fauxlaw is the title of......"
Translation: "The Supreme Court, the president, congress, and the American people, are all wrong, I alone see the truth"
"Although I am monetarily affluent, my true wealth... is the knowledge I've gained"
Translation: "Yes, I have money, but I'm enlightened- not materialistic. So much so, that I need to showboat on an online debating forum"
"I approach that subject [Debate].....
Translation: "I am the wise elder, and even your naive rebuttals have value to me"
You are right, perhaps what I said was harsh, however I would like to point out that what I wrote was only done after Con repeatedly sidestepped any calls for clarification or proof. Now as you have seen he has gone shy and stepped off the stage. "detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".
In any case, if you, Lancelot, want any good points, I'd be happy to help, though you seem to got this well and handled. I'll be back to vote, unless Plato comes back to feed some more nonsense.
What a pathetic response. Your position is not defendable. Either you concede your entire argument is predicated on one mention of the lord being "In the year of our lord", or you continue to look like a pseudo-intellectual, whose shallow comments and clear attempt at wit (though failing), and acumen in debating continue to do you no good. The choice is yours.... now cue another long-winded labyrinth of mumbled nonsense. People usually go to sites like these to learn the ropes of debate, not frame a debate to work entirely in their favor, and not only not debate anything meaningful, but basically act as a word nazi, deflecting any such jab at the clearly flawed basis for this so called debate. As said previously, you will not concede because you have written on this topic, and miraculously been published to-boot, so one cannot expect you to throw that all away. One must at least ask why someone who writes on the topic, would then attempt a debate? It seems to me that the purpose of this is to merely reaffirm what you already believe. What strikes me is, how can someone write a whole book on such a topic. I am published as well, but I don't debate on public forums the things I have been published on, no, I debate in public, where the rules are not made by me.
You’ve clearly established a debate which — yes — in its framing makes it difficult to win from the Pro side. As Sir.Lancelot correctly notes, Pro isn’t unwinnable, but fauxlaw is focused entirely on plain textual observation rather than contextual interpretation or implied meaning. This debate is not about whether the Constitution is implicitly secular or religious — no amount of historical comparison or appeals to other documents will matter here. What Con cares about is isolated words, and words alone. And that highlights a larger issue with self-authored debates: they can be framed however the instigator wants. Given that Con has written on this topic professionally, it makes sense he would construct a resolution tilted toward his own strengths. In a more balanced, open-ended debate — one not designed by him — he would have a harder time convincing anyone with sound judgment and no financial stake in the matter. Because to most reasonable people, the Constitution is clearly not a religious document, and “in the Year of our Lord” is no more an invocation than “Thursday” is a tribute to Thor. The rhetorical flourishes and pseudo-intellectual framing are just that — a mirage of depth, obscuring a debate that ultimately lacks substance.
The Constitution of the United States does not mention “the Lord” or “God” in any legal, structural, or substantive way. The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, or Mayflower Compact — all of which openly invoke God — the Constitution was deliberately drafted without religious language. That was a conscious choice made by the framers, most notably James Madison, to ensure neutrality and protect both government and religion from mutual interference. The lack of a religious test in Article VI and the First Amendment further reinforce this secular character. Appeals to other documents, personal faith of the founders, or historical tradition are irrelevant to the legal text of the Constitution itself, which speaks clearly through its silence on the matter. It’s also worth noting that you (Con), who has written about this topic professionally, may have an understandable but entrenched reluctance to concede the plain meaning of the text — one shaped more by commitment to a viewpoint than by what the Constitution actually says.
This response confuses costs with value and necessity with desire. Just because people need to buy things to survive doesn’t mean labor determines the value of those things. It just means demand exists for basic goods — and that demand is still subjectively driven.
Also, the idea that if a product sells below labor cost the business collapses is true — but irrelevant. That’s a supply-side profitability problem, not a value theory. A business failing doesn’t prove that labor creates value — it just proves that pricing below cost is unsustainable. That has nothing to do with how the market values things, and everything to do with how producers stay afloat.
If labor determined value, then all goods with high labor costs would be highly valued — but they’re not. And if buyers had no choice, then luxury industries wouldn’t exist — yet they thrive. People buy what they value, and that value is not set by labor time. It's set by what the good means to them.
It’s true that labor contributes to the cost of producing something — but cost is not the same as value. Labor may help determine the minimum price a seller is willing to accept (the break-even point), but it has no influence on what a buyer is willing to pay unless the buyer actually values the product. Costs do not automatically add value.
That’s the entire point of the subjective theory of value in classical liberalism and Austrian economics: value is not embedded in the object based on labor, but assigned by the buyer based on personal preference, usefulness, and context. You can put all your time, effort, and skill into a product — but if no one wants it, it has no market value. Labor is a cost input, not a value determinant.
This is why the market doesn’t reward hard work alone — it rewards what people are willing to pay for. That’s something Marxism fails to account for.
The core claim of the Con position is that “the Lord” is mentioned in the Constitution. Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this — because no such quote exists. The only possible reference is a dating convention in the closing line: “in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven.” That phrase is ceremonial, not theological. It has no legal or religious significance, nor does it reflect divine authority behind the Constitution.
Con instead leans on other documents — the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact — none of which are the U.S. Constitution, and none of which have binding constitutional authority. The absence of any direct citation proves the point: the Constitution is intentionally secular. The authors knew how to invoke God if they wished — as they did in other writings — and they chose not to.
Not necessary but thank you. I only meant to give you some ammo to use in the debate, and judging by your win ratio, and clear understanding of the conflict, you have got it well in hand. I'll be back for the voting. Good luck.
I'm eager to see your responses, and arguments.
The assertion that Israel's war against Gaza is unjust and genocidal fails under scrutiny for three primary reasons: the legal basis for self-defense, the nature of Hamas’ military tactics, and the absence of genocidal intent or actions by Israel under international definitions.
Also, I present the moral conundrum which makes anti-Israeli's squirm:
If Israel is committing genocide, by withholding aid, or via aerial bombardment of areas hijacked by hamas death-cultists, or because through such bombardments civilians have died, then I'm afraid you need to call up your grandpa (Assuming you're from a country which fought in the second world war) and tell them they committed acts of genocide against the Germans. And if they didn't partake in any aerial campaign, they at least fought on a side which did. If that's something you're unwilling to admit, then you need to abandon your clearly flawed logic.
What should be argued, is that there needs to be a reorganization of international law which protects human life, but doesn't protect those who fight using asymmetrical warfare tactics like Hamas. Hamas knows there are idiots in the West who will scream and shout about genocide, genocide, genocide, and it knows that it can utilize civilian infrastructure, which it sees as a win-win situation. Either 1. Israel doesn't bomb civilian areas it is using and therefor its fighters don't die, or 2. its fighters die, but also civilians, so now it can send out a memo to Al Jazeera, or Al-Arabiya and before you know it, folks like NukeJelly are screaming Genocide, Genocide, hurting Israel's reputation further. Unfortunately, the war requires a realist approach, which will result in civilian casualties. The alternative is a war, and a world, in which terrorist organizations dictate the rules, right the outrage messages, and through time, eventually succeed because westerners simply don't have the stomach for realism.
NukeJelly supports what can be summed up as, weak warfare. It wasn't a regard for civilian or military infrastructure which won the war. Even though Germany at the very least didn't really utilize civilian structures the way Hamas does. No, the war was won because the German people lost the stomach for a conflict they were outmatched in, and neither the German army nor its people were offered any quarter. That's what won world war 2. NukeJelly, the second world war would've been much longer but for the nuclear weapons. I'm not arguing Israel should use its weapons in Dimona, however, overwhelming force will prevent Hamas from attacking again, not lying down and taking their rocket attacks. If that isn't allowed, then it will only be a matter of time until Hamas wins, because the Israeli people will lose their stomach, whilst the Palestinians (Who admit this), can wait years or generations because life is not just on this earth, but for all time, so who really cares about 76 years. That is who Israel is fighting, people who think in terms of centuries, not days. Kill the snake (Hamas) now, using realistic realist tactics, or wait another decade or two until Hamas gains the legitimacy and can fight Israel with better weapons, better numbers, and nation states behind them. Israel cannot, nor can it be expected to, take that, or wait for it.
Re: Your #26
Have you ever heard of parody? You're acting like I forged a statement to congress or something.
But because you sent a truly hilarious response, so comes more parody.
"Must break my own rule of commentary during debate...."
Translation: "I swore I wouldn't speak, but this affront to my legacy has forced my hand" further translation "How dare you disrupt the sanctity of my digital constitutional convention with parody"
"I never wrote those words, If I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction"
Translation: "Please respect the constitutional sanctity of my DebateArt comment section"
"That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always"
Translation: "I am above this, but also deeply wounded by it"
ITS PARODY!
You're responding like I forged the Magna Carta and stapled it to my resume. You can write all the fictional books about candy, mint shortages, shortages of letters (Manufactured a supply chain issue for a children's book?), and Constitutional angels, but I can't write a fake quote?
I did a quick google of your book, evidently I found other books too. I am less than impressed. Your Bio rang like a founding fathers, a true intellect, someone who James Madison would quote if he were still alive, but I must say I was disappointed to see that all your books were...... self published...... i.e. its a hobby, not a job.
Because I can't critique every part of the bios under your books, I will just critique your bio on here.
"Freelance writer and illustrator"
Translation: "I'm not just a thinker, I produce culture" should just write renaissance man.
"Business and personal experience in over 30 countries"
Translation: "You can't debate me, I've been everywhere" not enough elaboration either.
"Fluent in English, French, Italian, and Egyptian Hieroglyphs"
Translation: "I'm not just well-read - I can decode dead languages" (It's funny you label here that your fluent, but elsewhere you state it was just a university course.
"Enjoy gourmet cooking, gardening, woodworking, greeting card fabrication with original illustrations and verse"
Translation: " I am not bound by your narrow concepts of expertise"
"Two Phd's, History and English Lit"
Translation: "You better come correct - I'm academically untouchable" (Also, you have a double Phd, but working in what is essentially Quality Control in an industrial setting?)
"Fauxlaw is the title of......"
Translation: "The Supreme Court, the president, congress, and the American people, are all wrong, I alone see the truth"
"Although I am monetarily affluent, my true wealth... is the knowledge I've gained"
Translation: "Yes, I have money, but I'm enlightened- not materialistic. So much so, that I need to showboat on an online debating forum"
"I approach that subject [Debate].....
Translation: "I am the wise elder, and even your naive rebuttals have value to me"
For a double Phd. you write like an undergrad.
You are right, perhaps what I said was harsh, however I would like to point out that what I wrote was only done after Con repeatedly sidestepped any calls for clarification or proof. Now as you have seen he has gone shy and stepped off the stage. "detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".
In any case, if you, Lancelot, want any good points, I'd be happy to help, though you seem to got this well and handled. I'll be back to vote, unless Plato comes back to feed some more nonsense.
What a pathetic response. Your position is not defendable. Either you concede your entire argument is predicated on one mention of the lord being "In the year of our lord", or you continue to look like a pseudo-intellectual, whose shallow comments and clear attempt at wit (though failing), and acumen in debating continue to do you no good. The choice is yours.... now cue another long-winded labyrinth of mumbled nonsense. People usually go to sites like these to learn the ropes of debate, not frame a debate to work entirely in their favor, and not only not debate anything meaningful, but basically act as a word nazi, deflecting any such jab at the clearly flawed basis for this so called debate. As said previously, you will not concede because you have written on this topic, and miraculously been published to-boot, so one cannot expect you to throw that all away. One must at least ask why someone who writes on the topic, would then attempt a debate? It seems to me that the purpose of this is to merely reaffirm what you already believe. What strikes me is, how can someone write a whole book on such a topic. I am published as well, but I don't debate on public forums the things I have been published on, no, I debate in public, where the rules are not made by me.
You’ve clearly established a debate which — yes — in its framing makes it difficult to win from the Pro side. As Sir.Lancelot correctly notes, Pro isn’t unwinnable, but fauxlaw is focused entirely on plain textual observation rather than contextual interpretation or implied meaning. This debate is not about whether the Constitution is implicitly secular or religious — no amount of historical comparison or appeals to other documents will matter here. What Con cares about is isolated words, and words alone. And that highlights a larger issue with self-authored debates: they can be framed however the instigator wants. Given that Con has written on this topic professionally, it makes sense he would construct a resolution tilted toward his own strengths. In a more balanced, open-ended debate — one not designed by him — he would have a harder time convincing anyone with sound judgment and no financial stake in the matter. Because to most reasonable people, the Constitution is clearly not a religious document, and “in the Year of our Lord” is no more an invocation than “Thursday” is a tribute to Thor. The rhetorical flourishes and pseudo-intellectual framing are just that — a mirage of depth, obscuring a debate that ultimately lacks substance.
The Constitution of the United States does not mention “the Lord” or “God” in any legal, structural, or substantive way. The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, or Mayflower Compact — all of which openly invoke God — the Constitution was deliberately drafted without religious language. That was a conscious choice made by the framers, most notably James Madison, to ensure neutrality and protect both government and religion from mutual interference. The lack of a religious test in Article VI and the First Amendment further reinforce this secular character. Appeals to other documents, personal faith of the founders, or historical tradition are irrelevant to the legal text of the Constitution itself, which speaks clearly through its silence on the matter. It’s also worth noting that you (Con), who has written about this topic professionally, may have an understandable but entrenched reluctance to concede the plain meaning of the text — one shaped more by commitment to a viewpoint than by what the Constitution actually says.
This response confuses costs with value and necessity with desire. Just because people need to buy things to survive doesn’t mean labor determines the value of those things. It just means demand exists for basic goods — and that demand is still subjectively driven.
Also, the idea that if a product sells below labor cost the business collapses is true — but irrelevant. That’s a supply-side profitability problem, not a value theory. A business failing doesn’t prove that labor creates value — it just proves that pricing below cost is unsustainable. That has nothing to do with how the market values things, and everything to do with how producers stay afloat.
If labor determined value, then all goods with high labor costs would be highly valued — but they’re not. And if buyers had no choice, then luxury industries wouldn’t exist — yet they thrive. People buy what they value, and that value is not set by labor time. It's set by what the good means to them.
Perfect!
It’s good to know Con isn’t debating the Constitution — just proofreading it for bonus points.
It’s true that labor contributes to the cost of producing something — but cost is not the same as value. Labor may help determine the minimum price a seller is willing to accept (the break-even point), but it has no influence on what a buyer is willing to pay unless the buyer actually values the product. Costs do not automatically add value.
That’s the entire point of the subjective theory of value in classical liberalism and Austrian economics: value is not embedded in the object based on labor, but assigned by the buyer based on personal preference, usefulness, and context. You can put all your time, effort, and skill into a product — but if no one wants it, it has no market value. Labor is a cost input, not a value determinant.
This is why the market doesn’t reward hard work alone — it rewards what people are willing to pay for. That’s something Marxism fails to account for.
The core claim of the Con position is that “the Lord” is mentioned in the Constitution. Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this — because no such quote exists. The only possible reference is a dating convention in the closing line: “in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven.” That phrase is ceremonial, not theological. It has no legal or religious significance, nor does it reflect divine authority behind the Constitution.
Con instead leans on other documents — the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact — none of which are the U.S. Constitution, and none of which have binding constitutional authority. The absence of any direct citation proves the point: the Constitution is intentionally secular. The authors knew how to invoke God if they wished — as they did in other writings — and they chose not to.