That's based, I'm currently trying to figure out if I should become Christian or not. I will become Christian as long as I can't debunk Christianity or find another worldview which renders it obsolete on any level.
Mormonism I can completely understand ruling out lol, but what are the particular reasons you ruled out Catholicism? It has major issues but it's still a serious contender for me.
I've also been reading stuff like the Upanishads (Hindu theology/philosophy) and Abhidhamma Pitaka (practical interpretations of buddhist teaching)
I haven't converted yet, I'm just considering it. If I did convert I would probably go with Presbyterian though especially since I have trouble with the concept of free will. I would be a hypercalvinist in my view of free will but I think hypercalvinism is cringe in practice because they don't like spreading the gospel or doing other things that you should probably do as a Christian.
Remember this debate is about MORE positive impact, not just significant positive impact.
I'm not sure you really weighed that out in your vote. It's not enough to simply say "Con had better arguments and Islam contributed stuff" you have to actually say why you think Con had better arguments and why Islam hasn't contributed less overall.
sue me, I should have put "spouse" but what's done is done. Now it's up to con if he will play word games or debate as intended, and if he chooses to play word games I am armed with enough sexism to combat it.
Care to vote? I would like to note that in the last round con accuses me of springing a "trap" and failing to specify that he has to take into account the actual original meaning of the bible and not just a flawed english translation. He says I should lose a conduct point for this, even though I said in the very first round that you have to take into account the flaws in translations and make sure you are putting it into context with the original Hebrew in mind in order to understand the real meaning of the Bible.
I'm not a Christian but I've been thinking about religion lately and one of the conclusions I am drawing is that the most accurate form of Christianity is Catholic. I'm not saying it is true in the sense that I believe it to be fact, but in the sense that it is more true to the original Christian teachings than any other denomination.
I will make a debate about fire magic and blood magic.
Don't oversimplify things, our large intestine is way larger than that of an obligate carnivore and how do you know that our digestive tract hasn't changed due to cooking our food resulting in us losing certain "herbivore" traits? Also the small intestine of many herbivores is longer than the large intestine.
This debate isn't about whether meat is included in your diet in general, it's about the extreme diet called the carnivore diet where they literally don't consume any plat foods at all.
Is there more protein in meat? Yes. Is that protein more bioavailable and "complete" ? Yes. If you only want to be strong regardless of if it is more healthy, you would be better off including meat in your diet. But is it healthier to have meat in your diet or not, and how much? I honestly don't know, the more I learn about nutrition the less confident I am about making blanket statements about certain things. What I know for sure though is that the carnivore diet is one of the worst diets on earth.
Then I lose the debate because the proposition is a false dichotomy. No intellectually honest person thinks that though. It takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance and/or dishonesty to blame incel's personalities for why they can't get a gf when you know that there are tons of toxic men who have girlfriends.
Women are not reliable sources on how women think and behave unless they provide tangible evidence because women always say things that they don't do in practice. When women say personality is what matters, what they really mean is they want a tall handsome guy who also isn't a piece of shit. This of course is only in theory because in practice women not only chase tall, handsome guys but they also put up with or even get off to their toxic personalities just because they are tall/handsome.
Expecting women or even men to necessarily understand how their gender thinks just because they are that gender is like expecting someone with a mental disorder to diagnose and treat their own illness without a background in psychology and calling them an expert just because they have that disorder.
I disagree because a women simply saying something about herself or other women does not count as an argument, nor are her arguments more valid due to being a woman. I have seen evidence of women putting men on a pedestal for the most shallow reasons possible and I have never seen evidence of a woman treating a man as if his SMV is higher than it is because she values his personality just as much if not more than his SMV.
I have seen evidence of women dating guys with low SMV, but this is not evidence of valuing them equally relative to how they would value them if they were more attractive in superficial ways.
Ultimately if I am wrong, it should be possible for a man to be seen as a 10/10 to an individual woman without him actually being particularly tall or handsome etc.
It's too bad because as a Catholic you are a Satan worshipper with many false belief following the teachings of child traffickers who drink the blood of babies but I only want to do rated debates to get my ELO back after corrupt people made biased votes on my debates.
I have heard about stuff like that but at this point I'm not sure if that is the whole truth or just a way of framing it to make her look bad. I haven't looked too deeply into it.
@Wylted the only thing inherently left wing that you mentioned there is the socialized medicine, and socialized medicine is good. It's fucked up for the value of people's lives to be determined by how much money they have.
The thing you are missing here is that Kamala is the moderate and Trump is the radical. In the grand scheme of things, Trump is closer to being far right than Kamala is to being far left. Americans have this weird misconception about the political spectrum where social democracy (center-left) is considered communism and staunchly right wing candidates are considered balanced centrists.
It would be a good thing if America turned into a social democracy, it's a lot better than having a false two party system where both parties are right wing and both parties are in favor of the status quo except one loves virtue signaling about race and gender and the other loves virtue signaling about being Christian. Since both main parties are status quo supporting and the others literally NEVER win it wouldn't make much difference if we only had one party, the real problem is that the democratic party is full of fake leftists.
You're extremely incorrect about this. Kamala isn't that different from any generic democrat, she may even be better. What you're saying would make more sense if you had said it about Biden before he was elected.
That's because you're an atheist materialist nihilist communist antinatalist pessimist satanist abortionist who needs Jesus.
I hope my opponent wins. I stumbled across this fucking information hazard and now I can't get it out of my head.
This requires a fair amount of voting to be administered.
That's based, I'm currently trying to figure out if I should become Christian or not. I will become Christian as long as I can't debunk Christianity or find another worldview which renders it obsolete on any level.
Mormonism I can completely understand ruling out lol, but what are the particular reasons you ruled out Catholicism? It has major issues but it's still a serious contender for me.
I've also been reading stuff like the Upanishads (Hindu theology/philosophy) and Abhidhamma Pitaka (practical interpretations of buddhist teaching)
I haven't converted yet, I'm just considering it. If I did convert I would probably go with Presbyterian though especially since I have trouble with the concept of free will. I would be a hypercalvinist in my view of free will but I think hypercalvinism is cringe in practice because they don't like spreading the gospel or doing other things that you should probably do as a Christian.
How about you?
"thanks for sucking my cock, I will now suck yours too!"
Oh I see, you voted for Con because you're a Muslim and are biased in favor of the pedophile religion!
Remember this debate is about MORE positive impact, not just significant positive impact.
I'm not sure you really weighed that out in your vote. It's not enough to simply say "Con had better arguments and Islam contributed stuff" you have to actually say why you think Con had better arguments and why Islam hasn't contributed less overall.
I am allowed to post debates about what I'm interested in. If it wasn't for me 90% of the debates would be about politics or if cereal counts as soup.
The time has come for voting.
sue me, I should have put "spouse" but what's done is done. Now it's up to con if he will play word games or debate as intended, and if he chooses to play word games I am armed with enough sexism to combat it.
Good thing this isn't a debate about political correctness
Only asexual nuns can be real Christians and go to heaven.
lmao I might use that if he tries to exploit how I worded it
This one has your name on it.
Unfortunately God doesn't want any sex or cooming for people outside marriage, even if they struggle to find a partner.
lmao, the Jehovah's Witnesses use fake Bibles and cosplay as Christian missionaries.
Superlapsarianism (voting)
I have changed the character count to 20000 and added the definitions.
Asalamu Alaikum brother, I have added rules. I copied the template from one of your debates lol.
Would anyone care to vote on this epic rap battle of misery
A wee smidgeon of voting would be received most gratitudinally.
Care to vote? I would like to note that in the last round con accuses me of springing a "trap" and failing to specify that he has to take into account the actual original meaning of the bible and not just a flawed english translation. He says I should lose a conduct point for this, even though I said in the very first round that you have to take into account the flaws in translations and make sure you are putting it into context with the original Hebrew in mind in order to understand the real meaning of the Bible.
vote?
vote?
vote?
vote?
who's in the mood for a wee bit of voting
I'm not a Christian but I've been thinking about religion lately and one of the conclusions I am drawing is that the most accurate form of Christianity is Catholic. I'm not saying it is true in the sense that I believe it to be fact, but in the sense that it is more true to the original Christian teachings than any other denomination.
I will make a debate about fire magic and blood magic.
Would anyone like to vote on this egregiously assembled bucket of beans?
1: Atheists don't necessarily adhere to the golden rule, atheism has no inherent moral code
2: I wasn't arguing just for atheism but for an entire list of things that I see as inverse to Christianity
3: Christians don't actually practice the golden rule
Would anyone like to vote on this?
post your argument in the actual debate
Anyone want to vote on this? UNFORTUNATELY Wylted couldn't defend his position but who can blame him when his side is impossible to defend.
Any votes?
Any votes?
Don't oversimplify things, our large intestine is way larger than that of an obligate carnivore and how do you know that our digestive tract hasn't changed due to cooking our food resulting in us losing certain "herbivore" traits? Also the small intestine of many herbivores is longer than the large intestine.
This debate isn't about whether meat is included in your diet in general, it's about the extreme diet called the carnivore diet where they literally don't consume any plat foods at all.
Is there more protein in meat? Yes. Is that protein more bioavailable and "complete" ? Yes. If you only want to be strong regardless of if it is more healthy, you would be better off including meat in your diet. But is it healthier to have meat in your diet or not, and how much? I honestly don't know, the more I learn about nutrition the less confident I am about making blanket statements about certain things. What I know for sure though is that the carnivore diet is one of the worst diets on earth.
Then I lose the debate because the proposition is a false dichotomy. No intellectually honest person thinks that though. It takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance and/or dishonesty to blame incel's personalities for why they can't get a gf when you know that there are tons of toxic men who have girlfriends.
Women are not reliable sources on how women think and behave unless they provide tangible evidence because women always say things that they don't do in practice. When women say personality is what matters, what they really mean is they want a tall handsome guy who also isn't a piece of shit. This of course is only in theory because in practice women not only chase tall, handsome guys but they also put up with or even get off to their toxic personalities just because they are tall/handsome.
Expecting women or even men to necessarily understand how their gender thinks just because they are that gender is like expecting someone with a mental disorder to diagnose and treat their own illness without a background in psychology and calling them an expert just because they have that disorder.
I disagree because a women simply saying something about herself or other women does not count as an argument, nor are her arguments more valid due to being a woman. I have seen evidence of women putting men on a pedestal for the most shallow reasons possible and I have never seen evidence of a woman treating a man as if his SMV is higher than it is because she values his personality just as much if not more than his SMV.
I have seen evidence of women dating guys with low SMV, but this is not evidence of valuing them equally relative to how they would value them if they were more attractive in superficial ways.
Ultimately if I am wrong, it should be possible for a man to be seen as a 10/10 to an individual woman without him actually being particularly tall or handsome etc.
That's a very fair position to take.
It's too bad because as a Catholic you are a Satan worshipper with many false belief following the teachings of child traffickers who drink the blood of babies but I only want to do rated debates to get my ELO back after corrupt people made biased votes on my debates.
I have heard about stuff like that but at this point I'm not sure if that is the whole truth or just a way of framing it to make her look bad. I haven't looked too deeply into it.
@Wylted the only thing inherently left wing that you mentioned there is the socialized medicine, and socialized medicine is good. It's fucked up for the value of people's lives to be determined by how much money they have.
The thing you are missing here is that Kamala is the moderate and Trump is the radical. In the grand scheme of things, Trump is closer to being far right than Kamala is to being far left. Americans have this weird misconception about the political spectrum where social democracy (center-left) is considered communism and staunchly right wing candidates are considered balanced centrists.
It would be a good thing if America turned into a social democracy, it's a lot better than having a false two party system where both parties are right wing and both parties are in favor of the status quo except one loves virtue signaling about race and gender and the other loves virtue signaling about being Christian. Since both main parties are status quo supporting and the others literally NEVER win it wouldn't make much difference if we only had one party, the real problem is that the democratic party is full of fake leftists.
You're extremely incorrect about this. Kamala isn't that different from any generic democrat, she may even be better. What you're saying would make more sense if you had said it about Biden before he was elected.
Alright I'm quitting this site now. I know ya'll ain't gonna miss me. Enjoy your biased mods RM.
I report RMs vote for ignoring anything relating to diet and giving argument/conduct/grammar points for something that is solely a conduct issue.
RM thinks diet is "arbitrary" even though it is a scientific fact that diet impacts health, he is an idiot and his vote shouldn't be allowed.
Whatever, people have had better votes deleted by mods.