Where exactly is the contradiction?
Logically contradictions have to be demonstrated on the level of predication/ definition.
I just ask because I don't see that anywhere in the argument you demonstrate the contradiction and I want to know why you that.
After reading through this argument again, it seems we have different ideas of what "objective" and "subjective" mean.
What do you mean by those exactly?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "complete faith" here. It obviously is reliant on an authority behind the sources due to the inability to test/those things that are claimed in it. Like I said in my round 1, there has to be an authority behind the bible, or it would be unreasonable to believe it.
Essentially, What we see in loved ones is something God has in His perfection, so we don't lose anything as long as we have Him. While it may sound hard, it is true to say that the souls in Heaven do not care about the souls in Hell, because those souls have chosen to separate themselves from God for all eternity.
I see your point about my reference to the natural and artificial whole. But honestly, it is not a very simple concept and it would take a lot more space to have to explain that and I was worried the debate would topple into that which was not what the debate was about. I simply gave the reference to give the reader a chance to see what I was saying in the arguments that followed.
No. In fact abstract principles are something science cannot strictly prove, but only demonstrate through experiment to be true.
I am not so much arguing that these abstract principles cannot be demonstrated by physical things that science can study; I am more arguing that abstract principles can lead also to truths that cannot be demonstrated in physical experiments by science.
I am pretty sure Doctors do it these days. It is classified as a surgery you know.
Also there is no obligation in the Catholic Church to circumcise so You are either making shit up or you are just angry at the Catholic Church for whatever reason.
A comparitive debate of The Trinity versus Allah to see "which one makes more sense" is useless. That is not a debate. It is a comparitive study.
If you want to promote Islam, fine, use Muslim sources. But why does it have to be comparitive? That is adding way to much to a debate which really should be focused on the veracity of ONE proposition, and it is a totally unnecessary overload on voters and both opponents alike and definitely lends itself to irrelevent points being made throughout the debate making it unecessaryly difficult.
I agree. The only argument I can even think of for the imperial system is that maybe, MAYBE, it is slightly more accurate and that it is more natural than the metric, but that is it.
I think it is fine to do that. I would space out your main ideas though. It makes it easier to understand what you are saying when the format is more open.
I think the best way to debate is to find common ground with definitions and move on from there.
So it is best if you define your main words in your proofs. You normally do not need to define the words of your definitions, just clarify them if asked.
Normally also it is best not to forfeit, but I know very well unexpected things can come up. It has happened to me before. So dont worry about it. If you can come back to the argument after a forfeit I personally will not count it against you.
Soooo, the person who just got busted for illigeal drugs in my neighborhood is god.
Riiiiiight.
You should reconsider your philosophy before you start worshipping your dog.
Where exactly is the contradiction?
Logically contradictions have to be demonstrated on the level of predication/ definition.
I just ask because I don't see that anywhere in the argument you demonstrate the contradiction and I want to know why you that.
After reading through this argument again, it seems we have different ideas of what "objective" and "subjective" mean.
What do you mean by those exactly?
Are you, as Pro arguing that life is 100 percent subjective? Not a mix of subjective and objective elements?
If any have time, could you please vote on this?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "complete faith" here. It obviously is reliant on an authority behind the sources due to the inability to test/those things that are claimed in it. Like I said in my round 1, there has to be an authority behind the bible, or it would be unreasonable to believe it.
Essentially, What we see in loved ones is something God has in His perfection, so we don't lose anything as long as we have Him. While it may sound hard, it is true to say that the souls in Heaven do not care about the souls in Hell, because those souls have chosen to separate themselves from God for all eternity.
I enjoyed reading it! It was weird, Mall normally isn't this bad. Normally he has some pretty good points to bring up, but here it seemed not so much.
Votes please!
Votes please my dear friends!
Thanks for the vote!
I see your point about my reference to the natural and artificial whole. But honestly, it is not a very simple concept and it would take a lot more space to have to explain that and I was worried the debate would topple into that which was not what the debate was about. I simply gave the reference to give the reader a chance to see what I was saying in the arguments that followed.
Votes please!
No. In fact abstract principles are something science cannot strictly prove, but only demonstrate through experiment to be true.
I am not so much arguing that these abstract principles cannot be demonstrated by physical things that science can study; I am more arguing that abstract principles can lead also to truths that cannot be demonstrated in physical experiments by science.
Wow! It looks like you actually put an effort into this one.
Is there some more info on this debate?
What exactly are you trying to debate? Your title is a little confusing...
What is unclear?
Feel free to accept...
There are some on here that don't think so. There are also scientists who think that it does not exist.
Where did you see that priests circumcise?!?!?!?
I am pretty sure Doctors do it these days. It is classified as a surgery you know.
Also there is no obligation in the Catholic Church to circumcise so You are either making shit up or you are just angry at the Catholic Church for whatever reason.
Thanks for nothing.
How are you defining slavery?
Sure. But make sure that is clear in the description.
A comparitive debate of The Trinity versus Allah to see "which one makes more sense" is useless. That is not a debate. It is a comparitive study.
If you want to promote Islam, fine, use Muslim sources. But why does it have to be comparitive? That is adding way to much to a debate which really should be focused on the veracity of ONE proposition, and it is a totally unnecessary overload on voters and both opponents alike and definitely lends itself to irrelevent points being made throughout the debate making it unecessaryly difficult.
But, You need to make it clear that we are debating the Trinity.
The oneness of Allah isa totally different topic.
If you want I will take this debate.
I agree. The only argument I can even think of for the imperial system is that maybe, MAYBE, it is slightly more accurate and that it is more natural than the metric, but that is it.
Just one more question though:
"Then don't say anything in any amount of certitude. You get no cookies or awards for not being honest."
How much certitude did you put into that second statement?
It is too bad this debate only ended up being 3 rounds. There is certainly plenty to refute in you last post. Thanks for the debate anyway!
Sure!
I would personally prefer a more private conversational form rather than a public platform. If you want here is my email: [email protected]
I am happy to help in any way I can.
Not a problem.
I think it is fine to do that. I would space out your main ideas though. It makes it easier to understand what you are saying when the format is more open.
Not a problem.
I think the best way to debate is to find common ground with definitions and move on from there.
So it is best if you define your main words in your proofs. You normally do not need to define the words of your definitions, just clarify them if asked.
Normally also it is best not to forfeit, but I know very well unexpected things can come up. It has happened to me before. So dont worry about it. If you can come back to the argument after a forfeit I personally will not count it against you.
Soooo, the person who just got busted for illigeal drugs in my neighborhood is god.
Riiiiiight.
You should reconsider your philosophy before you start worshipping your dog.
I would normally agree with you, but I want to play the devils advocate to see if you know what you are talking about.
And what is your definition of God?
If you want to redo this debate I will accept it.
I would, except I agree with your topic of debate.