If I'm being asked a question and not being told something, then ask.
Apparently so far, this is not controversial.
I think you guys are beginning to look at every single word in lieu of being captivated by one word or two.
I don't know exactly how this applies. So I'll answer in a general approach. I don't see anything deficient in the title.
"why do you never use dictionary definitions?"
I can't answer this as I don't see where I ***never**** do. Now if you mean periodically, you'll have to be specific as I don't remember everything I've ever said. I think that is fair.
"why do you never use sources?"
I can't answer this because again, I've at least had one topic concerning source material and a most recent debate using the Google search engine as a source which is a very large reference. This means when the person just simply searches for a term, they'll get a link after link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on.
So because the word ***never**** does not apply, I can't give an explanation on that as it's inapplicable.
"why aren't you willing to ground your opinion in fact?"
I can't answer these questions the way you would hope for as they're loaded questions.
First off , no opinion is based in fact . That's why it's an opinion. An opinion is just what one thinks to be so, not knows.
So to approach the question this way, I'll say I argue and speak nothing but truth. You can continue to reject it or accept it.
I also want to say, if you all would simply interact this way in the debates, we can progress instead of going in circles which are pointless where no problems are resolved.
"Why make your thesis "it's ok to do stuff while signaling racist intent"? Why not just directly state that there is nothing wrong with racism, which is the only likely interpretation of your mushy phrasing?"
This is not what the topic statement is saying. The word "racism" appears not one time. You will find it no where in that statement.
Here is the bottom line with this topic. You guys have to learn to always ask, always ask what a person means by any, any,any term that they use. Forget about the status quo or the conventional, social interpretation and your interpretation or assumption.
What if I'm using terms that mean other than what you think they mean?
The biggest proof to date of a dishonest, bias site.
The person provided a source that said there is a religion involving atheists. This is part of why it's impossible to not be secure in what I say is the truth.
I think what you said just prove the topic statement true. I'm going to give this site the benefit of the doubt and you, the voters and others are just not understanding me.
Well , this is an opportunity to make your critique as according to what the description says. I think many of you have points to make about the debates I have . We can confront these things with a direct interaction. Your inquiries are directed at me. We communicate, I'm allowed to make a counter point. It's like moving what's said in the comments to the debate rounds. Moving the fight from outside to the ring.
Remember guys, you make have to continue with the questions until understanding is reached. If you don't reach it, you'll have to stay in the question mode. That's just the way that is.
For those of you saying what's with all the questions, it goes back to what I offer in every debate challenge.
In order to argue, I have to ask for an explanation, clarity and focus. I have to know what the other is talking about. See I don't assume anything, try to get an implication out of something, etc.
I don't know why folks expect me to interact blindly as I'm to be not sure of what is being said.
Just the way of common sense.
You're just hung up on the idea of a test. I don't believe deep down you accept that things EXIST without evidence.
You only feel comfortable if you can test or falsify.
I keep saying the point is not about testing, not about testing, not about testing.
Like it's just a basic principle of "just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there.
That's all I'm saying. There can be many, many, many animals I'm yet to discover. The animals I know of now may not be the only ones that exist. There's nothing strong enough of a conviction to accept or reject this.
I can see this being very hard to comprehend when you are a super hard skeptic.
Well so much was said, we can go back and forth. Maybe one day we can do informal live debates.
There is one thing for now I liked to clear my name on.
I never made a statement that Trump was or is good.
I'm going to state for the record that I never said Trump was or is not "racist".
A lot of assumptions are made off these topics.
We ought to really just stick with what we're given in text.
Let me also say for those unclear about source material. It is there to prove you're not being dishonest. Now I haven't had any doubt about the honesty from the other side, so why not just say what's in the source material directly?
I question the debater, ask the debater to argue, not the source. Interpretation of what you read from the writings of someone else not making arguments is another subject altogether.
You make a statement, you ought to be able to explain it on your own. If I suspect, THINK you're lying, ok , show me where you got that from.
You're still missing what I'm saying. Basically I'm saying the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I can live all my life and die never knowing about a particular tree's existence or species of tree or animal.
Just because I see or hear no evidence of it , it does not make it strong enough to disbelieve it.
This is what I also mean by you guys not thinking deep enough at what's being really said. Taking a superficial, surface , face value at things when the value is much greater.
Win/lose is based on the echo chamber over here. That's already been established. That's regardless of truth and education. A republican in a pool of democrats, it goes to the majority.
If I ask you have you read a particular Bible verse and you're not giving an answer that I can see, although not confirmed, it's indicative as like you have not.
Now if it appears that I made an accusation, I had no intent in doing so.
However, the debate indeed went no where as we never went in depth in details of the documentary.
Like I said, and this goes to all of you, you have folks that agree with you and I have folks likewise. All I have to do is market them to this site. I'm pretty much the loner out of the crowd I associate with when it comes to visiting this site.
So the topics are good and challenging to you apparently and therefore you accept them. Don't accept anything that's no real challenge to you.
Please people,no more unfounded counseling.
If I'm what you choose to call stubborn, then I'd advise you to not accept any challenges from me.
If I were you, I wouldn't debate anybody that's unconventional, has their own mind, own way, own setup and procedure.
Now remember, if you don't understand something and want to know what I mean, please present plenty of questions before accepting any debate anywhere, really. I mean ask plenty of questions.
But the debate was about the documentary. You people are not understanding me. Then have nerve to vote on something you don't understand. You have to accept and understand what a person is communicating. What in the world is this?
"Yes I can prove it is a universal statement. "Athiests" is a plural form of the noun "athiest," which thus implies you are referring to all athiests with the above statements. "
Please prove that "plural" means all instead of just MORE THAN ONE.
When I say people, that doesn't necessarily mean ALL PEOPLE. It just means more than one.
Please slow down and be careful with these words. They're not to be thrown around.
"I'm really not sure what PRO is even saying here. "
Do you understand what an individual thought process is?
Are you really thinking that everybody thinks the same?
If this is fact, proved that all agnostic/atheists views are right down to the "T" exact between each person.
You may be realizing now that this is a foolish point you attempted to make and in a pretense manner, now backing out of it.
"I don't know, you'd have to ask them."
Hold on, now this is very important. This is where you have to make your strongest argument if not the only.
My responses and comments apply to all. Thanks again for the constant unnecessary counseling on this site. Yes I'll continue to indicate this is a learning stage. I'll continue to do things in my manner, unconventional. Also you should enjoy yourself while learning.
You don't know every single individual personally that has or will read this so called debate. Remember , there will be those that'll agree with me. They'll ask have you watched the documentary. Watch it and maybe we can try this again. The science of sex appeal has nothing to do with anybody's fears. Just like a study on cigarette smoking has nothing to do with any of that nonsense. It's about education and this debate didn't go anywhere because you were prepared to put up this awesome defense for homosexuality. But the topic was about the documentary. Now continue your disagreement, you're entitled to it.
People that read this aren't just people that agree with you. There are those that understand what I'm talking about and they're the ones that say I won because of what they've learned about those dismissing source material.
I make those disclaimers due to the rigged voting system as it's based on an echo chamber , not truth. Being that this whole thing is about education, the most important thing, it's up to each individual to say who won in the debate based on what the debater helped them learn from the debate.
If I'm being asked a question and not being told something, then ask.
Apparently so far, this is not controversial.
I think you guys are beginning to look at every single word in lieu of being captivated by one word or two.
"why does your topic sentence lack a noun?"
I don't know exactly how this applies. So I'll answer in a general approach. I don't see anything deficient in the title.
"why do you never use dictionary definitions?"
I can't answer this as I don't see where I ***never**** do. Now if you mean periodically, you'll have to be specific as I don't remember everything I've ever said. I think that is fair.
"why do you never use sources?"
I can't answer this because again, I've at least had one topic concerning source material and a most recent debate using the Google search engine as a source which is a very large reference. This means when the person just simply searches for a term, they'll get a link after link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on.
So because the word ***never**** does not apply, I can't give an explanation on that as it's inapplicable.
"why aren't you willing to ground your opinion in fact?"
I can't answer these questions the way you would hope for as they're loaded questions.
First off , no opinion is based in fact . That's why it's an opinion. An opinion is just what one thinks to be so, not knows.
So to approach the question this way, I'll say I argue and speak nothing but truth. You can continue to reject it or accept it.
I also want to say, if you all would simply interact this way in the debates, we can progress instead of going in circles which are pointless where no problems are resolved.
"Why make your thesis "it's ok to do stuff while signaling racist intent"? Why not just directly state that there is nothing wrong with racism, which is the only likely interpretation of your mushy phrasing?"
This is not what the topic statement is saying. The word "racism" appears not one time. You will find it no where in that statement.
Here is the bottom line with this topic. You guys have to learn to always ask, always ask what a person means by any, any,any term that they use. Forget about the status quo or the conventional, social interpretation and your interpretation or assumption.
What if I'm using terms that mean other than what you think they mean?
What is meant by "upon demonstrated as such"?
It's good that the words are being paid attention to.
When there is nothing wrong with a certain thing, we would only know when it can be shown that there is no harm by means of whatever that is.
The biggest proof to date of a dishonest, bias site.
The person provided a source that said there is a religion involving atheists. This is part of why it's impossible to not be secure in what I say is the truth.
Does anyone have any questions?
Rather, what I read is not what others read.
I guess the opposing argument is , don't believe what you read. Don't even believe the founder of the religion's book.
According to those that think so, Laveyan Satanism is not a religion involving Atheists.
I guess what I read online and in dictionaries is not others read.
Doesn't make it any less than true.
You call it denial. I call it not proving anything . So even steven.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. You pick whatever you think I do is wrong and build a case for it and I attempt to refute it.
What resolution?
I think what you said just prove the topic statement true. I'm going to give this site the benefit of the doubt and you, the voters and others are just not understanding me.
Vote on that question as well.
Well , this is an opportunity to make your critique as according to what the description says. I think many of you have points to make about the debates I have . We can confront these things with a direct interaction. Your inquiries are directed at me. We communicate, I'm allowed to make a counter point. It's like moving what's said in the comments to the debate rounds. Moving the fight from outside to the ring.
I yet stand not convinced of any purported evidence. Maybe next time, same place, same channel, I'll stay tuned.
It's a no brainer. How can you argue a point when you don't see where the rebuttal is?
Who taught you guys to make an argument even when you don't know where to make it at?
That conventional mind, it's the darnest thing.
Side note: The disclaimer in each debate I'm in covers what win/lose is really all about.
A separation between that and an echo chamber.
Remember guys, you make have to continue with the questions until understanding is reached. If you don't reach it, you'll have to stay in the question mode. That's just the way that is.
For those of you saying what's with all the questions, it goes back to what I offer in every debate challenge.
In order to argue, I have to ask for an explanation, clarity and focus. I have to know what the other is talking about. See I don't assume anything, try to get an implication out of something, etc.
I don't know why folks expect me to interact blindly as I'm to be not sure of what is being said.
Just the way of common sense.
So I'm glad we got that cleared up.
How many of you think God has been proven to be real?
Excellent timekeeper you are.
You're just hung up on the idea of a test. I don't believe deep down you accept that things EXIST without evidence.
You only feel comfortable if you can test or falsify.
I keep saying the point is not about testing, not about testing, not about testing.
Like it's just a basic principle of "just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there.
That's all I'm saying. There can be many, many, many animals I'm yet to discover. The animals I know of now may not be the only ones that exist. There's nothing strong enough of a conviction to accept or reject this.
I can see this being very hard to comprehend when you are a super hard skeptic.
Well so much was said, we can go back and forth. Maybe one day we can do informal live debates.
There is one thing for now I liked to clear my name on.
I never made a statement that Trump was or is good.
I'm going to state for the record that I never said Trump was or is not "racist".
A lot of assumptions are made off these topics.
We ought to really just stick with what we're given in text.
I'll humor you. I'm not here to disprove or prove anything except proving whether your statements hold up .
Let me also say for those unclear about source material. It is there to prove you're not being dishonest. Now I haven't had any doubt about the honesty from the other side, so why not just say what's in the source material directly?
I question the debater, ask the debater to argue, not the source. Interpretation of what you read from the writings of someone else not making arguments is another subject altogether.
You make a statement, you ought to be able to explain it on your own. If I suspect, THINK you're lying, ok , show me where you got that from.
The voters and folks alike are really under an illusion that they don't have any control over their safety ultimately .
Sad to see, not too sad as that aint me .
You're still missing what I'm saying. Basically I'm saying the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I can live all my life and die never knowing about a particular tree's existence or species of tree or animal.
Just because I see or hear no evidence of it , it does not make it strong enough to disbelieve it.
This is what I also mean by you guys not thinking deep enough at what's being really said. Taking a superficial, surface , face value at things when the value is much greater.
Win/lose is based on the echo chamber over here. That's already been established. That's regardless of truth and education. A republican in a pool of democrats, it goes to the majority.
Well lookey here, watch this , I make this clear every debate challenge and that is for clarity, send questions.
If you, you, truly don't understand something, you have no business taking the debate until there is absolutely noooo confusion about anything.
That means you know for sure what a person means and what's meant by every word used.
Those descriptions are very detailed. But when you don't understand them, seek to get understanding.
Let me ask, why don't I hear any news about something "racist" Trump did or said?
I will have to disgree with the criticisms. You can accept or reject that. That's all there is to it
I will say for sure that criticisms should be reserved for those who are lost on the meaning of pluralism. No points for getting that wrong .
The documentary is like one big verse in let's say the world of science or biology. Why? It deals with one context just as a verse does in the bible.
If I ask you have you read a particular Bible verse and you're not giving an answer that I can see, although not confirmed, it's indicative as like you have not.
Now if it appears that I made an accusation, I had no intent in doing so.
However, the debate indeed went no where as we never went in depth in details of the documentary.
Like I said, and this goes to all of you, you have folks that agree with you and I have folks likewise. All I have to do is market them to this site. I'm pretty much the loner out of the crowd I associate with when it comes to visiting this site.
So the topics are good and challenging to you apparently and therefore you accept them. Don't accept anything that's no real challenge to you.
Please people,no more unfounded counseling.
Thanks, much obliged.
If I'm what you choose to call stubborn, then I'd advise you to not accept any challenges from me.
If I were you, I wouldn't debate anybody that's unconventional, has their own mind, own way, own setup and procedure.
Now remember, if you don't understand something and want to know what I mean, please present plenty of questions before accepting any debate anywhere, really. I mean ask plenty of questions.
Didn't even need another round. The strongest irrefutable point was already made.
But the debate was about the documentary. You people are not understanding me. Then have nerve to vote on something you don't understand. You have to accept and understand what a person is communicating. What in the world is this?
Sometimes there's just not enough time. A day job and what not, you know how it is.
But that was my last response to the debate. Ran out of time to elaborate. But if know this site, most likely it would've of mattered.
"Yes I can prove it is a universal statement. "Athiests" is a plural form of the noun "athiest," which thus implies you are referring to all athiests with the above statements. "
Please prove that "plural" means all instead of just MORE THAN ONE.
When I say people, that doesn't necessarily mean ALL PEOPLE. It just means more than one.
Please slow down and be careful with these words. They're not to be thrown around.
"I'm really not sure what PRO is even saying here. "
Do you understand what an individual thought process is?
Are you really thinking that everybody thinks the same?
If this is fact, proved that all agnostic/atheists views are right down to the "T" exact between each person.
You may be realizing now that this is a foolish point you attempted to make and in a pretense manner, now backing out of it.
"I don't know, you'd have to ask them."
Hold on, now this is very important. This is where you have to make your strongest argument if not the only.
The questions are, what is a theist ?
How does one generally, basically become one?
It's not about knowing the sound. It's about knowing whether the tree exists.
Many things are KNOWN about the claim of God. We don't know whether God exists.
Follow the logic close, very close.
What do you mean what happen?
The student can only judge how much they've learned, ain't that right?
To be honest, I would too,dismiss something that looks like it goes against what I believe in or support. I can't blame anybody for that.
Voters: does a tree make a sound in the woods even when you're not there to see it fall?
Double standard when it comes to the claim of a god.
Error on my part . It happens comrade.
And these are the voters that haven't seen the documentary.
What a fraud.
I'm here to prove what's opinion and disprove what's purported to be fact.
No proof has been presented. I understand folks have an opinion about somebody. Separate from personal impression.
The voters and folks alike are really under an illusion that they don't have any control over their safety ultimately .
Sad to see, not too sad as that at me .
Yes the students are the absolute judges. Those that read now and in the future. Let's just acknowledge we have our own classroom of pupils.
It's UP TO THE PERSON THAT'S LEARNING TO DECIDE HOW MUCH THEY'VE BEEN EDUCATED. UP TO THE PERSON, NOT EITHER DEBATER TO DECIDE.
I am a student some where, only I can decide, declare, demonstrate how much I've learned, not the teacher .
My responses and comments apply to all. Thanks again for the constant unnecessary counseling on this site. Yes I'll continue to indicate this is a learning stage. I'll continue to do things in my manner, unconventional. Also you should enjoy yourself while learning.
You don't know every single individual personally that has or will read this so called debate. Remember , there will be those that'll agree with me. They'll ask have you watched the documentary. Watch it and maybe we can try this again. The science of sex appeal has nothing to do with anybody's fears. Just like a study on cigarette smoking has nothing to do with any of that nonsense. It's about education and this debate didn't go anywhere because you were prepared to put up this awesome defense for homosexuality. But the topic was about the documentary. Now continue your disagreement, you're entitled to it.
People that read this aren't just people that agree with you. There are those that understand what I'm talking about and they're the ones that say I won because of what they've learned about those dismissing source material.
I make those disclaimers due to the rigged voting system as it's based on an echo chamber , not truth. Being that this whole thing is about education, the most important thing, it's up to each individual to say who won in the debate based on what the debater helped them learn from the debate.
I thank you kindly.
It informs me like many other debates that many of you can't cooperate with a debate description and setup.
This debate really tested that. Somebody can't even tell me about a documentary they should of seen first before arguing.
Y'ah mean?
That is what I've learned over and over.