i need some ground rules regarding paganism debate, are referring to paganism in its modern interpretation? or paganism as far as not Regarding the God of israel? Pre muhammad or during/post muhammad worship?
Im not concerned with what other christians think. Also, you never find the concept of free will in the bible. There are many proofs throughout the bible of God overriding the free will of man. Nebuchadrezzar in the book of daniel is one.
the thing that makes understanding it hard is the that god outside of time fore knew and fore ordained all the would be, and he is consistently invovled in all of it, despite his timelessness.
The emphasis on backlash was directed through public rejection and possible terrorism, but no mention of Net loss in the process of vaccination mandates. neither is the law discussed in details of the potential socioeconomic backlash of Government mandates, specifically in the United States (Persumably the country of discussion)
However, a note from history about the war on drugs back in the 80s and 90s or so just turned out to be a rat hole for money and showed very little in the way of Net Benefits, there is no discussion of funding of the proposed awareness programs which could potentially backlash into Net Loss, though this too could be argued in the informed nature and public understanding. perhaps a go fund me program would potentially work?
All in all i feel that pro has proposed a higher likely hood of Net benefit and reasonable assertion of mandates than con does of potential backlash and unmentioned methods of preventing another DARE in communicating vaccination.
The purpose is NET benefits
Net benefits are commonly used in cost-benefit analysis to determine whether a project should be funded. Calculate net benefits by subtracting the sum of direct and indirect costs from the sum of direct and indirect benefits. Costs and benefits are expressed in equivalent measures so that investors can see whether the benefits would outweigh the costs enough to make pursuing the project worthwhile.
Pro. gives plan to vaccinate within 5 years if 65 or older, Stresses need of mandates and proposes taxation, he goes to show how that the NET benefits are neglegable at best, showing that even failed mandates (Which con sources) of italy still shows a benefit to the country in the increase of vaccinations. Further he shows the success and failure of drug information programs (Dare which con also sources) shows only minor improvement in suidcide prevention.
Con Gives much link and information (Please put numbers by sources, say 1 goes to cdc and 2 goes to vaxpedia etc) that shows very little support for Net loss other than Italy and gives information regarding saudi arabia's awareness program in order to support his principal of mandates to be questioned. He cites potential backlash through the population who refuse/ignore the mandate such as italy.
I hold its the burden of the individual to inform him/herself of the pro's and con's of vaccination, I do believe that reaching out and informing people is good! however when looking at Net benefits of such plans, there is often little in the way of results (Documented) but when mandated by government the people realize the necessity of doing an action through the consequences of not following through on it and so most mandates show a net benefit regardless of its sucess when comparing to informing people.
Noted, I will be more clear next time and ill make sure to mention if im debating scripturally or not, I didn't consider that my title and thought would actually lead to this scenario!
I could hug you! I know you don't necessarily believe what i do, But im grateful that you understood what i was trying to say, i was hoping for a scriptural debate instead of a logic debate. Im afraid im not proficient in logic to such a degree as i am with scripture.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules Specifically in this case the argument is sufficient, though the conduct point is not. In order to award conduct point, the voter must:
There was no need to provide arguement for or against it as no arguement was given by the contender, how can i argue what isn't contested? As to context, the scriptures are specifically about fatalism/predestination. Again, i stress the bible as a scholarly work and to be cited and treated as such. As no contest was given against the bible or the context, i feel i should have won the source and arguement vote. You can reduce my conduct vote if you feel i acted in error in reproving/not reproving the contender's assertion of the source not being logical.
Scripture is both authorized and a scholarly work. the bible didn't just exist. Ive cited references that are logical in nature to support fatalism. Interpretation is not the issue. Free will didn't even come into the picture, i was asking if fatalism is valid according to the bible.
in themselves they have less inherent value to humanity, but when combined or interacting with humanity there is a increase in its value. Scientists have argued that begins the moment a sperm enters an egg because there is a small emission of light.
I suggest watching antscanada. they actually have discovered new behavior in ants and you get to see the differing levels of sentience among ants, there is a recognization of hiearchy in ants, which shows that ants understand that roles are needed in establishing a community/nest. There are differing tasks among ants and specialization in some species, warrior ants in certain species show a development and charateristic for defense and building.
I feel that life its self is under scrutiny, it you were able to show that the life of a being thats 5 months or less in the women or out of it is of less value to humanity than the developed life of a child 5 months or older, then i would cast the vote in your favor.
existence has self value as con pointed out, so human life has more value to humans than ant life to humans, though con did point out the potential that other life has in upsetting or adding to life and experiences through its own living or death.
Ok so then if your main value of life is in existence and NOT on sentience nor intelligence, are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?
I apologize. promote was the word i should have used. you may report my vote if you wish. However logically life is more than intelligence and sentience.
I think that its a false assertion that someone of a religious nature would seemingly be biased. Im no more biased on abortion rights than i am anything else concerning God, morality, scripture etc. So if you are worried about that, don't be!
Basically, you had a better grasp of what defines life than pink did. Life is not just defined as intelligence and sentience, for example, a rock is seemingly neither, however it is part of life in more general concept and broader definition. Also i can't help if i seem biased in your opinion.
"If existence, sentience, and intelligence aren't the meaning of life, then please explain what is the meaning of life. "
i can answer that! serve God. Rocks and trees and what not limited intelligence and as far as we know, rocks have no sentience, thought they do make noise!
in what way would you prove me a hypocrite? unless you refer to scripture that is not possible. The makes it clear that All are worthy of death, yet the lord doesn't want any to die.
Im afraid you haven't won that one, you haven't disproved the notion of fatalism through scripture or logic. as for my opening statement i stated that freewill and fatalism/predeterminalism can go together.
its not the same, as im stressing the bible as source in the title.
im using the bible as a source of reference and the basis of the validity, even if you used valid as interpreted as logical, the bible works together with logic to show that it is logical in its appeal to principles.
Logic appertains to scripture as much as it does to human understanding, you should have considered what i stated here that scripture is based on logical principals in exposing the metaphysical and spiritual.
I won't be able to give a logical arguement as the concept of fatalism comes through spiritual revelation. If you want logic, then im undone. but if you want spirit and scriptural? we have a deal.
I disagree with your assessment of "Jerking" the higher ups for favor. Why not just be nice to everyone? if someone is being mean then you can just walk away, if someone is doing something wrong, call them out on it! The position of a person doesn't make them more or less responsible to moral obligations nor does it warrant the idea of sucking up to them to protect yourself.
Yeah i was wondering if it was simply my misunderstanding or if the context was unclear in the debate setup. Again, im not arguing against the arguements, just the vagueness of the debate its self.
well i would, but the thing is, the first animal death was the moment WHEN adam and eve sinned, so as far as we know, they may have strictly eaten fruit and veggies. But the bible does assert that there is nothing wrong with eating meat and actually described a person who eats only herbs as "Weak in faith" because they don't understand all things are given by God and are clean with thanksgiving.
Pro can go first, Explain to me why in a modern 1st world country like the US, Canada, Or Europe, That we have to eat meat to survive when we have an established irrigation system.
Unless i am mistaken, shouldn't this debate went toward economic or even nutritional direction? "That we have to eat meat to survive" in regards to nutrition, we don't have to eat meat, in terms of economy and agriculture? it would perhaps lessen the burden on farming.
There are many verses that shows a oneness of nature and understanding between the father, son and spirit. I personally believe that God is one, and that he expresses himself primarily 3 different ways to our perspective and to those who believe on/in him. The bible shows that the son will step down from being king and be a high priest whereas the father shows no position of changing.
Id say intelligence is defined by observation and human perspective. The notion of God undermines randomness and gives rise to the potential of predestination and fatalism. If we can prove humans are omniscient and therefore contribute and define intelligence through knowing rather than perceived observation, then we can conclude the existence of a guiding force or God is non existent.
you should make it more intresting, omni Gods don't have to obey any laws but are a law unto themselves.
What is the nature of man? (Flesh)
i need some ground rules regarding paganism debate, are referring to paganism in its modern interpretation? or paganism as far as not Regarding the God of israel? Pre muhammad or during/post muhammad worship?
you ever played planescape torment? intresting game that asks "What is the nature of man?"
And if you are a gambler, i consider myself High stakes.
Im not concerned with what other christians think. Also, you never find the concept of free will in the bible. There are many proofs throughout the bible of God overriding the free will of man. Nebuchadrezzar in the book of daniel is one.
the thing that makes understanding it hard is the that god outside of time fore knew and fore ordained all the would be, and he is consistently invovled in all of it, despite his timelessness.
The emphasis on backlash was directed through public rejection and possible terrorism, but no mention of Net loss in the process of vaccination mandates. neither is the law discussed in details of the potential socioeconomic backlash of Government mandates, specifically in the United States (Persumably the country of discussion)
However, a note from history about the war on drugs back in the 80s and 90s or so just turned out to be a rat hole for money and showed very little in the way of Net Benefits, there is no discussion of funding of the proposed awareness programs which could potentially backlash into Net Loss, though this too could be argued in the informed nature and public understanding. perhaps a go fund me program would potentially work?
All in all i feel that pro has proposed a higher likely hood of Net benefit and reasonable assertion of mandates than con does of potential backlash and unmentioned methods of preventing another DARE in communicating vaccination.
The purpose is NET benefits
Net benefits are commonly used in cost-benefit analysis to determine whether a project should be funded. Calculate net benefits by subtracting the sum of direct and indirect costs from the sum of direct and indirect benefits. Costs and benefits are expressed in equivalent measures so that investors can see whether the benefits would outweigh the costs enough to make pursuing the project worthwhile.
Pro. gives plan to vaccinate within 5 years if 65 or older, Stresses need of mandates and proposes taxation, he goes to show how that the NET benefits are neglegable at best, showing that even failed mandates (Which con sources) of italy still shows a benefit to the country in the increase of vaccinations. Further he shows the success and failure of drug information programs (Dare which con also sources) shows only minor improvement in suidcide prevention.
Con Gives much link and information (Please put numbers by sources, say 1 goes to cdc and 2 goes to vaxpedia etc) that shows very little support for Net loss other than Italy and gives information regarding saudi arabia's awareness program in order to support his principal of mandates to be questioned. He cites potential backlash through the population who refuse/ignore the mandate such as italy.
I hold its the burden of the individual to inform him/herself of the pro's and con's of vaccination, I do believe that reaching out and informing people is good! however when looking at Net benefits of such plans, there is often little in the way of results (Documented) but when mandated by government the people realize the necessity of doing an action through the consequences of not following through on it and so most mandates show a net benefit regardless of its sucess when comparing to informing people.
Thank you
intresting, ill consider it.
both of yall just do your best and leave the votes to the rest.
intriguing. which raises a question for me, what if we didn't have stats or medals? would such behavior continue?
Noted, I will be more clear next time and ill make sure to mention if im debating scripturally or not, I didn't consider that my title and thought would actually lead to this scenario!
I could hug you! I know you don't necessarily believe what i do, But im grateful that you understood what i was trying to say, i was hoping for a scriptural debate instead of a logic debate. Im afraid im not proficient in logic to such a degree as i am with scripture.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules Specifically in this case the argument is sufficient, though the conduct point is not. In order to award conduct point, the voter must:
fine, ill award conduct to both.
Grats on your 200th vote.
can you prove the bible supports free will?
There was no need to provide arguement for or against it as no arguement was given by the contender, how can i argue what isn't contested? As to context, the scriptures are specifically about fatalism/predestination. Again, i stress the bible as a scholarly work and to be cited and treated as such. As no contest was given against the bible or the context, i feel i should have won the source and arguement vote. You can reduce my conduct vote if you feel i acted in error in reproving/not reproving the contender's assertion of the source not being logical.
Scripture is both authorized and a scholarly work. the bible didn't just exist. Ive cited references that are logical in nature to support fatalism. Interpretation is not the issue. Free will didn't even come into the picture, i was asking if fatalism is valid according to the bible.
meant that burden of proof is not EQUAL. not shared.
in themselves they have less inherent value to humanity, but when combined or interacting with humanity there is a increase in its value. Scientists have argued that begins the moment a sperm enters an egg because there is a small emission of light.
I suggest watching antscanada. they actually have discovered new behavior in ants and you get to see the differing levels of sentience among ants, there is a recognization of hiearchy in ants, which shows that ants understand that roles are needed in establishing a community/nest. There are differing tasks among ants and specialization in some species, warrior ants in certain species show a development and charateristic for defense and building.
I feel that life its self is under scrutiny, it you were able to show that the life of a being thats 5 months or less in the women or out of it is of less value to humanity than the developed life of a child 5 months or older, then i would cast the vote in your favor.
existence has self value as con pointed out, so human life has more value to humans than ant life to humans, though con did point out the potential that other life has in upsetting or adding to life and experiences through its own living or death.
Ok so then if your main value of life is in existence and NOT on sentience nor intelligence, are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?
I apologize. promote was the word i should have used. you may report my vote if you wish. However logically life is more than intelligence and sentience.
that was toward you, i keep forgetting to put receivers in.
I think that its a false assertion that someone of a religious nature would seemingly be biased. Im no more biased on abortion rights than i am anything else concerning God, morality, scripture etc. So if you are worried about that, don't be!
Basically, you had a better grasp of what defines life than pink did. Life is not just defined as intelligence and sentience, for example, a rock is seemingly neither, however it is part of life in more general concept and broader definition. Also i can't help if i seem biased in your opinion.
I use logic as well, just not the weakened form of logic that most people use now days.
The free will question i asked to killshot but forgot to mention him. sorry.
"If existence, sentience, and intelligence aren't the meaning of life, then please explain what is the meaning of life. "
i can answer that! serve God. Rocks and trees and what not limited intelligence and as far as we know, rocks have no sentience, thought they do make noise!
in what way would you prove me a hypocrite? unless you refer to scripture that is not possible. The makes it clear that All are worthy of death, yet the lord doesn't want any to die.
Im afraid you haven't won that one, you haven't disproved the notion of fatalism through scripture or logic. as for my opening statement i stated that freewill and fatalism/predeterminalism can go together.
its not the same, as im stressing the bible as source in the title.
im using the bible as a source of reference and the basis of the validity, even if you used valid as interpreted as logical, the bible works together with logic to show that it is logical in its appeal to principles.
you read the title backwards and i think that misunderstanding affected your view of the debate.
also i have no idea where you got the definition of valid as "Logical" most dictionaries translate it as grounded or binding or sound.
Also, do you have any biblical verses that says free will cannot coexist with fatalism?
Logic appertains to scripture as much as it does to human understanding, you should have considered what i stated here that scripture is based on logical principals in exposing the metaphysical and spiritual.
i think this debate should have went over the implications of time travel more than the "moral" discussion of killing hitler.
physically? you are correct, but the soul is eternal and unchanging.
Unless! you incorporate the doctrine of scripture's principals as logical.
I won't be able to give a logical arguement as the concept of fatalism comes through spiritual revelation. If you want logic, then im undone. but if you want spirit and scriptural? we have a deal.
I disagree with your assessment of "Jerking" the higher ups for favor. Why not just be nice to everyone? if someone is being mean then you can just walk away, if someone is doing something wrong, call them out on it! The position of a person doesn't make them more or less responsible to moral obligations nor does it warrant the idea of sucking up to them to protect yourself.
Basically, just be yourself to everyone.
Yeah i was wondering if it was simply my misunderstanding or if the context was unclear in the debate setup. Again, im not arguing against the arguements, just the vagueness of the debate its self.
well i would, but the thing is, the first animal death was the moment WHEN adam and eve sinned, so as far as we know, they may have strictly eaten fruit and veggies. But the bible does assert that there is nothing wrong with eating meat and actually described a person who eats only herbs as "Weak in faith" because they don't understand all things are given by God and are clean with thanksgiving.
Pro can go first, Explain to me why in a modern 1st world country like the US, Canada, Or Europe, That we have to eat meat to survive when we have an established irrigation system.
Unless i am mistaken, shouldn't this debate went toward economic or even nutritional direction? "That we have to eat meat to survive" in regards to nutrition, we don't have to eat meat, in terms of economy and agriculture? it would perhaps lessen the burden on farming.
There are many verses that shows a oneness of nature and understanding between the father, son and spirit. I personally believe that God is one, and that he expresses himself primarily 3 different ways to our perspective and to those who believe on/in him. The bible shows that the son will step down from being king and be a high priest whereas the father shows no position of changing.
There is evidence to show shared perception of a single reality. The evidence in itself is our ability to communicate observations.
Id say intelligence is defined by observation and human perspective. The notion of God undermines randomness and gives rise to the potential of predestination and fatalism. If we can prove humans are omniscient and therefore contribute and define intelligence through knowing rather than perceived observation, then we can conclude the existence of a guiding force or God is non existent.