I think mainstream news outlets, that vandalised their own newspapers with horrific allegations regarding Donald Trump telling lies about his father, could also do with reading my answer on Debateart.
In fact, the authors of those newspaper articles should be advertising their errors on tomorrows front page headlines.
I am well aware that you have a round remaining.
And you have the freedom to use the final round to prove yourself in this argument once and for all.
I have highlighted the weaknesses in your arguments.
Your message to me is almost an acknowledgement that you "agree" with my summary.
And you are now going to try and make ammends with your last argument.
I have not placed any restrictions on you in my description that prevents counter arguments in the final round.
So go ahead.
Good luck
The way i see it zedvictor4. this would then be your argument during the debate. That non-theism and Atheism are the samething.
I would be attempting to show you, that is not necessarily the case
Well do me a favour please.
Go to that debate about Trumps father and at least put a punctuation mark down so i can post my argument.
If you do not agree with my argument, then you can refute it in round 2.
Well, i will continue to put my sources where everyone can see them, and will continue to quote my sources so that i cannot be accused of misquoting. Quite simply, i cannot misquote, what i quote. If you understand.
But you can conduct yourself as you wish. I will make an effort however to bend over backwards and produce your links, and quote them for you, and try to establish if your sources contradict themselves or not, and also if they even say what you attribute to them.
I will do this. Dont worry.
Who has position to decide the definition of personhood is a subject for a different debate.
Science defines "life" as being the point an egg becomes a person.
I don;t think i have. I purely made a claim this is what Science says. And Science does say that.
Whether or not philosophy says this, or the courts say this, is not included in the debate.
The only way it can be proven wrong, is to prove Science does not say this.
For definition of personhood you would be better asking SkepticOne. As it is SkepticOne who i initially invited for this debate.. As SkepticOne is the person arguing that personhood is something not recognised so early on in a pregnancy, and happens well after the recommended time limit for abortions
I am referring to what most contemporary Science say's on the subject.
I am not referring to what Philosophy, Theosophy, Criminal courts of law, Common law courts, say about it.
Purely when Science say's life begins. Nothing else.
I am going to start a debate on this very subject right now. I am going to attempt to show how even contemporary science, since 1967, has decreed that personhood begins at Fertilisation
hI zed. Guilty of what? Saddam Hussein was hanged in 2006 for crimes against humanity. I will be arguing that Saddam Hussein being guilty, is wrong, as the all the reasons provided by the USA to justify invading Iraq in the first instance, were "all" wrong. Everything about it was wrong. And even the things Saddam was guilty of, he could not possibly be deemed guilty of, given the crimes committed by the people that were finding him guilty. And no, i am not a Baathist. I am actually more from the debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims. I am however debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims, whilst try to highlight the "real" issues in to how and why 9/11 happened, and Saddam Hussein got caught up in all this, even though he was nothing to do with 9/11, and was actually fighting the exact same group USA were supporting on one hand. That group being, the group that flew jet liners in to the twin towers and pentagon
I am actually going to raise another challenge here.
I cannot prove DrSpy does not genuinely believe Pro had the better argument.
But i do question his awarding my opponent on sources aswell. The reason his previous vote got removed was because he admitted that fauxlaws challenge on my use of wikipedia was equivalent to a "texas sharpshooter", and that fauxlaw did not actually challenge the validity of anything within the article, so i was never given the chance to find better sources. Yet DrSpy still managed to somehow award fauxlaw points for the sources. He then came back, changed his wording and rerewarded fauxlaw with points for sources. Yet most of fauxlaws sources are from books you have to go out and purchase. You cannot simply link to them. Therefore i actually believe i have the better sources. So more accurate reflection, based upon DrSpys own admission, and his inability to back his claim that fauxlaws sources are more indepth, is wrong. he is unable to view fauxlaws sources. Fauxlaw does not even list the page number on them. I even find the vote for argument contentious, based upon the amount of errors he previously claimed fauxlaw committed, without attributing one single error to myself. However i would accept if he genuinely believes fauxlaw has the better argument, i cannot prove he does not genuinely think that. But i do not genuinely believe that his points regarding sources is legitimate
I left the argument at a tie. I left my own personal opinion out of that aswell. As my personal opinion would have been to hand it to Jackle. However you argued just aswell for non vaccinations, as Jackle argued "for" vaccinations. You admitted your error regarding the source. And i sympathise with that. I have made an error when i provided the wrong bleedin quote, and pressed publish. Proper palm face....But in games and sport, errors are what get us punished. I also acknowledged Jackles objectionable remarks regarding DrSpy. So all in all, it is pretty much a draw. 6-5 to Jackle is neither her nor there. So i did you both a favour
Reagrding this link here however where you said "There's no obligation, and no harm done. To find out more about the anti-vax movement, follow this link: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-33774181."
Your own link does not support what you said. i read it. The report would cause outrage in anyone not getting vaccinated.
From your own article ""They don't see that so they don't know, so they say, 'What's the big deal? It's a rash, you know, it won't be my kid.' But people forget what childhood death is and what infantile mortality is, people forget how many children died or were left with encephalitis or terrible brain diseases that caused mental retardation and people to be institutionalised for the rest of their life from measles."
"Pro expects to have the studies that he cites to do the arguing for him, when that's clearly what sources aren't for. Instead of using sources to back up/support an argument, Pro simply lists sources, expects people to read them whole, expects them to outline and argument, and expects them to win the debate for him."
TBH Exile, that is what the vast majority do.
Write something in their own words. Stick a link next to it. Then you open the link to an article with thousands of words.
But there is a reason for this, it is because rarely do the articles 100% say what is being claimed. In certain circumstances, though rare, the article is not even regarding the same topic as what the person linked too.
I have however checked TheJackles sources, and they do pretty much say what she says.
Though i agree. Is kind of pooping in your own pie when you dont do a simple thing like copy and paste the quote.
No-one should be expected to simply take someones word for it that the article says that, just because there is a link there.
Got all the time in the world mate. Business shut down because of corona virus. Lorry broken down and cant get it fixed because garage it is under warranty at is shut down until farther notice. Customers are going off their heads phoning me and complaining but i am not responding...What was that we were discussing? Oh yes, suicide pacts....Well why not? Yes, good idea.
It is ok. I have already been in contact with the moderators to explain that i do not wish my opponents votes to be removed.
I only did this because it was becoming apparent that people are reporting my votes, and do not respect the opinions of others.
However my belief is without voters, there is no site.
So therefore i do not wish for my opponents votes to be removed.
Congratulations on your victory
"The rubric of what is good, and what better means relative to good is not defined or established. In a much simpler way what is good for the goose, may not be good for the gander. A fox is good relative to her family when she steals a chicken. She is not good relative to the chickens family, or the farmer. And when she gets better at snatching fresh poultry relative to her family, the chickens family would undisputably opine very differently."
Ok, so let me work this out. I will go back
"The phrase could be a better Nazi, a better KKK member, a better monk. " In a much simpler way what is good for the goose, may not be good for the gander. "
Eh?
Conduct now only 3-0
sourcing 5-0
argument 0-0
S&G 0-0
"If the good is tall than better would be taller. What is missing from the definition of the debate is a baseline of what the value is."
What?
" I use the Value Theory to support this position."
Lets hang on a second here eh! "What position"? The position that the good is tall than better would be taller?
DrSpy "I thank my opponent for their opening argument. I would like to point out a discrepancy in the title, and the narrative of the debate description.
The title says: "Does a good, perfect man struggle with evil"
The last sentence of the opening narrative says "a perfect person still must struggle to avoid evil behavior."
I am going to start out by awarding DrSpy with a conduct violation from the word go.
I do not think there are any contradictions, nor discrepancies, and the suggestion is unrequired
Quite simply, there is no contradiction.
fauxlaws opening does not have to be the same as his title. DrSpy takes it out of context. I actually fail to see his logic.
Conduct now only 3-0
sourcing 5-0
argument 0-0
S&G 0-0
"The difference is the first statement deals with an undefined struggle, the second statement qualifies that struggle to be for the purposes of avoiding evil behavior. Both are addressed by my position. My position is one that comes down tot he definitions of Good, Evil, and most importantly Struggle that have been provided."
I find this incomprehensible. It makes little sense actually.
"The definition of good: " the state of acting on influences to be a better person today than yesterday. It is not a static condition, but continually dynamic, demanding of one to not just espouse goodness, but to be committed to its action in all circumstances."
This all lacks clarity. It is incomprehensible. Impossible to even work out how it relates to the previous paragraph
"I submit the first issue is the phrase 'better person today than yesterday' has no reference point. The phrase could be a better Nazi, a better KKK member, a better monk. "
I do not see how he made this leap to what he is now discussing. there appeared to be no logical connection
Conduct now only 3-0
sourcing 5-0
argument 0-0
S&G 0-0
"Application of being perfect
Most people would say, “That formula can be applied for two or three day’s, but, inevitably, we fail.” Yes. But, what if we didn’t? What if we last five days, then ten, then more? It is possible, just unlikely.
As the days of perfection mount, having a continuous string of a variety of choices, at least one of which will be to respond with imperfect evil, that becomes a challenge with potential loss of the perfect record. Is that a struggle?
John Wesley commented, “A person may be sincere who has all his natural tempers, pride, anger, lust, self-will. But he is not perfect until his heart is cleansed from these, and all its other corruptions.”[v]"!
Where did John Lesley say this? I simply do not see it
fauxlaw begins round 1 - Does a perfect person struggle with evil?
No one is perfect for the reason that they are immune from evil; no one can be that immune. In fact, H.J. McCloskey, described as an atheologian [one who argues for the nonexistence of God], of the University of Melbourne, maintains that it is unavoidable. He claims a construct of the following:[i]
Fauxlaw commits what i consider a source violation right at the beginning. He attributes words to a person. Paraphrases that person.
Does not provide the quote.
Instead provides a link that does not even work.
Therefore voter needs to go searching for "his" work. No need. There is the ability to "quote" what is being quoted, and link it above the quote.
So no searching needs to be done. It simply should not have to be.
Sources . 0-1
"[1] God is omnipotent
[2] God is omniscient
[3] God is perfectly good
[4] Evil exists
Conduct violation. fauxlaw stated no mention of religion
source 0-1
conduct 0-1
"McCloskey contends that even if one, two, or three of the above statements are true, all four cannot be true. He argues that if God is omnipotent, He could end all suffering in the world, but He has not; therefore, He is nonexistent. McCloskey argues the same point for God’s omniscience."
Conduct violation. God of the bible
source 0-1
conduct 0-2
Again, continuing to paraphrase. No quote of where McCloskey said this was provided on the playing table.
"McCloskey ignores, but it must be considered, that neither omnipotence nor omniscience imply that either power must be used, only that it is available. The wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” ideology says otherwise: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”[ii]"
Another source violation
Sources 0-2
"The idea is to try to negotiate in peace, but be prepared to wield strength. McCloskey further ignores that God employs a third construct in addition to omnipotence and omniscience: the free agency of man."
“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[iii]
Conduct violation
Another source violation.
Quite simply, we do not have the original scriptures, so we cannot use the bible as a reliable source
conduct 0-3
source 0-3
"We often interpret this passage as allowing Adam to eat of every tree except of the tree of knowledge, but that is not at all what is said. God said that Adam could “freely eat” “of every tree of the garden,” including the tree of knowledge. It’s just that eating from the tree of knowledge had a consequence apparently different than the other trees, but God’s gift of agency to man remains intact. There are consequences to our actions, and they can be good and bad."
Conduct 0-4
Source 0-3
Will leave out the conjecture.
"How to be perfect
Based on the definition of “perfect” as offered in the debate description above, the question must be posed: How do we become perfect? One article, The Science of Decision-Making: 5 Ways to Make the Right Decision Every Timesays yes.[iv] It contends that a formula exists to do just that:
1. Focus on the big picture.
2. Know what you value.
3. Recognize and overcome the sunk-cost [a losing path] bias.
4. Create the necessary environment.
5. Take immediate action by the 5-second rule [If you do not take action – physical movement - in the first five seconds, the brain will dismiss the idea]."
Another source violation. I should be able to read on that page where The Science of Decision-Making said this, and not just take the debeters word for it, or go searching for it.
And i will end by concluding "why" i consider the bible an unreliable source.
By fauxlaws own admission. We do not have the original scriptures.
Yet he still uses it to support his undertsandings
"Pro argues that “The only two religions to genuinely pillage and conquer and make themselves unbelievably dominant religions over the rest are Christianity and Islam.” Ignored in the claim is Judaism’s Torah, as represented by Deuteronomy 20: 16-18, “But the cities of these people [Canaanites, etc.] which the Lord they God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them…”
However, this is an aside argument, not germane to the debate question of which element, a religion’s holy writ, or the adherents’ capacity of interpretation of it is the more sanctified.
The opponent has the burden of proof to demonstrate the subject of the debate. I contend that he has failed in his purpose. Pro has even conceded the debate:
“I concede this debate out of not wanting the stress and unhealthy conflict that arises when thinking your religion needs to thwart all others.” Considering the shared themes all three Abrahamic religions demonstrate, it is by mere interpretation of selected verses, taken out of context, and completely misinterpreted by not investigating context, that Pro believes his claims. In rebuttal, I claim three points:
1. Pro’s argument in round 1 highlighted verses in the Qur’an, claiming that they were “severely alarming” by advocating mistreatment of women. A read of the passage quoted had naught to do with this subject, or abuse of any kind.
2. Pro’s argument followed by claiming “many intra-religion contradictions, intra-Abrahamic-inter-religion contradictions and to furthermore not irrationally rule out all non-Abrahamic religions as worth your time.” I argued in reply that all three religions specify in their separate holy writs shared themes, elevating those writings above the turmoil to sanctify their wisdom above that of men’s interpretations.
3. Pro argued that “blind faith” is encouraged, and that questioning God is toxic. On the contrary, I quoted from the Qur’an, the Bible, and the Torah, on the agreeable principle that God invites questions, and will reply by revelation, with eager compliance, contesting the claimed toxicity.
I refer you to the referenced sources offered n each of the first three rounds in support of the three arguments discussed above. I contend that this debate is not lost by forfeit, but won by sound and documented reasoning.
I actually award fauxtraut an argument point for his comments about Judaism, and it "was" the Hebrews that wrote the bible. And i will also reduce a mark for once using sources correctly. And that is to prove valid points. and defeat claims.
Argument 0-11
source 0-31
conduct 0-2
S&G 2-0
Now i cannot remember who it was i voted for last time. But i have developed a new strategy of voting anyway. But if it was fauxlaw i voted for last-time, i did so because i was under the impression, that the opponent had surrendered. Though i cannot remember. I'v had some sleeps by then.
But if anyone wants to claim they put more effort than me, in to deciding who has the best argument, go ahead.
There is no error whatsoever. The only two religions to genuinely pillage and conquer and make themselves unbelievably dominant religions over the rest are Christianity and Islam. This is because they took many teachings in the writings literally and forgot to properly interpret and put into context the concept of 'spreading religion' not by force but by love.
"It is not my job to teach the world the corruption of the Abrahamic religions and while Judaism has done less in terms of conquering and pillaging, it isn't a mystery that Israel is known for its corruption. I'd link a source but that would give my opponent the potential to not win the source voting point.
I concede this debate out of not wanting the stress and unhealthy conflict that arises when thinking your religion needs to thwart all others, which Abrahamic religions love to think as it's taught in their scriptures. I have actually read all three scriptures that Con says I haven't, it's Con who is baselessly claiming to have read them and appealing to authority as if his claim he read more asserts what he says as more likely to be true.
I know exactly how horrific the texts are but I don't want to risk typing anything resembling hate speech so I will stop here."
Here, Rat Skep puts a "huge" smile on my face. Do you know why? Because debaters on here had me doubting i had the ability to judge things and inteprpret things. But at the beginning of writing beneath, i had not read round 5.
And guess what...He said "everything" i attributed to him believing.
"
Conclusion
Contrary to Pro’s argument against the sound advice given in all three scriptures of Abrahamic religions, relative to just this example of peacemaking, let alone the other axioms of the Sermon on the Mount, it is scripture that defines the standard. By Pro’s mistaken transference of the written word for demonstrated action, Pro argued that it was the Word that is sanctimonious and inferior to human capacity to interpret it, and not the opposite. It is demonstrated that the reverse is true: Scripture is sanctified, and it is the duty of human interpretation to align to it."
Let me reread this " By Pro’s mistaken transference of the written word for demonstrated action, Pro argued that it was the Word that is sanctimonious and inferior to human capacity to interpret it, and not the opposite. It is demonstrated that the reverse is true: Scripture is sanctified, and it is the duty of human interpretation to align to it."
Pro argued this, did he? "and not the opposite. It is demonstrated that the reverse is true:" woah
"Scripture is sanctified, and it is the duty of human interpretation to align to it."
fauxlaw - the sentence beneath was just conjecture. The next bit of relevance was
"In Matthew 5 of the New Testament of the Holy Bible, we find the “Sermon on the Mount,” commonly called “The Beatitudes;” being “poor in spirit,” “mourn,” “meek,” “hunger and thirst after righteousness,” etc. My argument is that the attitudes taught in this singular sermon are so effective, regardless of their ancient revelation, so pertinent to our times, though two thousand years ancient, that adherence to each, were that actually attempted and practiced by all, would solve every single social ill we suffer today. Every one of them."
I’ll highlight one, and compare it to the other two scriptures of Abrahamic religion to demonstrate that all three embrace this sermon: "
No-one has validated the bible as a reliable source. Another source violation
argument 0-9
Sourcing 0-20
Conduct -0-2
S&G 2-0
"Christianity
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”[1]
Islam
It should be noted, first, that the word, Islam is derived from Arabic “sal’m,”or, in English, “peace.”[2]
Further, The Qur’an, Imrans: 134: “Those who give alms in prosperity and in adversity, who curb their anger and forgive their fellow men [God loves the charitable]; who, if they commit evil or wrong their souls, remember God and seek forgiveness for their sins [for who but God can forgive sin?] and do not knowingly persist in their misdeeds.”[3]
Judaism
Note, first, the Hebrew word, shalom, is “peace.”[4]Compare the Arabic, “sal’m.”
The Torah works peace: “Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying: On this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel; ye shall say unto them:
The Lord bless thee, and keep thee;
The Lord make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee;
The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.”[5]
Further: Old Testament, “The Prophets”
“And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever.”[6]"
That was all meaningless. fauxlaw even agrees that there is no way of validating what the scriptures used to say. Yet he still uses them when it comes to forming hiis own arguments
"The Pro opponent has declined to participate further in this debate. The moderator has advised to “extend” each of the future rounds, including this. I choose, rather, to place a final argument now, and will extend the last, 4th round.
In the round 3 forfeiture, Pro said he is “not concerned with ‘fighting,’ and that is what Abrahamic religions encourage too much of actually.”
In round 1, Con charged that Pro has not read the Torah, the Holy Bible, nor the Qur’an “word-for-word, cover-to-cover.” It is, therefore, not surprising that Pro would suggest “fighting” is the order of the day among the practitioners of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The error in Pro’s claim is in replacing the Hoy Writ of these religions with the evidence of some, and perhaps, in history if not currently, many to most practitioners."
If Rat skep had forfeited. Then it would be unfair for me to award anymore
However i have to go back and reread. I dont believe Rat skep did indeed offer a surrender. This is a conduct violation, trying to con me
Argument 0-8
Sourcing 0-19
Conduct -0-2
S&G 2-0
"I contend that the reverse is the true observation: that the Word is sanctified, and that it is the action of practitioners that fails to interpret correctly what is written."
I believe in fact, that it is the believers are simply lying about having the ability to correctly "interpret" what is written. And i believe this is another argument point to Rat Skep, because his title actually suggests that he is aware that this is what believers try to do
"The only genuinely sane way to adhere to an Abrahamic religion is to deem the sanctity of scripture/writing as inferior to human capacity to interpret it."
"I do not wish to engage in this debate anymore, it is not important to point out the flaws of other scripture if we truly adhere to the true one.
I am something in between a Pagan and a Taoist and I adore being this way, I am not concerned with 'fighting', that is what Abrahamic religions encourage too much of actually.
Let them preach what they want, if you can't with your own interpretation question the horrific and stupid parts, that's on you. Your insanity is your burden, not just others'. That's all I will say. I understand that I am likely to lose the debate. I encourage all to read here:
if you care about my spiritual journey and where this debate's research led me towards that then made me not want to continue this debate."
I read from this Rat Skep agrees that what the texts used to say, is not important. it is what they say today that is important.
But one will never be able to convince someone that believes, of this.
"It is further argued that culture drives language, not the reverse [my opponent did not argue this, but it must acknowledged as essential to the argument]. Language points to culture."
There is a hell of a lot he did not argue. That means nothing..Argument fallacy equals bad argument equals
argument 0-8
"Language is not merely its alphabet, syntax, and grammar, but is a reflection of the culture that creates it.[2]
source violation
sourcing 0-21
"Without a prior knowledge of the culture, a language foreign to our own will not be fully understood until the culture is understood. Therefore, the translationof an ancient language, let alone contemporary, is only possible by first understanding the ancient culture. To do otherwise is transliteration,a dictionary-to-dictionary comparison. Dictionaries typically do a poor job of cultural education."
This is meaningless. What the scriptures said yesterday, in no way invalidates what they say today.
The rest is conjecture "Therefore, the sanctity of religious texts is superior to any human interpretation," but keep an eye on this
argument 0-8
sourcing 0-21
conduct 0-1
S&G 2-0
Extra source violation regards to this link
"[1]https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/204859?redirectedFrom=transliterate#eid"
It takes you to a page where your computer is likely to freeze, and there is nothing there that supports what he said
argument 0-8
sourcing 0-22
conduct 0-1
S&G 2-0
He produced a link for claim 2 aswell, that actually did say a little what he said.
So willl remove 2 source violations. Though would be helpful if links were displayed above the quote
"First, as it has already been used in the first Con argument, “transliterate” will be defined by the Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, OED]: “transliterate transitive:To replace [the letters or characters of one alphabet] with those of another, representing as closely as possible the same sounds; to write [a word] in the letters or characters of another alphabet.”[1]"
Incomprehensible definitioning, plus two source violations
Argument 0-6
Sourcing 0-20
Conduct 0-1
Spelling and Grammar.... hey, there was some big words in that description.
2-0
"The claim of a debased sanctity, as opposed to human interpretation, is refuted by simple means. One must acknowledge that we have, today, a variety of “translations” of each volume [the Torah, the Bible – Old and New Testaments, and the Qur’an], however, we have no examples of original, historically contemporary texts of any volume. Therefore, we, today, being separated from any consideration of original texts, are left with transliterations, not direct translations. As such, having second, third… n-hand representations of texts, it would follow that interpretation is inferior to sanctity, not, as my opponent contends, the reverse."
I read from this that fauxlaw is admitting he cannot prove that Rat Skep is wrong about what is written in the bible, because we do not have the original scriptures, so we only have fauxlaws word for it..However i am not sure Rat Skep is bothered about what the original scriptures says. He is talking about the scriptures of today, and what they say today
fauxlaw However, let us consult the following passage of The Imrans 3: 6 – 11, which my opponent ignored in his claim of toxicity:
Rat Skep also ignored donald trump getting voted in to preseidency. Him not mentioning something is not proof he is wrong. Conduct violation
Also there has been no confirmation that Imrans 3 6 - 11 is a valid source
Conduct 0-2
source 0-16
argument 0-7
"“Those that deny Allah’s revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge. Nothing on earth or in heaven is hidden from Allah. It is He who shapes your bodies in your mothers’ wombs as He pleases. There is no god but Him, the Mighty, the Wise One.
“It is He who has revealed to you the Book.”[1]"
fauxlaw proves opponents claims entirely. This what the bible says, yes. So argument 0-8. One source violation
Argument 0-8
sourcing 0-18
Conduct 0-2
"There appears to be a lot of revelation going on, God to man, to claim that such communication is toxic to our souls. It appears that it is even consistent, not contradictory revelation, over three separate volumes. And, why not? Whether the god in question is Elohim,[2] not a name, but a title, and, in fact, according to John Mclaughlin, a reference to either a single god, or many, or Christ, not a name, but a title, signifying “Messiah,”[3] or Allah[4], not a name, but a title, signifying God. These several references to “God” are all titles.[5]"
This is completely meaningless. uncomprehensible. 4 source violations. + bad uncomprehensible argument = bad argument 0-9
"It seems the claim of contradiction is refuted by my opponent’s own referenced passage, in context, of the Qur’an, let alone similar passages in both the Torah and the Gospels. To ratify this point, let us observe a passage of the Gospel that is echoed by the reference to The Imrans, 3: 169-170. I quote from Matthew 5: 10 – 12:
“10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”[3]
fauxlaw now claims Rat Skep refuted himself. But where?
For proof of this, he provides this “10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”[3]
what does this mean? or prove? also two more source violation
Sourcing 0-13 + passages from bible that do not appear to even mean anything 0-14
argument 0-5
conduct 0-1
Allegations of Rat Skep refuting himself must result in another argument point against.
"Curious, this passage does not speak to abusing women, either. So, from what fountain does that claim spring?
Finally, my opponent claims that “blind faith is to be encouraged and that questioning God itself is toxic to your soul and wellbeing.”[4]
Well, Rat Skep did not say the OT was "all" about references to abusing women. One more source violation and 0-6 argument
Argument 0-6
source 0-15
conduct 0-1
"It seems the extended passage from James 1: 5 refutes that claim all on its own:
“…let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” To “upbraid” is “to give reproach, or reproof” according to the OED. However, the passage is upbraid not; that is, there is no reproach, or, one might say, even, it is not “toxic to your soul.”[5]"
What? sorry? how does that refute anything? and when was it agreed James 1:5 is a reliable source? two more source violations. 0-7 argument
I think mainstream news outlets, that vandalised their own newspapers with horrific allegations regarding Donald Trump telling lies about his father, could also do with reading my answer on Debateart.
In fact, the authors of those newspaper articles should be advertising their errors on tomorrows front page headlines.
Yes, it can also be viewed as Atheism.
However there is scope for a non-theist to reject an Atheist, if they so wish.
Very true
Good luck to my opponent.
I accepted this challenge as confucianism sits well with my own outlook.
I am well aware that you have a round remaining.
And you have the freedom to use the final round to prove yourself in this argument once and for all.
I have highlighted the weaknesses in your arguments.
Your message to me is almost an acknowledgement that you "agree" with my summary.
And you are now going to try and make ammends with your last argument.
I have not placed any restrictions on you in my description that prevents counter arguments in the final round.
So go ahead.
Good luck
The way i see it zedvictor4. this would then be your argument during the debate. That non-theism and Atheism are the samething.
I would be attempting to show you, that is not necessarily the case
Well do me a favour please.
Go to that debate about Trumps father and at least put a punctuation mark down so i can post my argument.
If you do not agree with my argument, then you can refute it in round 2.
Yes, i've made a few haven't i.
That will stop when isolation stops however.
I am having an indoor holiday.
Also really enjoyed that debate we had.
More debates? I thought you would have your hands full already
Hi Ramdatt. Are you still intending to debate this subject?
Well, i will continue to put my sources where everyone can see them, and will continue to quote my sources so that i cannot be accused of misquoting. Quite simply, i cannot misquote, what i quote. If you understand.
But you can conduct yourself as you wish. I will make an effort however to bend over backwards and produce your links, and quote them for you, and try to establish if your sources contradict themselves or not, and also if they even say what you attribute to them.
I will do this. Dont worry.
Who has position to decide the definition of personhood is a subject for a different debate.
Science defines "life" as being the point an egg becomes a person.
I don;t think i have. I purely made a claim this is what Science says. And Science does say that.
Whether or not philosophy says this, or the courts say this, is not included in the debate.
The only way it can be proven wrong, is to prove Science does not say this.
So when do you think the beginning of life is, compared to beginning of personhood?
For definition of personhood you would be better asking SkepticOne. As it is SkepticOne who i initially invited for this debate.. As SkepticOne is the person arguing that personhood is something not recognised so early on in a pregnancy, and happens well after the recommended time limit for abortions
Anyway, i just done a quick one today. Took me 2 mins to compose.
So it is your turn already
Hi..I did not alter the title.
I altered the amount of characters from 30,000 to 10,000.
Also, person-hood and life, is regarded as pretty much the samething.
I am referring to what most contemporary Science say's on the subject.
I am not referring to what Philosophy, Theosophy, Criminal courts of law, Common law courts, say about it.
Purely when Science say's life begins. Nothing else.
I have reduced the characters to 10,000.
Also have changed wording of my description also.
It is not required to use all 30,000 characters. But am simply removing restrictions
I am going to start a debate on this very subject right now. I am going to attempt to show how even contemporary science, since 1967, has decreed that personhood begins at Fertilisation
hI zed. Guilty of what? Saddam Hussein was hanged in 2006 for crimes against humanity. I will be arguing that Saddam Hussein being guilty, is wrong, as the all the reasons provided by the USA to justify invading Iraq in the first instance, were "all" wrong. Everything about it was wrong. And even the things Saddam was guilty of, he could not possibly be deemed guilty of, given the crimes committed by the people that were finding him guilty. And no, i am not a Baathist. I am actually more from the debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims. I am however debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims, whilst try to highlight the "real" issues in to how and why 9/11 happened, and Saddam Hussein got caught up in all this, even though he was nothing to do with 9/11, and was actually fighting the exact same group USA were supporting on one hand. That group being, the group that flew jet liners in to the twin towers and pentagon
I am actually going to raise another challenge here.
I cannot prove DrSpy does not genuinely believe Pro had the better argument.
But i do question his awarding my opponent on sources aswell. The reason his previous vote got removed was because he admitted that fauxlaws challenge on my use of wikipedia was equivalent to a "texas sharpshooter", and that fauxlaw did not actually challenge the validity of anything within the article, so i was never given the chance to find better sources. Yet DrSpy still managed to somehow award fauxlaw points for the sources. He then came back, changed his wording and rerewarded fauxlaw with points for sources. Yet most of fauxlaws sources are from books you have to go out and purchase. You cannot simply link to them. Therefore i actually believe i have the better sources. So more accurate reflection, based upon DrSpys own admission, and his inability to back his claim that fauxlaws sources are more indepth, is wrong. he is unable to view fauxlaws sources. Fauxlaw does not even list the page number on them. I even find the vote for argument contentious, based upon the amount of errors he previously claimed fauxlaw committed, without attributing one single error to myself. However i would accept if he genuinely believes fauxlaw has the better argument, i cannot prove he does not genuinely think that. But i do not genuinely believe that his points regarding sources is legitimate
I left the argument at a tie. I left my own personal opinion out of that aswell. As my personal opinion would have been to hand it to Jackle. However you argued just aswell for non vaccinations, as Jackle argued "for" vaccinations. You admitted your error regarding the source. And i sympathise with that. I have made an error when i provided the wrong bleedin quote, and pressed publish. Proper palm face....But in games and sport, errors are what get us punished. I also acknowledged Jackles objectionable remarks regarding DrSpy. So all in all, it is pretty much a draw. 6-5 to Jackle is neither her nor there. So i did you both a favour
It is annoying when we do that. I done the samething myself on a debate girrr
Reagrding this link here however where you said "There's no obligation, and no harm done. To find out more about the anti-vax movement, follow this link: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-33774181."
Your own link does not support what you said. i read it. The report would cause outrage in anyone not getting vaccinated.
From your own article ""They don't see that so they don't know, so they say, 'What's the big deal? It's a rash, you know, it won't be my kid.' But people forget what childhood death is and what infantile mortality is, people forget how many children died or were left with encephalitis or terrible brain diseases that caused mental retardation and people to be institutionalised for the rest of their life from measles."
This article is scathing of anti-vaxxers
"Pro expects to have the studies that he cites to do the arguing for him, when that's clearly what sources aren't for. Instead of using sources to back up/support an argument, Pro simply lists sources, expects people to read them whole, expects them to outline and argument, and expects them to win the debate for him."
TBH Exile, that is what the vast majority do.
Write something in their own words. Stick a link next to it. Then you open the link to an article with thousands of words.
But there is a reason for this, it is because rarely do the articles 100% say what is being claimed. In certain circumstances, though rare, the article is not even regarding the same topic as what the person linked too.
I have however checked TheJackles sources, and they do pretty much say what she says.
Though i agree. Is kind of pooping in your own pie when you dont do a simple thing like copy and paste the quote.
No-one should be expected to simply take someones word for it that the article says that, just because there is a link there.
Got all the time in the world mate. Business shut down because of corona virus. Lorry broken down and cant get it fixed because garage it is under warranty at is shut down until farther notice. Customers are going off their heads phoning me and complaining but i am not responding...What was that we were discussing? Oh yes, suicide pacts....Well why not? Yes, good idea.
Darn. Wish you had told me that before i accepted lol. Your argument might not be so easy to dismantle now.
Are you going to argue in favour of a suicide pact in order to solve this problem?
Please quit with slanderous and unprofessional allegations. And accept votes against like an adult, if possible. Or don't. I am not your keeper.
It is ok. I have already been in contact with the moderators to explain that i do not wish my opponents votes to be removed.
I only did this because it was becoming apparent that people are reporting my votes, and do not respect the opinions of others.
However my belief is without voters, there is no site.
So therefore i do not wish for my opponents votes to be removed.
Congratulations on your victory
continued
"The rubric of what is good, and what better means relative to good is not defined or established. In a much simpler way what is good for the goose, may not be good for the gander. A fox is good relative to her family when she steals a chicken. She is not good relative to the chickens family, or the farmer. And when she gets better at snatching fresh poultry relative to her family, the chickens family would undisputably opine very differently."
Ok, so let me work this out. I will go back
"The phrase could be a better Nazi, a better KKK member, a better monk. " In a much simpler way what is good for the goose, may not be good for the gander. "
Eh?
Conduct now only 3-0
sourcing 5-0
argument 0-0
S&G 0-0
"If the good is tall than better would be taller. What is missing from the definition of the debate is a baseline of what the value is."
What?
" I use the Value Theory to support this position."
Lets hang on a second here eh! "What position"? The position that the good is tall than better would be taller?
DrSpy "I thank my opponent for their opening argument. I would like to point out a discrepancy in the title, and the narrative of the debate description.
The title says: "Does a good, perfect man struggle with evil"
The last sentence of the opening narrative says "a perfect person still must struggle to avoid evil behavior."
I am going to start out by awarding DrSpy with a conduct violation from the word go.
I do not think there are any contradictions, nor discrepancies, and the suggestion is unrequired
Quite simply, there is no contradiction.
fauxlaws opening does not have to be the same as his title. DrSpy takes it out of context. I actually fail to see his logic.
Conduct now only 3-0
sourcing 5-0
argument 0-0
S&G 0-0
"The difference is the first statement deals with an undefined struggle, the second statement qualifies that struggle to be for the purposes of avoiding evil behavior. Both are addressed by my position. My position is one that comes down tot he definitions of Good, Evil, and most importantly Struggle that have been provided."
I find this incomprehensible. It makes little sense actually.
"The definition of good: " the state of acting on influences to be a better person today than yesterday. It is not a static condition, but continually dynamic, demanding of one to not just espouse goodness, but to be committed to its action in all circumstances."
This all lacks clarity. It is incomprehensible. Impossible to even work out how it relates to the previous paragraph
"I submit the first issue is the phrase 'better person today than yesterday' has no reference point. The phrase could be a better Nazi, a better KKK member, a better monk. "
I do not see how he made this leap to what he is now discussing. there appeared to be no logical connection
Conduct now only 3-0
sourcing 5-0
argument 0-0
S&G 0-0
tbc
Rd1 continued
"Application of being perfect
Most people would say, “That formula can be applied for two or three day’s, but, inevitably, we fail.” Yes. But, what if we didn’t? What if we last five days, then ten, then more? It is possible, just unlikely.
As the days of perfection mount, having a continuous string of a variety of choices, at least one of which will be to respond with imperfect evil, that becomes a challenge with potential loss of the perfect record. Is that a struggle?
John Wesley commented, “A person may be sincere who has all his natural tempers, pride, anger, lust, self-will. But he is not perfect until his heart is cleansed from these, and all its other corruptions.”[v]"!
Where did John Lesley say this? I simply do not see it
Argument 0-0
conduct 0-4
source 0-5
S&G 0-0
On to DrSpy
fauxlaw begins round 1 - Does a perfect person struggle with evil?
No one is perfect for the reason that they are immune from evil; no one can be that immune. In fact, H.J. McCloskey, described as an atheologian [one who argues for the nonexistence of God], of the University of Melbourne, maintains that it is unavoidable. He claims a construct of the following:[i]
Fauxlaw commits what i consider a source violation right at the beginning. He attributes words to a person. Paraphrases that person.
Does not provide the quote.
Instead provides a link that does not even work.
Therefore voter needs to go searching for "his" work. No need. There is the ability to "quote" what is being quoted, and link it above the quote.
So no searching needs to be done. It simply should not have to be.
Sources . 0-1
"[1] God is omnipotent
[2] God is omniscient
[3] God is perfectly good
[4] Evil exists
Conduct violation. fauxlaw stated no mention of religion
source 0-1
conduct 0-1
"McCloskey contends that even if one, two, or three of the above statements are true, all four cannot be true. He argues that if God is omnipotent, He could end all suffering in the world, but He has not; therefore, He is nonexistent. McCloskey argues the same point for God’s omniscience."
Conduct violation. God of the bible
source 0-1
conduct 0-2
Again, continuing to paraphrase. No quote of where McCloskey said this was provided on the playing table.
"McCloskey ignores, but it must be considered, that neither omnipotence nor omniscience imply that either power must be used, only that it is available. The wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” ideology says otherwise: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”[ii]"
Another source violation
Sources 0-2
"The idea is to try to negotiate in peace, but be prepared to wield strength. McCloskey further ignores that God employs a third construct in addition to omnipotence and omniscience: the free agency of man."
“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[iii]
Conduct violation
Another source violation.
Quite simply, we do not have the original scriptures, so we cannot use the bible as a reliable source
conduct 0-3
source 0-3
"We often interpret this passage as allowing Adam to eat of every tree except of the tree of knowledge, but that is not at all what is said. God said that Adam could “freely eat” “of every tree of the garden,” including the tree of knowledge. It’s just that eating from the tree of knowledge had a consequence apparently different than the other trees, but God’s gift of agency to man remains intact. There are consequences to our actions, and they can be good and bad."
Conduct 0-4
Source 0-3
Will leave out the conjecture.
"How to be perfect
Based on the definition of “perfect” as offered in the debate description above, the question must be posed: How do we become perfect? One article, The Science of Decision-Making: 5 Ways to Make the Right Decision Every Timesays yes.[iv] It contends that a formula exists to do just that:
1. Focus on the big picture.
2. Know what you value.
3. Recognize and overcome the sunk-cost [a losing path] bias.
4. Create the necessary environment.
5. Take immediate action by the 5-second rule [If you do not take action – physical movement - in the first five seconds, the brain will dismiss the idea]."
Another source violation. I should be able to read on that page where The Science of Decision-Making said this, and not just take the debeters word for it, or go searching for it.
conduct 0-4
source 0-4
TBC
Ok. Using a new sytstem i will be casting a vote. Both parties will have plenty time to object, as they will be made aware before-hand
And i will end by concluding "why" i consider the bible an unreliable source.
By fauxlaws own admission. We do not have the original scriptures.
Yet he still uses it to support his undertsandings
"Pro argues that “The only two religions to genuinely pillage and conquer and make themselves unbelievably dominant religions over the rest are Christianity and Islam.” Ignored in the claim is Judaism’s Torah, as represented by Deuteronomy 20: 16-18, “But the cities of these people [Canaanites, etc.] which the Lord they God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them…”
However, this is an aside argument, not germane to the debate question of which element, a religion’s holy writ, or the adherents’ capacity of interpretation of it is the more sanctified.
The opponent has the burden of proof to demonstrate the subject of the debate. I contend that he has failed in his purpose. Pro has even conceded the debate:
“I concede this debate out of not wanting the stress and unhealthy conflict that arises when thinking your religion needs to thwart all others.” Considering the shared themes all three Abrahamic religions demonstrate, it is by mere interpretation of selected verses, taken out of context, and completely misinterpreted by not investigating context, that Pro believes his claims. In rebuttal, I claim three points:
1. Pro’s argument in round 1 highlighted verses in the Qur’an, claiming that they were “severely alarming” by advocating mistreatment of women. A read of the passage quoted had naught to do with this subject, or abuse of any kind.
2. Pro’s argument followed by claiming “many intra-religion contradictions, intra-Abrahamic-inter-religion contradictions and to furthermore not irrationally rule out all non-Abrahamic religions as worth your time.” I argued in reply that all three religions specify in their separate holy writs shared themes, elevating those writings above the turmoil to sanctify their wisdom above that of men’s interpretations.
3. Pro argued that “blind faith” is encouraged, and that questioning God is toxic. On the contrary, I quoted from the Qur’an, the Bible, and the Torah, on the agreeable principle that God invites questions, and will reply by revelation, with eager compliance, contesting the claimed toxicity.
I refer you to the referenced sources offered n each of the first three rounds in support of the three arguments discussed above. I contend that this debate is not lost by forfeit, but won by sound and documented reasoning.
I actually award fauxtraut an argument point for his comments about Judaism, and it "was" the Hebrews that wrote the bible. And i will also reduce a mark for once using sources correctly. And that is to prove valid points. and defeat claims.
Argument 0-11
source 0-31
conduct 0-2
S&G 2-0
Now i cannot remember who it was i voted for last time. But i have developed a new strategy of voting anyway. But if it was fauxlaw i voted for last-time, i did so because i was under the impression, that the opponent had surrendered. Though i cannot remember. I'v had some sleeps by then.
But if anyone wants to claim they put more effort than me, in to deciding who has the best argument, go ahead.
There is no error whatsoever. The only two religions to genuinely pillage and conquer and make themselves unbelievably dominant religions over the rest are Christianity and Islam. This is because they took many teachings in the writings literally and forgot to properly interpret and put into context the concept of 'spreading religion' not by force but by love.
"It is not my job to teach the world the corruption of the Abrahamic religions and while Judaism has done less in terms of conquering and pillaging, it isn't a mystery that Israel is known for its corruption. I'd link a source but that would give my opponent the potential to not win the source voting point.
I concede this debate out of not wanting the stress and unhealthy conflict that arises when thinking your religion needs to thwart all others, which Abrahamic religions love to think as it's taught in their scriptures. I have actually read all three scriptures that Con says I haven't, it's Con who is baselessly claiming to have read them and appealing to authority as if his claim he read more asserts what he says as more likely to be true.
I know exactly how horrific the texts are but I don't want to risk typing anything resembling hate speech so I will stop here."
Here, Rat Skep puts a "huge" smile on my face. Do you know why? Because debaters on here had me doubting i had the ability to judge things and inteprpret things. But at the beginning of writing beneath, i had not read round 5.
And guess what...He said "everything" i attributed to him believing.
Argument 12-0
source 26-0
conduct 2-0
S&G 0-2
"
Conclusion
Contrary to Pro’s argument against the sound advice given in all three scriptures of Abrahamic religions, relative to just this example of peacemaking, let alone the other axioms of the Sermon on the Mount, it is scripture that defines the standard. By Pro’s mistaken transference of the written word for demonstrated action, Pro argued that it was the Word that is sanctimonious and inferior to human capacity to interpret it, and not the opposite. It is demonstrated that the reverse is true: Scripture is sanctified, and it is the duty of human interpretation to align to it."
Let me reread this " By Pro’s mistaken transference of the written word for demonstrated action, Pro argued that it was the Word that is sanctimonious and inferior to human capacity to interpret it, and not the opposite. It is demonstrated that the reverse is true: Scripture is sanctified, and it is the duty of human interpretation to align to it."
Pro argued this, did he? "and not the opposite. It is demonstrated that the reverse is true:" woah
"Scripture is sanctified, and it is the duty of human interpretation to align to it."
what does this mean? It sounds incomprehensible
argument 0-11
source 0-26
conduct 0-2
S&G 2-0
[1]Holy Bible, Matthew 5: 9
[2]https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/whats-the-real-meaning-of-islam/
[3]Qur’an, Imrams 135 - 140
[4]https://www.etymonline.com/word/shalom
[5]Torah, Numbers 6: 23 - 26
[6]Holy Bible, Isaiah 32: 17
argument 0-11
sources 0-32
conduct 0-2
S&G 2-0
end of round 4
fauxlaw - the sentence beneath was just conjecture. The next bit of relevance was
"In Matthew 5 of the New Testament of the Holy Bible, we find the “Sermon on the Mount,” commonly called “The Beatitudes;” being “poor in spirit,” “mourn,” “meek,” “hunger and thirst after righteousness,” etc. My argument is that the attitudes taught in this singular sermon are so effective, regardless of their ancient revelation, so pertinent to our times, though two thousand years ancient, that adherence to each, were that actually attempted and practiced by all, would solve every single social ill we suffer today. Every one of them."
I’ll highlight one, and compare it to the other two scriptures of Abrahamic religion to demonstrate that all three embrace this sermon: "
No-one has validated the bible as a reliable source. Another source violation
argument 0-9
Sourcing 0-20
Conduct -0-2
S&G 2-0
"Christianity
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”[1]
Islam
It should be noted, first, that the word, Islam is derived from Arabic “sal’m,”or, in English, “peace.”[2]
Further, The Qur’an, Imrans: 134: “Those who give alms in prosperity and in adversity, who curb their anger and forgive their fellow men [God loves the charitable]; who, if they commit evil or wrong their souls, remember God and seek forgiveness for their sins [for who but God can forgive sin?] and do not knowingly persist in their misdeeds.”[3]
Judaism
Note, first, the Hebrew word, shalom, is “peace.”[4]Compare the Arabic, “sal’m.”
The Torah works peace: “Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying: On this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel; ye shall say unto them:
The Lord bless thee, and keep thee;
The Lord make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee;
The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.”[5]
Further: Old Testament, “The Prophets”
“And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever.”[6]"
That was all meaningless. fauxlaw even agrees that there is no way of validating what the scriptures used to say. Yet he still uses them when it comes to forming hiis own arguments
argument 0-10
Sourcing 0-26
Conduct -0-2
S&G 2-0
"The Pro opponent has declined to participate further in this debate. The moderator has advised to “extend” each of the future rounds, including this. I choose, rather, to place a final argument now, and will extend the last, 4th round.
In the round 3 forfeiture, Pro said he is “not concerned with ‘fighting,’ and that is what Abrahamic religions encourage too much of actually.”
In round 1, Con charged that Pro has not read the Torah, the Holy Bible, nor the Qur’an “word-for-word, cover-to-cover.” It is, therefore, not surprising that Pro would suggest “fighting” is the order of the day among the practitioners of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The error in Pro’s claim is in replacing the Hoy Writ of these religions with the evidence of some, and perhaps, in history if not currently, many to most practitioners."
If Rat skep had forfeited. Then it would be unfair for me to award anymore
However i have to go back and reread. I dont believe Rat skep did indeed offer a surrender. This is a conduct violation, trying to con me
Argument 0-8
Sourcing 0-19
Conduct -0-2
S&G 2-0
"I contend that the reverse is the true observation: that the Word is sanctified, and that it is the action of practitioners that fails to interpret correctly what is written."
I believe in fact, that it is the believers are simply lying about having the ability to correctly "interpret" what is written. And i believe this is another argument point to Rat Skep, because his title actually suggests that he is aware that this is what believers try to do
"The only genuinely sane way to adhere to an Abrahamic religion is to deem the sanctity of scripture/writing as inferior to human capacity to interpret it."
argument 0-9
Sourcing 0-19
Conduct -0-2
S&G 2-0
"I do not wish to engage in this debate anymore, it is not important to point out the flaws of other scripture if we truly adhere to the true one.
I am something in between a Pagan and a Taoist and I adore being this way, I am not concerned with 'fighting', that is what Abrahamic religions encourage too much of actually.
Let them preach what they want, if you can't with your own interpretation question the horrific and stupid parts, that's on you. Your insanity is your burden, not just others'. That's all I will say. I understand that I am likely to lose the debate. I encourage all to read here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3949/i-have-converted-to-taoism-and-i-quit-this-website?page=1&post_number=25
if you care about my spiritual journey and where this debate's research led me towards that then made me not want to continue this debate."
I read from this Rat Skep agrees that what the texts used to say, is not important. it is what they say today that is important.
But one will never be able to convince someone that believes, of this.
argument 9-0
sourcing 21-0
conduct 1-0
S&G 0-2
"It is further argued that culture drives language, not the reverse [my opponent did not argue this, but it must acknowledged as essential to the argument]. Language points to culture."
There is a hell of a lot he did not argue. That means nothing..Argument fallacy equals bad argument equals
argument 0-8
"Language is not merely its alphabet, syntax, and grammar, but is a reflection of the culture that creates it.[2]
source violation
sourcing 0-21
"Without a prior knowledge of the culture, a language foreign to our own will not be fully understood until the culture is understood. Therefore, the translationof an ancient language, let alone contemporary, is only possible by first understanding the ancient culture. To do otherwise is transliteration,a dictionary-to-dictionary comparison. Dictionaries typically do a poor job of cultural education."
This is meaningless. What the scriptures said yesterday, in no way invalidates what they say today.
The rest is conjecture "Therefore, the sanctity of religious texts is superior to any human interpretation," but keep an eye on this
argument 0-8
sourcing 0-21
conduct 0-1
S&G 2-0
Extra source violation regards to this link
"[1]https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/204859?redirectedFrom=transliterate#eid"
It takes you to a page where your computer is likely to freeze, and there is nothing there that supports what he said
argument 0-8
sourcing 0-22
conduct 0-1
S&G 2-0
He produced a link for claim 2 aswell, that actually did say a little what he said.
So willl remove 2 source violations. Though would be helpful if links were displayed above the quote
argument 0-8
sourcing 0-20
conduct 0-1
S&G 2-0
End of round 2
"First, as it has already been used in the first Con argument, “transliterate” will be defined by the Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, OED]: “transliterate transitive:To replace [the letters or characters of one alphabet] with those of another, representing as closely as possible the same sounds; to write [a word] in the letters or characters of another alphabet.”[1]"
Incomprehensible definitioning, plus two source violations
Argument 0-6
Sourcing 0-20
Conduct 0-1
Spelling and Grammar.... hey, there was some big words in that description.
2-0
"The claim of a debased sanctity, as opposed to human interpretation, is refuted by simple means. One must acknowledge that we have, today, a variety of “translations” of each volume [the Torah, the Bible – Old and New Testaments, and the Qur’an], however, we have no examples of original, historically contemporary texts of any volume. Therefore, we, today, being separated from any consideration of original texts, are left with transliterations, not direct translations. As such, having second, third… n-hand representations of texts, it would follow that interpretation is inferior to sanctity, not, as my opponent contends, the reverse."
I read from this that fauxlaw is admitting he cannot prove that Rat Skep is wrong about what is written in the bible, because we do not have the original scriptures, so we only have fauxlaws word for it..However i am not sure Rat Skep is bothered about what the original scriptures says. He is talking about the scriptures of today, and what they say today
Argument 0-7
Sourcing 0-20
Conduct 0-1
s&g 2-0
Rat Skep round 2 forfeited.
Conduct now only 1-0
Argument now only 6-0
Sources now only 18-0
Spelling and grammar 0-1
No spelling and grammar is worse than no spelling and grammar.
Ok, now on to his opponent. his opponent might be able to claw some credit back, given there was a lack of an argument
fauxlaw has plenty time to appeal.
I still have 4 rounds to go.
I will no longer vote without first giving debaters the opportunity to object
fauxlaw However, let us consult the following passage of The Imrans 3: 6 – 11, which my opponent ignored in his claim of toxicity:
Rat Skep also ignored donald trump getting voted in to preseidency. Him not mentioning something is not proof he is wrong. Conduct violation
Also there has been no confirmation that Imrans 3 6 - 11 is a valid source
Conduct 0-2
source 0-16
argument 0-7
"“Those that deny Allah’s revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge. Nothing on earth or in heaven is hidden from Allah. It is He who shapes your bodies in your mothers’ wombs as He pleases. There is no god but Him, the Mighty, the Wise One.
“It is He who has revealed to you the Book.”[1]"
fauxlaw proves opponents claims entirely. This what the bible says, yes. So argument 0-8. One source violation
Argument 0-8
sourcing 0-18
Conduct 0-2
"There appears to be a lot of revelation going on, God to man, to claim that such communication is toxic to our souls. It appears that it is even consistent, not contradictory revelation, over three separate volumes. And, why not? Whether the god in question is Elohim,[2] not a name, but a title, and, in fact, according to John Mclaughlin, a reference to either a single god, or many, or Christ, not a name, but a title, signifying “Messiah,”[3] or Allah[4], not a name, but a title, signifying God. These several references to “God” are all titles.[5]"
This is completely meaningless. uncomprehensible. 4 source violations. + bad uncomprehensible argument = bad argument 0-9
Argument 0-9
source 0-19
conduct 0-2
End of round 1 analysis
fauxlaw rd 1 continued
"It seems the claim of contradiction is refuted by my opponent’s own referenced passage, in context, of the Qur’an, let alone similar passages in both the Torah and the Gospels. To ratify this point, let us observe a passage of the Gospel that is echoed by the reference to The Imrans, 3: 169-170. I quote from Matthew 5: 10 – 12:
“10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”[3]
fauxlaw now claims Rat Skep refuted himself. But where?
For proof of this, he provides this “10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”[3]
what does this mean? or prove? also two more source violation
Sourcing 0-13 + passages from bible that do not appear to even mean anything 0-14
argument 0-5
conduct 0-1
Allegations of Rat Skep refuting himself must result in another argument point against.
"Curious, this passage does not speak to abusing women, either. So, from what fountain does that claim spring?
Finally, my opponent claims that “blind faith is to be encouraged and that questioning God itself is toxic to your soul and wellbeing.”[4]
Well, Rat Skep did not say the OT was "all" about references to abusing women. One more source violation and 0-6 argument
Argument 0-6
source 0-15
conduct 0-1
"It seems the extended passage from James 1: 5 refutes that claim all on its own:
“…let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” To “upbraid” is “to give reproach, or reproof” according to the OED. However, the passage is upbraid not; that is, there is no reproach, or, one might say, even, it is not “toxic to your soul.”[5]"
What? sorry? how does that refute anything? and when was it agreed James 1:5 is a reliable source? two more source violations. 0-7 argument
conduct 0-1
source 0-16
argument 0-7
tbc