I would be willing to argue for the proposition "Palestinians should have their own country". It seems like you oppose that, though I could be mistaken.
We could also do something about Israel's conduct in the war, though morality debates are tricky.
Or something generally political, not necessarily about Israel.
I believe countries that expel Jews tend to also cite reasons for it other than "We hate Jews". Such as accusing them of economic parasitism, disloyalty, undermining the government or culture, blood libel, and so on.
I would be happy to debate about something, I don't know exactly what. I'm not really pro-Palestine or anti-Zionist though. I just oppose prejudice against any ethnic group, including Palestinians.
"The Palestinians have been kicked out of every country they've ever been a part of" as an argument for the inherent evil of Palestinians is a dangerous one to make. Especially when you apply the same logic to the other side.
How about you don't tell people dumb down their arguments because you're too lazy to read, or demand they only use sources that get your Islamic seal of approval?
"Somebody engulfed in a fire to the point where not only the fire is extinguished but the life of the individual as well. That's universal law, universal order, objective. Now there are actions regarding this as much as other areas of activity. I understand that when people discuss morality they mention about doing. As in what the right thing to DO is. What the wrong thing to DO would be. These doings are dividing into lists based on the effect. In a nutshell, all actions that are done to cause one to perish in a fire is listed in one category divided from another for all actions to be done to avoid being consumed by a fire."
I would recommend setting the time for argument higher than 2 hours. If someone accepts the debate while you're asleep or busy, you'll end up auto-forfeiting the first round.
It feels like every new debate on this site insists on making the BOP easy as pie for themselves and impossible for their opponent.
Liberals oppose so-called “deregulation” because advocates of it often want to slash away all regulations, good and bad, even to the point of defunding or disbanding entire government departments. Obviously, there are bad regulations out there which only serve as red tape and make it harder to get things done. Anyone desperate enough to accept this debate would have to jump through hoops to argue against this.
Pretty sure it goes against the whole point of this site if you're able to disqualify people from voting simply because they harmed your fragile little ego. No wonder this place is dying before it ever really got off the ground.
So will you be arguing that the scriptures say that Jesus was God? Because that isn't really disputable. Now whether or not the Bible is a reliable or accurate source, that's something that can be discussed.
While I am not Jewish myself, I'll be glad to argue this on the basis that the Trinity is an idea that originated with Christianity, and the Hebrew Bible is based solely on the Jewish faith.
I would gladly argue against the notion that being LGBT is bad for society. I don't think I'd be ready to argue that it's something to be proud of, it's just a neutral characteristic that I think should be accepted by society and not discriminated against by bigots.
If you really are as serious about respectful debate as you claim to be, I would recommend not using belittling terms like "kid" when addressing your opponent.
When I point out that European science was stagnant in the Early Middle Ages, I am excluding the Byzantine Empire. The point still stands, since Western Europe was highly Christian, and should have advanced scientifically if Pro's argument were correct.
I would be willing to argue for the proposition "Palestinians should have their own country". It seems like you oppose that, though I could be mistaken.
We could also do something about Israel's conduct in the war, though morality debates are tricky.
Or something generally political, not necessarily about Israel.
I believe countries that expel Jews tend to also cite reasons for it other than "We hate Jews". Such as accusing them of economic parasitism, disloyalty, undermining the government or culture, blood libel, and so on.
I would be happy to debate about something, I don't know exactly what. I'm not really pro-Palestine or anti-Zionist though. I just oppose prejudice against any ethnic group, including Palestinians.
"The Palestinians have been kicked out of every country they've ever been a part of" as an argument for the inherent evil of Palestinians is a dangerous one to make. Especially when you apply the same logic to the other side.
I'd be interested in debating you on a religion-related topic, Pro. Not this one, as I agree it's more likely than not that Jesus existed.
:) :)
Huh?
Bump
How about you don't tell people dumb down their arguments because you're too lazy to read, or demand they only use sources that get your Islamic seal of approval?
Pro, debate in whatever way you see fit.
"Somebody engulfed in a fire to the point where not only the fire is extinguished but the life of the individual as well. That's universal law, universal order, objective. Now there are actions regarding this as much as other areas of activity. I understand that when people discuss morality they mention about doing. As in what the right thing to DO is. What the wrong thing to DO would be. These doings are dividing into lists based on the effect. In a nutshell, all actions that are done to cause one to perish in a fire is listed in one category divided from another for all actions to be done to avoid being consumed by a fire."
???
People on this site should learn how to cast a vote without telling anyone to kill themselves. It helps to develop basic social skills.
Boy, I wish I had read that only 1000 characters were allowed before I accepted this. I had to severely edit down what I was going to say, lmao.
From a fellow Narnia fan, best of luck to you, Con.
Thank you as well.
If you wanted to try this topic again, I'd be willing to debate it.
I would recommend setting the time for argument higher than 2 hours. If someone accepts the debate while you're asleep or busy, you'll end up auto-forfeiting the first round.
They can be explained badly, that's for sure.
You're telling me Islam has a 15-step guide on how to shit properly?
Maybe it isn't so bad after all.
Godzilla had a stroke trying to read this and fucking died
Anyone wanna vote on this?
Looking forward to a good debate on this!
*grabs popcorn*
A shame Con forfeited the whole thing. Shang-Chi and No Way Home were obviously better.
So the whole debate is going to be based on the first few verses of Genesis, all of which seem incredibly ambiguous on the subject?
We should change this website's name to BaitArt.
Declare yourself the winner Wylted, you're the president now.
I would be up for that.
It feels like every new debate on this site insists on making the BOP easy as pie for themselves and impossible for their opponent.
Liberals oppose so-called “deregulation” because advocates of it often want to slash away all regulations, good and bad, even to the point of defunding or disbanding entire government departments. Obviously, there are bad regulations out there which only serve as red tape and make it harder to get things done. Anyone desperate enough to accept this debate would have to jump through hoops to argue against this.
Pretty sure it goes against the whole point of this site if you're able to disqualify people from voting simply because they harmed your fragile little ego. No wonder this place is dying before it ever really got off the ground.
Did Yoda make this?
I genuinely can't tell if this is a troll or a severely mentally handicapped creature. This site truly attracts the best of humanity.
So will you be arguing that the scriptures say that Jesus was God? Because that isn't really disputable. Now whether or not the Bible is a reliable or accurate source, that's something that can be discussed.
A shame nobody votes unless one of the mod's friends is involved in the debate.
Bump
Lesss goooooo
Correction: I meant to say that Isaiah 53 isn't *necessarily* talking about the messiah.
While I am not Jewish myself, I'll be glad to argue this on the basis that the Trinity is an idea that originated with Christianity, and the Hebrew Bible is based solely on the Jewish faith.
> Imagine living a boring life without a partner or kids.
Why would you insult Paul the Apostle like that? Clearly, you're not a very good Christian.
I would gladly argue against the notion that being LGBT is bad for society. I don't think I'd be ready to argue that it's something to be proud of, it's just a neutral characteristic that I think should be accepted by society and not discriminated against by bigots.
If you really are as serious about respectful debate as you claim to be, I would recommend not using belittling terms like "kid" when addressing your opponent.
Debate.org is finally being put out of its misery, huh?
Greatest debate I've ever seen. 10/10. Christopher Hitchens wishes he could be this good.
Best of luck to you, my friend.
I would be happy to debate you again sometime. I'm an atheist and certainly not like backwardseden. That guy has some problems.
Oh look, Novice is freaking out and accusing everyone who voted against him of being stupid and biased against him. Color me shocked.
Thank you for a good debate as well. I see, you could have fooled me, you play a good devil's advocate. And a capable opponent for sure.
This whole debate is a kritik tbh.
Oops, I said 5 categories when I meant 6.
Thanks for accepting, I think it'll be fun as well!
I would be happy to try this. Maybe I'll accept tomorrow if no one else has, since it's getting late here.
When I point out that European science was stagnant in the Early Middle Ages, I am excluding the Byzantine Empire. The point still stands, since Western Europe was highly Christian, and should have advanced scientifically if Pro's argument were correct.