When my opponent waives first round, I usually waive final round. Yes, Pro should not have waived here, but they are very likely new at debating, so just give him a chance ;)
WHO DID THIS!? WHO RELEASED THE SCOURGE KNOWN AS WISDOMOFAGES ONTO THIS PRISTINE SITE??? WHAT'S NEXT, 21CENTURYICONOCLAST??? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CALAMITY??? WE NEED TO RID THIS SITE OF THIS PLAGUE AND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE, OTHERWISE DART WILL BECOME THE NEXT DDO!!!
3b. Each section of a piece of literature should be interpreted in its own way. However, if a statement made in one text directly contradicts another made in an earlier text, then it is considered internally inconsistent, regardless of whether that piece of text is literal or figurative.
3c. Whether or not a certain piece of text should be discredited entirely due to inconsistencies depends on the severity and frequency of the inconsistencies. This particular point is beyond the scope of this debate, but we can discuss this further in a separate debate and/or in the PMs if you wish.
This comment is for addressing GuitarSlinger's second (third?) batch of questions.
Jeez, it's almost like I'm having a mini-debate within this debate ;)
1. I have already defined "piece of literature" in my previous two/three comments. I define one piece of literature as all of the pages sandwiched in between two covers. This means the entire bible is considered "one piece of literature", for reasons I have explained in my previous comments.
2. I would not consider that bookshelf to be one piece of literature, because that is simply the collection of books one person happens to own. Now, if someone were to publish a book consisting of those 5 works, then I would consider that to be one single piece of literature. To answer your third question as well (which you accidentally also called the second question), if someone were to publish a collection of books under a single title, then that book would be considered a single piece of literature, even though the other works are separate books in their own right. One more key distinguishing feature of a collective book (book with multiple books in it) is that it the different books in a collective are very often bound together by commonalities (subject matter, characters, author, etc.). In the case of the "master" comic that commonality is Superman, in the Iliad it is the Trojan War, and in the Bible, it is God.
3a. Any inconsistencies in any pieces of literature are worthy of criticism. The reader will definitely note said inconsistencies in the text (whether or not they impact the reader’s experiences depend on the severity and frequency of inconsistencies). As for your Aesop’s Fables analogy, it does not make sense. Having talking animals in it does not, in any way, contradict any statement made in the Fables.
I will continue this in the next comment as I am running out of space for this one.
Allow me to provide another analogy to illustrate my point. The Iliad (not perfectly analogous to the Bible, but it will work for this case) was written by numerous authors over a timespan of many generations (it wasn't really authored, it was more passed down by oral traditions. There is also no conclusive evidence of a man named "Homer" having ever existed). Like the Bible, it is expected that the customs and traditions of the various authors of the Iliad would change over the course of history, from the first authors to the final ones. However, if the later authors write down a statement which contradicts something the earlier authors said, even if cultural differences can account for it, as long as it is within the same book (using the definition of book defined in comment #18), it will still count as internally inconsistent. For example, if the first part of the Iliad said that Achilles wore a bronze helmet to battle and the later parts state that Achilles wore an iron helmet to battle (without mentioning a wardrobe change), it would still be an internal inconsistency, even if they were written hundreds of years apart (the bronze and iron ages respectively).
3. The inconsistency noted in "Superman's birthplace" was chosen because it wouldn't change (maybe if the plot of a comic took place in an alternate universe, some super surprising plot twist happened, or some villain came and rewrote history, that would change, but other than that it wouldn't). As I mentioned in my previous comment, any statement or fact which contradicted a previously established one would make the book internally inconsistent in that particular aspect. In short, all contradictions are comparable to each other, just that some contradictions are more serious than others.
This comment is meant to address the questions GuitarSlinger posted to me, but I will also tag zedvictor4 as the answers provided will also relate to the comment he/she made.
Firstly, I would like to state that IMO, I agree that Marvel is overall better than DC. I simply chose Superman because that was the first thing that came to mind. ;)
Secondly, allow me to address all of your questions. Don't hesitate to ask more questions if you require more clarification on any issue pertaining to this topic.
1. I acknowledge that the Old and New Testaments (along with their respective texts) were written centuries apart, by numerous different authors for different purposes, in completely different circumstances (the Old testament was written between 1200 BCE and 165 BCE [from roughly the time of the Ancient Judean Kingdoms to that of the Late Seleucids], while the New testament was written between 50 AD and the middle of the fourth century AD [at the time of the Roman Empire]), and that they consist of different types of literature. However, as I will explain in my next point, the same concepts to determine whether or not a piece of literature is internally inconsistent still apply to the Bible.
2. I agree that differences described above, to a degree, be taken into consideration when reading a piece of literature. However, the same rules for determining whether or not said piece of literature is or is not internally consistent apply, regardless of how many authors a piece of literature contains or over how long the piece has been written for. All facts, statements, and opinions/positions of the various characters stated within a piece of literature should remain consistent, meaning that they should not change abruptly without any other information inside the book to warrant such change.
I will continue the answers in the next comment as I am running out of space for this one.
My point was that wherever possible, provide BoP. But if you truly can't, then for this debate, I will drop the BoP requirement for you and you can base your argument off of rebutting mine. So yeah, I guess I can drop BoP requirement for Con in this debate.
Very good question. For this debate (you might not agree with this definition), I will be defining "the same piece of literature" as everything between the two covers of the Bible. This is because someone reading the bible would reasonably go from start to finish and consider certain verses in respect to the entire Bible, not just the particular text in isolation.
Think of it like this (I know this is not a perfect analogy, but still). Imagine every single issue of Superman comics to have ever been published was compiled into a single "master" comic. If, for example, issue #1 claimed that Superman was born on planet Krypton but issue #80 claimed that Superman was born on Earth (without providing any outside context); even if both issues were thoroughly consistent in their plotlines about where Superman was born, the "master" comic would still have a statement contradicting one made at an earlier point, and would therefore still be considered internally inconsistent for the topic of where Superman was born.
In short, if a specific text contradicts itself in one or more points, then it is obviously internally inconsistent. If a specific text makes points which contradicts points made in one or more other texts within the same book (book in this case means all of the pages bound between the two covers), then the texts themselves are not internally inconsistent, but the book as a whole is.
I'll be going first, so I will have to provide burden of proof first anyways. If you really cannot provide the BoP for your opening statement, then I guess it's ok to base your arguments off of my BoP. Try not to, but it will still be acceptable if you can't provide BoP.
Before you (Alec) mentioned it to me, I didn't know who Brother D was. I'll have to look deeper into his profile, but upon initial observation, he kinda seems like the same type of person as backwardseden and WisdomofAges (another person who attacks their opponents in every argument). I might be horribly wrong about this, but it's what I saw going off of Dr.Franklin's link.
Thank you for your respect. I personally am agnostic, but I do respect the religious decisions of others. I usually debate theists, but when people blatantly attack other people for their religious beliefs (like, for example, backwardseden), I have no problems debating against them as well. My personal view is that we will never be able to truly know whether or not there is a deity responsible for the creation of our universe unless we manage to observe beyond the observable universe. Once again, thank you.
When my opponent waives first round, I usually waive final round. Yes, Pro should not have waived here, but they are very likely new at debating, so just give him a chance ;)
THANK THE MODS SOMEONE BANNED WISDOMOFAGES!!!
SHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Do not say that dreadful name, for anyone who does summons the one who shall not be named onto the site they are on!!!
We need to find the vector of this disease, pronto
WHO DID THIS!? WHO RELEASED THE SCOURGE KNOWN AS WISDOMOFAGES ONTO THIS PRISTINE SITE??? WHAT'S NEXT, 21CENTURYICONOCLAST??? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CALAMITY??? WE NEED TO RID THIS SITE OF THIS PLAGUE AND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE, OTHERWISE DART WILL BECOME THE NEXT DDO!!!
I will do so once this one is over. (Who knows, maybe Andrew comes back and destroys me with FACTS and LOGIC XD)
If it comes down to it, then I will create another debate on the same topic. Maybe you will be able to debate me then ;)
3b. Each section of a piece of literature should be interpreted in its own way. However, if a statement made in one text directly contradicts another made in an earlier text, then it is considered internally inconsistent, regardless of whether that piece of text is literal or figurative.
3c. Whether or not a certain piece of text should be discredited entirely due to inconsistencies depends on the severity and frequency of the inconsistencies. This particular point is beyond the scope of this debate, but we can discuss this further in a separate debate and/or in the PMs if you wish.
This comment is for addressing GuitarSlinger's second (third?) batch of questions.
Jeez, it's almost like I'm having a mini-debate within this debate ;)
1. I have already defined "piece of literature" in my previous two/three comments. I define one piece of literature as all of the pages sandwiched in between two covers. This means the entire bible is considered "one piece of literature", for reasons I have explained in my previous comments.
2. I would not consider that bookshelf to be one piece of literature, because that is simply the collection of books one person happens to own. Now, if someone were to publish a book consisting of those 5 works, then I would consider that to be one single piece of literature. To answer your third question as well (which you accidentally also called the second question), if someone were to publish a collection of books under a single title, then that book would be considered a single piece of literature, even though the other works are separate books in their own right. One more key distinguishing feature of a collective book (book with multiple books in it) is that it the different books in a collective are very often bound together by commonalities (subject matter, characters, author, etc.). In the case of the "master" comic that commonality is Superman, in the Iliad it is the Trojan War, and in the Bible, it is God.
3a. Any inconsistencies in any pieces of literature are worthy of criticism. The reader will definitely note said inconsistencies in the text (whether or not they impact the reader’s experiences depend on the severity and frequency of inconsistencies). As for your Aesop’s Fables analogy, it does not make sense. Having talking animals in it does not, in any way, contradict any statement made in the Fables.
I will continue this in the next comment as I am running out of space for this one.
(continued from previous comment)
Allow me to provide another analogy to illustrate my point. The Iliad (not perfectly analogous to the Bible, but it will work for this case) was written by numerous authors over a timespan of many generations (it wasn't really authored, it was more passed down by oral traditions. There is also no conclusive evidence of a man named "Homer" having ever existed). Like the Bible, it is expected that the customs and traditions of the various authors of the Iliad would change over the course of history, from the first authors to the final ones. However, if the later authors write down a statement which contradicts something the earlier authors said, even if cultural differences can account for it, as long as it is within the same book (using the definition of book defined in comment #18), it will still count as internally inconsistent. For example, if the first part of the Iliad said that Achilles wore a bronze helmet to battle and the later parts state that Achilles wore an iron helmet to battle (without mentioning a wardrobe change), it would still be an internal inconsistency, even if they were written hundreds of years apart (the bronze and iron ages respectively).
3. The inconsistency noted in "Superman's birthplace" was chosen because it wouldn't change (maybe if the plot of a comic took place in an alternate universe, some super surprising plot twist happened, or some villain came and rewrote history, that would change, but other than that it wouldn't). As I mentioned in my previous comment, any statement or fact which contradicted a previously established one would make the book internally inconsistent in that particular aspect. In short, all contradictions are comparable to each other, just that some contradictions are more serious than others.
This comment is meant to address the questions GuitarSlinger posted to me, but I will also tag zedvictor4 as the answers provided will also relate to the comment he/she made.
Firstly, I would like to state that IMO, I agree that Marvel is overall better than DC. I simply chose Superman because that was the first thing that came to mind. ;)
Secondly, allow me to address all of your questions. Don't hesitate to ask more questions if you require more clarification on any issue pertaining to this topic.
1. I acknowledge that the Old and New Testaments (along with their respective texts) were written centuries apart, by numerous different authors for different purposes, in completely different circumstances (the Old testament was written between 1200 BCE and 165 BCE [from roughly the time of the Ancient Judean Kingdoms to that of the Late Seleucids], while the New testament was written between 50 AD and the middle of the fourth century AD [at the time of the Roman Empire]), and that they consist of different types of literature. However, as I will explain in my next point, the same concepts to determine whether or not a piece of literature is internally inconsistent still apply to the Bible.
2. I agree that differences described above, to a degree, be taken into consideration when reading a piece of literature. However, the same rules for determining whether or not said piece of literature is or is not internally consistent apply, regardless of how many authors a piece of literature contains or over how long the piece has been written for. All facts, statements, and opinions/positions of the various characters stated within a piece of literature should remain consistent, meaning that they should not change abruptly without any other information inside the book to warrant such change.
I will continue the answers in the next comment as I am running out of space for this one.
My point was that wherever possible, provide BoP. But if you truly can't, then for this debate, I will drop the BoP requirement for you and you can base your argument off of rebutting mine. So yeah, I guess I can drop BoP requirement for Con in this debate.
Oh, I see. (Btw, I wonder what would happen if they debated each other. It would be fun to watch, don't you agree?)
Very good question. For this debate (you might not agree with this definition), I will be defining "the same piece of literature" as everything between the two covers of the Bible. This is because someone reading the bible would reasonably go from start to finish and consider certain verses in respect to the entire Bible, not just the particular text in isolation.
Think of it like this (I know this is not a perfect analogy, but still). Imagine every single issue of Superman comics to have ever been published was compiled into a single "master" comic. If, for example, issue #1 claimed that Superman was born on planet Krypton but issue #80 claimed that Superman was born on Earth (without providing any outside context); even if both issues were thoroughly consistent in their plotlines about where Superman was born, the "master" comic would still have a statement contradicting one made at an earlier point, and would therefore still be considered internally inconsistent for the topic of where Superman was born.
In short, if a specific text contradicts itself in one or more points, then it is obviously internally inconsistent. If a specific text makes points which contradicts points made in one or more other texts within the same book (book in this case means all of the pages bound between the two covers), then the texts themselves are not internally inconsistent, but the book as a whole is.
I hope this answered your question ;)
I'll be going first, so I will have to provide burden of proof first anyways. If you really cannot provide the BoP for your opening statement, then I guess it's ok to base your arguments off of my BoP. Try not to, but it will still be acceptable if you can't provide BoP.
Before you (Alec) mentioned it to me, I didn't know who Brother D was. I'll have to look deeper into his profile, but upon initial observation, he kinda seems like the same type of person as backwardseden and WisdomofAges (another person who attacks their opponents in every argument). I might be horribly wrong about this, but it's what I saw going off of Dr.Franklin's link.
I have already defined internally inconsistent in the description.
Thank you!
Thank you for your respect. I personally am agnostic, but I do respect the religious decisions of others. I usually debate theists, but when people blatantly attack other people for their religious beliefs (like, for example, backwardseden), I have no problems debating against them as well. My personal view is that we will never be able to truly know whether or not there is a deity responsible for the creation of our universe unless we manage to observe beyond the observable universe. Once again, thank you.
Thanks!