God is supposed to be all-good yet allows evil.
Almost anything would work here. Virtuoso went with the DNA route. Enough to demonstrate the problem with God. At the time I can't think of a better argument that supports his arguments more so great job. Don't know about the multiple questions. I guess it is more persuasive so guess it is not something I like to do but can see the benefits of persuasive rhetoric.
Atheism predicts the world better? F*cking weird argument and first I heard of this. First problem I found is that atheism doesn't equal naturalism. Under Pro’s definition it is that God does not exist. Naturalism is separate. A theist can represent a naturalistic argument and still say God exists so I don't think this is a strong argument. For example, be for evolution while God at the start of it. Best argument for christopher_best to show the flaws in it. I guess generally atheists support science more but it isn't inherent.
I am only speaking about the arguments and conduct.
Virtuoso Round 1:
God cannot exist because it contradicts itself.
Supported by all-knowing and all powerful. Don't think this is the best argument given all-powerful and all-loving/good would contradict one another. If God was all good why did God create bad or not stop bad. The framing wasn't the best because it didn't state the infinite regress that is much more important. If God knows all then does he know how powerful he is? If yes, then God is not more powerful than its knowledge. If no, then God is not all-knowing. Hopefully Virtuoso sees that so I am not talking from my a$$.
So basically what is worse: someone stating they are leaving or someone not giving an argument right?
This is an actual no brainer. An argument is better than no argument. Given it is required for a debate there is only one clear answer to what should be valued when it comes to debates, arguments then everything else can follow if both of them decide to do that as a bare minimum.
I did because it is clearly unfair for someone to give an argument only to lose because the other guy stayed till the very end. The question which should be asked is where is your argument and why didn't you make it when you stayed for that long?
Given this problem I gave the convincing argument and the conduct to Pro because he actually bothered to state what was relevant. Mharman didn't post an argument nor did he state why he didn't bother making an argument. Maybe he thought this would be an easy win so he didn't give an argument. He had the gall to post something irrelevant to this thread but didn't have the time to post an argument. If I accept the new evidence not about the debate at hand. I will still give TheAtheist all the points I gave. If I simply remove that out of the equation I would still vote the same because Mharman still forfeited more rounds and didn't give any arguments.
Just rare and bad. Christianity can flipendo away and socialism can be tried by another country only for it to fail again given it has been demonstrated the government is not best at running markets.
If the Bible wasn't strictly fiction or non-fiction then how do you know parts which apply to other side?
The person is basically a claim that something without having any referance in the book. It is not has a key to state blue writing is fiction whereas black is non-fiction.
You didn't change your name. You just decided to make a new account given your bad win loss ratio. That would be my most likely scenario but I may be wrong.
*Fuck you changed your name. I thought I was losing it for a moment*
I would accept but it is time consuming given I don't have the data on the top of my head. Would have to structure my points then implement it. Other debates I can simply rebut and make claims relatively quick.
>>Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?
No it is more of a hunch which what is more effective.
Here is cases where people survived jumping off a bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicides_at_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge#Suicide_rescue
States 34 people have survived.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5175460/
"For every successfully completed suicide there are more than 12 unsuccessful attempts.1 However, surviving an SIGSW is relatively rare and makes up only 1% of all failed suicide attempts"
>>Slaves were not confiscated by the government...They were emancipated.
Do explain to me this again.
Children are given freedom what they like with their time supervised by their parents.
Slaves are not free to do what they like and they are supervised on what they are doing while receiving harsher punishment given they have no real familiarity with the slaves.
>>Slavery isn't analogous, and that's so obvious I'm taking that as a troll comment.
Yes it is. Slavery is analogous because they were property like how guns are property as well. You would have to demonstrate why taking away guns is bad instead of stating taking away property is bad.
>>I'm not sure if only white people received some form of compensation from the government.
"Only in the District of Columbia, which fell under direct Federal auspices, was compensated emancipation enacted. On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the government paying owners an average of about $300 for each. In 1863, state legislation towards compensated emancipation in Maryland failed to pass, as did an attempt to include it in a newly written Missouri constitution."
God is supposed to be all-good yet allows evil.
Almost anything would work here. Virtuoso went with the DNA route. Enough to demonstrate the problem with God. At the time I can't think of a better argument that supports his arguments more so great job. Don't know about the multiple questions. I guess it is more persuasive so guess it is not something I like to do but can see the benefits of persuasive rhetoric.
Atheism predicts the world better? F*cking weird argument and first I heard of this. First problem I found is that atheism doesn't equal naturalism. Under Pro’s definition it is that God does not exist. Naturalism is separate. A theist can represent a naturalistic argument and still say God exists so I don't think this is a strong argument. For example, be for evolution while God at the start of it. Best argument for christopher_best to show the flaws in it. I guess generally atheists support science more but it isn't inherent.
I am only speaking about the arguments and conduct.
Virtuoso Round 1:
God cannot exist because it contradicts itself.
Supported by all-knowing and all powerful. Don't think this is the best argument given all-powerful and all-loving/good would contradict one another. If God was all good why did God create bad or not stop bad. The framing wasn't the best because it didn't state the infinite regress that is much more important. If God knows all then does he know how powerful he is? If yes, then God is not more powerful than its knowledge. If no, then God is not all-knowing. Hopefully Virtuoso sees that so I am not talking from my a$$.
Ignore
"I await a rebuttal to the problem. "
Didn't realize it was the last round.
werd
I am going to spam you. You better not forfeit.
werd
Great argument by the way.
Something being founded by something doesn't make it good. For instance:
Slavery isn't good because America was founded upon it.
I think I'll pass on the debate. Don't want to accept too much.
You are stating arguments for your opponent.
So basically what is worse: someone stating they are leaving or someone not giving an argument right?
This is an actual no brainer. An argument is better than no argument. Given it is required for a debate there is only one clear answer to what should be valued when it comes to debates, arguments then everything else can follow if both of them decide to do that as a bare minimum.
I thought I made it clear in my vote all the relevant data of this debate. Why was this so contested?
@Virtuoso
bsh1 made the right ruling.
@bsh1
Good one.
"I did not report any votes which did otherwise."
I did because it is clearly unfair for someone to give an argument only to lose because the other guy stayed till the very end. The question which should be asked is where is your argument and why didn't you make it when you stayed for that long?
Given this problem I gave the convincing argument and the conduct to Pro because he actually bothered to state what was relevant. Mharman didn't post an argument nor did he state why he didn't bother making an argument. Maybe he thought this would be an easy win so he didn't give an argument. He had the gall to post something irrelevant to this thread but didn't have the time to post an argument. If I accept the new evidence not about the debate at hand. I will still give TheAtheist all the points I gave. If I simply remove that out of the equation I would still vote the same because Mharman still forfeited more rounds and didn't give any arguments.
Christian socialist??????????
Just rare and bad. Christianity can flipendo away and socialism can be tried by another country only for it to fail again given it has been demonstrated the government is not best at running markets.
Cool.
If the Bible wasn't strictly fiction or non-fiction then how do you know parts which apply to other side?
The person is basically a claim that something without having any referance in the book. It is not has a key to state blue writing is fiction whereas black is non-fiction.
Thanks.
Have you got Con and Pro mixed up?
Can't even comprehend what I just instead resort to some random comment that he stole from someone.
Your cheap and incompetent.
I won't be responding given the last two things I have called you out for.
I showed an entire year. You showed one event. You definitely cherry picked.
Your feelings don't care about the facts.
Next time give an argument instead of saying no I don't feel that way.
Anecdote compared to an entire year?
I have called you out for the cheap tactic again either your mind is actually numb or you suffer from amnesia.
It is cherrypicking compared to what I gave.
Please someone accept. I don't want to but I still might press the orange button.
That was a joke right?
I don't get what you meant.
Not the CCJ part.
He is a Christian. Look at his profile.
That is a meme. There are more people now and the internet increases information so... wrong.
Woo
Find the definition of meme please. My copying skills are not that good right now.
I am specifically talking about this case here.
Are you calling me cringey?
Do you want me to tag other cringey people?
Was going to say meme squad since you both did the same thing but I thought cringe would fit better. That is all.
Cringe squad.
Commander corn? (Understand who it is)
Was it supposed to be ironic as in I would debate them?
Knew it. Want to debate me again?
https://www.debateart.com/participants/Speedrace
Religion: Christian
Not on this topic he agrees.
Do you mean the prior debate or are you speaking about this one when you talking about me being mean?
Please don't post clickbait and thank you for reminding me Speedrace is engaging in strawmans. It was obvious.
You didn't change your name. You just decided to make a new account given your bad win loss ratio. That would be my most likely scenario but I may be wrong.
*Fuck you changed your name. I thought I was losing it for a moment*
I would accept but it is time consuming given I don't have the data on the top of my head. Would have to structure my points then implement it. Other debates I can simply rebut and make claims relatively quick.
I'll skim and eventually come around to it when the debate is over.
Good luck
Virtuoso = Darth Vader
christopher_best = Rebellion fighters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxL8bVJhXCM
Plz vote.
Well yes about the vote and okay to your comment.
*Praying to bsh1 to protect me*
Thanks.
Are you stalking me?
Do I need to pray to m'lord bsh1 for my safety?
>>Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?
No it is more of a hunch which what is more effective.
Here is cases where people survived jumping off a bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicides_at_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge#Suicide_rescue
States 34 people have survived.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5175460/
"For every successfully completed suicide there are more than 12 unsuccessful attempts.1 However, surviving an SIGSW is relatively rare and makes up only 1% of all failed suicide attempts"
Guess it is more than a hunch.
>>Someone who simply holds personal property procured through mutually beneficial agreements does not.
Slavery wasn't a mutually beneficial agreement.
"Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
>>I don’t know.
A gun.
>>In general principle, I would assume this is backward.
As a general principle this is not needed but this isn't a general conversation.
>>A gun has a high chance of killing someone, but jumping off a bridge has a high chance of causing death too.
Which one is more?
>>Slaves were not confiscated by the government...They were emancipated.
Do explain to me this again.
Children are given freedom what they like with their time supervised by their parents.
Slaves are not free to do what they like and they are supervised on what they are doing while receiving harsher punishment given they have no real familiarity with the slaves.
That was the point and it was detailed. You didn't say it was good or not.
How about now?
>>Slavery isn't analogous, and that's so obvious I'm taking that as a troll comment.
Yes it is. Slavery is analogous because they were property like how guns are property as well. You would have to demonstrate why taking away guns is bad instead of stating taking away property is bad.
>>I'm not sure if only white people received some form of compensation from the government.
"Only in the District of Columbia, which fell under direct Federal auspices, was compensated emancipation enacted. On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the government paying owners an average of about $300 for each. In 1863, state legislation towards compensated emancipation in Maryland failed to pass, as did an attempt to include it in a newly written Missouri constitution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation