Um... no - romans 4-5:1 talks about Abraham being faithful - nothing about him actually going to heaven - as for the 2 kings quote.... that kinda makes my point BEFOE JESUS it was completely arbitrary who did and didn't go to heaven, only direct intervention from god did that, yet.... again, people in the new testament got Jesus! Where god didn't even have to be directly involved. Again, IF anything else was said to bring people to heaven except for Jesus that is a CONTRADICTION. Nothing else.
Finally - do you mean the messiah that the women believed WASN'T JESUS - lemme read the context bud: "25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us. 26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.” People literally did not think Jesus was the Messiah, because they DID NOT THINK HE WAS ACTUALLY JESUS, that's the opposite from faith.
So let's see what you've proved, that there are exceptions to Jesus's rule, whenever god specifically makes them, and.... that's it. Doesn't prove your point, the stats about what Christian's believe don't even agree with you
Also- can you please drop the post ad hocs, just because something came before another thing, or because it was there longer does not make it superior to a thing that is late - for example: not enslaving people, that's the traditional way societies made money, yet we don't do that at all anymore - because we realize sometimes, that older things are outdated and WRONG - the OXD is great, but it only appeals to historic precedent, if a mathematician came up with a new definition for a math term - I am going to accept that term WAY before I accept the OXD appeal to history - sorry - that's just how that works
Oh look - your cherry picking:
" b. Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.
1945 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 58 228 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.
1950 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 63 312 It [sc. Margaret Mead's Male and Female] informs the reader upon ‘gender’ as well as upon ‘sex’, upon masculine and feminine rôles as well as upon male and female and their reproductive functions.
1968 Life 21 June 89 When the separation of fashions according to gender began to vanish, retailers discovered a bonanza.
1978 D. Pearce in Urban & Social Change Rev. 11 i–ii. 35/1 The major implication for policy of both the feminization of poverty and the..labor-force participation of welfare mothers is that gender cannot be ignored.
1981 Heresies 3 67/3 Our ideology and practice of sex roles construct..two mutually exclusive categories, that is, genders.
2007 New Yorker 6 Aug. 13/2 There's no breaking news here—identity and gender have been on the contemporary-art docket for years."
https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/77468
"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
https://www.lexico.com/definition/gender
Please quote and cite your oxford dictionary, otherwise I'm inclined to believe your lying.
Your claim: that people before Jesus went to heaven by believing in.... the messiah? The same Messiah that was thought to be a warrior king, was barely mentioned, much less be connected to Jesus. Jesus was VERRY SPECIFIC - that the ONLY way to heaven was believing in HIM, not a vaguely defined Messiah, not a god the father, JESUS THE SON OF GOD, believing in him is THE ONLY way to get to heaven, so says Jesus. So, unless your saying your god is wrong, that would make -YOU - wrong
You see thats where we disagree - I am not brushing him aside because we have different "interpretations" Fruit-Inspector has failed multiple times to cite scripture would back up their claims - that people before Jesus went to heaven by believing in.... the messiah? The same Messiah that was thought to be a warrior king, that was barely mentioned, much less be connected to Jesus.
Well - we are talking about the bible - and he doesn't seem to care what the bible says... ironic that the Atheist here is talking about the context of the bible
Well yeah - its not - and no it doesn't say anything about a messiah.... you just kinda added that in the - most importantly there wasn't any mention that that was Jesus - from a narrative perspective - Jesus is just pretending to be the messiah there... because there was no connection between Imanual and the messiah (my actual point bud) until the new testament. - but also - yeah - they.... aren't talking about a messiah - it vaguely says "he" here - my point is that I asked you for a thing and you've failed to provide a SINGLE quote to support your claims - i think your just a fringe believer, because you obviously don't know what your talking about.
All of these things... were fulfilled by... technicality - none of these things at all say that they ae talking about a messiah, nor that by believing in this messiah that you will go to heaven - none of these actually apply to my point. Why don't you just stop dancing around the issue and cite exactly what the old testament says? That's right.... the old testament didn't actually say anything about how to go to heaven - it was an arbitrary thing decided by god. It wasn't until Jesus came up that there was actually a listed way to get to heaven.
Though you are right, kinda, about one thing - less and less people accept the bible's claims about jesus (though around 30% still believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven-still waaay more than your claim - "firing" - yeah sure bud.) Isaiah's claims are...well, certainly not prophecy - you do remember that Jesus knew he was gonna be crucified before the dinner? He CHOOSE to go, he CHOOSE to let the guards take him away - that "prophecy" you cite is self-fulfilling, that doesn't actually prove anything on your end. The other stuff just isn't relevant - how about you actually get some relevant scripture instead of baking at everything that doesn't share your precious beliefs, kay?
That's not a critique of me, that's just a contradiction of your holy book - the two statements directly contradict one another, but my statement was by Jesus - your was by followers, so if we were to prefer one to the other it would certainly be Jesus's claim bud.
Furthermore, no, god could have made EXCEPTIONs, but that does not change my broader point - that a significant amount of humans were refused the oppurtunity to go to heaven.
God is omnipotent by your standard, no? Therefore he would surely have the power to walk upon the earth; however, your interpretation continues to be without scriptural evidence, in contrast, mine has ONLY been inspired by the bible. Do you have any scriptural evidence that there was a prophecy specifically calling Immanuel or Jesus the messiah befoe the new testament? Because so far you've failed utterly in that respect - As far as Jesus himself says - the ONLY way to god the father is him, and if no one knew that Jesus was that messiah there would be no wide spread ability for people to be saved.
So.... both in the debate round and here you've failed to actually rebut my point.... are you sure you know what you're talking about?
I haven't either talked with other atheists about the bible, not in depth anyway, - I WAS A CHRISTIAN UNTIL 14 - I was a junior youth pastor, I gave f*cking speeches about this stuff. Please provide your biblical citations to demonstrate your claim - that's what I asked -
Here's some proof - god PHYSICALLY walking around - please pay attention during your sunday seminar - " Genesis 3:8 , “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.”
There are indeed some references to someone named Immanuel being birthed, but the actual confirmation Immanuel is the "messiah" is not, as far as I can find, actually verified until the new testament. Please provide actual citations proving your claim here-furthermore-you make a non-sequitur here- because as far as Jesus himself is concerned, him and god are separate - the old testament messiahs were most likely referring to GOD THE FATHER in physical form, similar to what he was described as in the garden of eden WALKING AROUND
Yes - you come to Jesus through faith, but Jesus was very specific here- he differentiated himself from god the father - he said the ONLY way to know the father was through himself
(John 14:6-9) "Jesus said to him, “I am l the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (7) If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"
NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME - as I said previously - I got my interpretation from the bible
Okay - I believe you are wrong in your interpretation of the bible - the fact of that matter is that you failed to actually respond - if you were being intellectually honest, then you would have attempted to answer it in the debate. The fact that you've dropped so many points makes me think you don't care about honesty - you just wanna continue your narrative without the bite back I afford.
Perhaps if you addressed it in the debate instead of leaving it to biased voting, then you would have a point; however, you failed to actually address it - meaning that my points remains unrebuked.
Let's say I buy your narrative: Liberals are trying to silence news outlets - Republicans are the ones who are more likely to say "fake news" and isolate viewers from outside sources of information - a.k.a - INFORMATION CONTROL, one of the practices of cults and specifically of fascist, not as much deleting information, controlling it.
There is still debate over if that actually fits into the nature of slavery - though I suppose the rebuttal to that is that it doesn't fit into the nature of chattel slavery, not slavery in general.
I am apart of the LGBTIA+ and I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you think that intersex and asexual people don't exist? Because centuries of psychological research would testify to how wrong you are there bud.
You've made several claims without actual evidence - furthermore - you've at the very least revealed yourself to be biased against LBTQIA+, which I am one of, furthermore, perhaps a slight xenophobia? Throwing in a "you wouldn't be here if god didn't make you" argument and you have yourself a classic example of someone with exactly zero credibility for their arguments.
I'm an atheist and an anti-theist. Please do the basic modicum of research before you make a claim about me bud. The bible is making a fallacy the "nation" is making a fallacy. If you read my profile, and my arguments, you'd also know that I support BLM and police abolition. I find your "boxing" to be unintentionally hilarious and very anger-inducing. A couple of examples DOES not demonstrate the entire guilt of a demographic of people. Let's say that 10 cats had killed a human, does that mean that all cats are dangerous to humans? No, of course not.
"we all as a people get judged by the individual acts of a view" Is bullshit and utter crap, its some of the most flawed arguments I've heard in a while
You need to learn something - one example of something happening is not enough to demonstrate that an entire demographic follow similarly, furthermore, what are you defining as white here? How do you define "white" people - science finds that people are more different among their own skin color than compared to others, furthermore, white people can have black parents, or Mexican parents, would you still consider them white because their pigment of skin was white? I mean, why should you, you don't consider people like Obama, who had one black parent and one white parent, white, even though in the case of someone having a Mexican parent and black parent could be either. Whats my point, the entire thing is arbitrary, the only reason why it matters is because of the cultural impact the oppression of one race has undergone (the oppression of the black citizen) and the privilege of the white citizen - however - to declare either group wholly terorists would require: A) comprehensive evidence that EVERY SINGLE or MOST people of that demographic were terrorists, OR B) Demonstrate that some cultural impact makes ALL people of that demographic de facto terrorists - problem with that one - there are SEVERAL different cultures among each "race" intertwined to make one general one.
- you say that my sources are "authoritc" but thats up to you to DEMONSTRATE why should anyone accept your claims if you can't even back up why we shouldn't trust the ones that say opposite. It reads more to me that you can't demonstrate something without semantics. You want to argue that "it's possible that the earth is flat", because you can't demonstrate the earth is actually plausibly round.
Tell ya what - I'll change a few things, not how you want it because that would be definitionally biased, but a compromise. You'll have to demonstrate more than the possibility - you will have to prove the flat earth if you want to win.
There you are - why not try convincing me in a debate? You can use solipsism, the bible, whatever you want to try to argue against the resolution - you have 120,000 characters to do that - I do believe that is sufficient, no?
Interesting - you seem to just want to dump a load of sources supporting the case that homosexuals do not choose to be so - while I agree with your conclusion, the act of dumping a bunch of sources is not particularly convincing to your case
I just want to be crystal clear - you mean CAN NOT not SHOULD NOT - or WILL NOT - CAN NOT? Because if so I think I have a guess at your aim here - and woo boy - I'm good right now. Perhaps if nobody else accepts the debate I'll give it a shot - we'll see.
Anyone who knows anything knows that Romans is in the New Testament, and furthermore, where is it stated that all you need is "righteousness" to get to heaven? This is Christianity 101 - only in the New Testament is anything said about believing in god gets your to heaven, throughout the entire Old Testament it spoke of how unworthy humans are
The bible.Only very specific people were brought to heaven with god - anyone else who did not fulfill the laws of the land went to hell - this is until (arguably) Jesus came to die for everyone's sins. Btw, I'm not saying arguably because I don't believe in Jesus, I'm saying arguably, because you can read that portion of the bible as coming to fulfill the old laws - not save people.
Perhaps if more of it actually factored into your argument, but you spent so much time away from the actual point of hand - trying really hard to have a "gotcha" with Pro's rules. Perhaps if you focused on a more in-depth kritik? Then that kind of stuff would be excusable.
"In sum, the voter must demonstrate that what PRO did warranted "a penalty for excessive abuse, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate...""
Take: "distracted from the topical debate" as my essential point here
Do you think that one reason is why you lost the conduct point - its the amount of effort you put into trying to show that your opponent broke his own rules in your first round - each argument being semantic almost entirely - I'm sorry but no - you were penalized for unsportmanlike behavior - especially considering you BROKE quite a few of the rules - the resolution was meant to be scientific, and you turned it into the precise thing the resolution was not supposed to be knowing that - I could have listed far more reasons for your conduct, but that is all I need.
This is all, assuming your right about the latter point btw, which you aren't. The two contentions were entirely separate - it is far more likely you are connecting them for the sake of saving face - which I find even more unsportmanlike
Um... no - romans 4-5:1 talks about Abraham being faithful - nothing about him actually going to heaven - as for the 2 kings quote.... that kinda makes my point BEFOE JESUS it was completely arbitrary who did and didn't go to heaven, only direct intervention from god did that, yet.... again, people in the new testament got Jesus! Where god didn't even have to be directly involved. Again, IF anything else was said to bring people to heaven except for Jesus that is a CONTRADICTION. Nothing else.
Finally - do you mean the messiah that the women believed WASN'T JESUS - lemme read the context bud: "25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us. 26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.” People literally did not think Jesus was the Messiah, because they DID NOT THINK HE WAS ACTUALLY JESUS, that's the opposite from faith.
So let's see what you've proved, that there are exceptions to Jesus's rule, whenever god specifically makes them, and.... that's it. Doesn't prove your point, the stats about what Christian's believe don't even agree with you
Also- can you please drop the post ad hocs, just because something came before another thing, or because it was there longer does not make it superior to a thing that is late - for example: not enslaving people, that's the traditional way societies made money, yet we don't do that at all anymore - because we realize sometimes, that older things are outdated and WRONG - the OXD is great, but it only appeals to historic precedent, if a mathematician came up with a new definition for a math term - I am going to accept that term WAY before I accept the OXD appeal to history - sorry - that's just how that works
Oh look - your cherry picking:
" b. Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.
1945 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 58 228 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.
1950 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 63 312 It [sc. Margaret Mead's Male and Female] informs the reader upon ‘gender’ as well as upon ‘sex’, upon masculine and feminine rôles as well as upon male and female and their reproductive functions.
1968 Life 21 June 89 When the separation of fashions according to gender began to vanish, retailers discovered a bonanza.
1978 D. Pearce in Urban & Social Change Rev. 11 i–ii. 35/1 The major implication for policy of both the feminization of poverty and the..labor-force participation of welfare mothers is that gender cannot be ignored.
1981 Heresies 3 67/3 Our ideology and practice of sex roles construct..two mutually exclusive categories, that is, genders.
2007 New Yorker 6 Aug. 13/2 There's no breaking news here—identity and gender have been on the contemporary-art docket for years."
https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/77468
"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
https://www.lexico.com/definition/gender
Please quote and cite your oxford dictionary, otherwise I'm inclined to believe your lying.
Your claim: that people before Jesus went to heaven by believing in.... the messiah? The same Messiah that was thought to be a warrior king, was barely mentioned, much less be connected to Jesus. Jesus was VERRY SPECIFIC - that the ONLY way to heaven was believing in HIM, not a vaguely defined Messiah, not a god the father, JESUS THE SON OF GOD, believing in him is THE ONLY way to get to heaven, so says Jesus. So, unless your saying your god is wrong, that would make -YOU - wrong
You see thats where we disagree - I am not brushing him aside because we have different "interpretations" Fruit-Inspector has failed multiple times to cite scripture would back up their claims - that people before Jesus went to heaven by believing in.... the messiah? The same Messiah that was thought to be a warrior king, that was barely mentioned, much less be connected to Jesus.
Well - we are talking about the bible - and he doesn't seem to care what the bible says... ironic that the Atheist here is talking about the context of the bible
Well yeah - its not - and no it doesn't say anything about a messiah.... you just kinda added that in the - most importantly there wasn't any mention that that was Jesus - from a narrative perspective - Jesus is just pretending to be the messiah there... because there was no connection between Imanual and the messiah (my actual point bud) until the new testament. - but also - yeah - they.... aren't talking about a messiah - it vaguely says "he" here - my point is that I asked you for a thing and you've failed to provide a SINGLE quote to support your claims - i think your just a fringe believer, because you obviously don't know what your talking about.
All of these things... were fulfilled by... technicality - none of these things at all say that they ae talking about a messiah, nor that by believing in this messiah that you will go to heaven - none of these actually apply to my point. Why don't you just stop dancing around the issue and cite exactly what the old testament says? That's right.... the old testament didn't actually say anything about how to go to heaven - it was an arbitrary thing decided by god. It wasn't until Jesus came up that there was actually a listed way to get to heaven.
Though you are right, kinda, about one thing - less and less people accept the bible's claims about jesus (though around 30% still believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven-still waaay more than your claim - "firing" - yeah sure bud.) Isaiah's claims are...well, certainly not prophecy - you do remember that Jesus knew he was gonna be crucified before the dinner? He CHOOSE to go, he CHOOSE to let the guards take him away - that "prophecy" you cite is self-fulfilling, that doesn't actually prove anything on your end. The other stuff just isn't relevant - how about you actually get some relevant scripture instead of baking at everything that doesn't share your precious beliefs, kay?
That's not a critique of me, that's just a contradiction of your holy book - the two statements directly contradict one another, but my statement was by Jesus - your was by followers, so if we were to prefer one to the other it would certainly be Jesus's claim bud.
Furthermore, no, god could have made EXCEPTIONs, but that does not change my broader point - that a significant amount of humans were refused the oppurtunity to go to heaven.
God is omnipotent by your standard, no? Therefore he would surely have the power to walk upon the earth; however, your interpretation continues to be without scriptural evidence, in contrast, mine has ONLY been inspired by the bible. Do you have any scriptural evidence that there was a prophecy specifically calling Immanuel or Jesus the messiah befoe the new testament? Because so far you've failed utterly in that respect - As far as Jesus himself says - the ONLY way to god the father is him, and if no one knew that Jesus was that messiah there would be no wide spread ability for people to be saved.
So.... both in the debate round and here you've failed to actually rebut my point.... are you sure you know what you're talking about?
I haven't either talked with other atheists about the bible, not in depth anyway, - I WAS A CHRISTIAN UNTIL 14 - I was a junior youth pastor, I gave f*cking speeches about this stuff. Please provide your biblical citations to demonstrate your claim - that's what I asked -
Here's some proof - god PHYSICALLY walking around - please pay attention during your sunday seminar - " Genesis 3:8 , “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.”
SOUND OF GOD WALKING
Please demonstrate your claims
There are indeed some references to someone named Immanuel being birthed, but the actual confirmation Immanuel is the "messiah" is not, as far as I can find, actually verified until the new testament. Please provide actual citations proving your claim here-furthermore-you make a non-sequitur here- because as far as Jesus himself is concerned, him and god are separate - the old testament messiahs were most likely referring to GOD THE FATHER in physical form, similar to what he was described as in the garden of eden WALKING AROUND
Yes - you come to Jesus through faith, but Jesus was very specific here- he differentiated himself from god the father - he said the ONLY way to know the father was through himself
(John 14:6-9) "Jesus said to him, “I am l the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (7) If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"
NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME - as I said previously - I got my interpretation from the bible
Okay - I believe you are wrong in your interpretation of the bible - the fact of that matter is that you failed to actually respond - if you were being intellectually honest, then you would have attempted to answer it in the debate. The fact that you've dropped so many points makes me think you don't care about honesty - you just wanna continue your narrative without the bite back I afford.
Of course! Take your time, good luck with the rough week and all.
Perhaps if you addressed it in the debate instead of leaving it to biased voting, then you would have a point; however, you failed to actually address it - meaning that my points remains unrebuked.
Would any of you mind voting on the debate?
I fail to remember you addressing my "strawman" in the debate - could you remind me when it is you did that?
Let's say I buy your narrative: Liberals are trying to silence news outlets - Republicans are the ones who are more likely to say "fake news" and isolate viewers from outside sources of information - a.k.a - INFORMATION CONTROL, one of the practices of cults and specifically of fascist, not as much deleting information, controlling it.
You'd be surprised...
Key word here; "For people who..." that's the problem
Vote bump
How is it rigged towards Con? Because its nearly a truism?
One of the core reasons corporal punishment is typically bad is because they often ENCOURAGE unreasonable punishment
Fair enough
There is still debate over if that actually fits into the nature of slavery - though I suppose the rebuttal to that is that it doesn't fit into the nature of chattel slavery, not slavery in general.
I am apart of the LGBTIA+ and I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you think that intersex and asexual people don't exist? Because centuries of psychological research would testify to how wrong you are there bud.
Wouldn't that make me Jesus? You know - taking things to their conclusion and all
You've made several claims without actual evidence - furthermore - you've at the very least revealed yourself to be biased against LBTQIA+, which I am one of, furthermore, perhaps a slight xenophobia? Throwing in a "you wouldn't be here if god didn't make you" argument and you have yourself a classic example of someone with exactly zero credibility for their arguments.
You are as ignorant as you are unsbustantive.
I'm an atheist and an anti-theist. Please do the basic modicum of research before you make a claim about me bud. The bible is making a fallacy the "nation" is making a fallacy. If you read my profile, and my arguments, you'd also know that I support BLM and police abolition. I find your "boxing" to be unintentionally hilarious and very anger-inducing. A couple of examples DOES not demonstrate the entire guilt of a demographic of people. Let's say that 10 cats had killed a human, does that mean that all cats are dangerous to humans? No, of course not.
"we all as a people get judged by the individual acts of a view" Is bullshit and utter crap, its some of the most flawed arguments I've heard in a while
You need to learn something - one example of something happening is not enough to demonstrate that an entire demographic follow similarly, furthermore, what are you defining as white here? How do you define "white" people - science finds that people are more different among their own skin color than compared to others, furthermore, white people can have black parents, or Mexican parents, would you still consider them white because their pigment of skin was white? I mean, why should you, you don't consider people like Obama, who had one black parent and one white parent, white, even though in the case of someone having a Mexican parent and black parent could be either. Whats my point, the entire thing is arbitrary, the only reason why it matters is because of the cultural impact the oppression of one race has undergone (the oppression of the black citizen) and the privilege of the white citizen - however - to declare either group wholly terorists would require: A) comprehensive evidence that EVERY SINGLE or MOST people of that demographic were terrorists, OR B) Demonstrate that some cultural impact makes ALL people of that demographic de facto terrorists - problem with that one - there are SEVERAL different cultures among each "race" intertwined to make one general one.
Indeed I would have been, I was gone for UIL today, lol
That's my compromise bud.
- you say that my sources are "authoritc" but thats up to you to DEMONSTRATE why should anyone accept your claims if you can't even back up why we shouldn't trust the ones that say opposite. It reads more to me that you can't demonstrate something without semantics. You want to argue that "it's possible that the earth is flat", because you can't demonstrate the earth is actually plausibly round.
Tell ya what - I'll change a few things, not how you want it because that would be definitionally biased, but a compromise. You'll have to demonstrate more than the possibility - you will have to prove the flat earth if you want to win.
And you should know by my debates that I am interested in arriving at the truth at debate. That is my win-condition
There you are - why not try convincing me in a debate? You can use solipsism, the bible, whatever you want to try to argue against the resolution - you have 120,000 characters to do that - I do believe that is sufficient, no?
Suuure... and why do we care if some anonymous people said you're right? Please demonstrate why YOU are correct.
Interesting - you seem to just want to dump a load of sources supporting the case that homosexuals do not choose to be so - while I agree with your conclusion, the act of dumping a bunch of sources is not particularly convincing to your case
I just want to be crystal clear - you mean CAN NOT not SHOULD NOT - or WILL NOT - CAN NOT? Because if so I think I have a guess at your aim here - and woo boy - I'm good right now. Perhaps if nobody else accepts the debate I'll give it a shot - we'll see.
Anyone who knows anything knows that Romans is in the New Testament, and furthermore, where is it stated that all you need is "righteousness" to get to heaven? This is Christianity 101 - only in the New Testament is anything said about believing in god gets your to heaven, throughout the entire Old Testament it spoke of how unworthy humans are
The bible.Only very specific people were brought to heaven with god - anyone else who did not fulfill the laws of the land went to hell - this is until (arguably) Jesus came to die for everyone's sins. Btw, I'm not saying arguably because I don't believe in Jesus, I'm saying arguably, because you can read that portion of the bible as coming to fulfill the old laws - not save people.
If that's what you feel is right, then abstain, thank you for your consideration
thanks
lol, all I ask is for you to do your best
Vote bump
Perhaps if more of it actually factored into your argument, but you spent so much time away from the actual point of hand - trying really hard to have a "gotcha" with Pro's rules. Perhaps if you focused on a more in-depth kritik? Then that kind of stuff would be excusable.
"In sum, the voter must demonstrate that what PRO did warranted "a penalty for excessive abuse, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate...""
Take: "distracted from the topical debate" as my essential point here
Though my opponent is no longer here - I complied with the asking to post at the last moment
Do you think that one reason is why you lost the conduct point - its the amount of effort you put into trying to show that your opponent broke his own rules in your first round - each argument being semantic almost entirely - I'm sorry but no - you were penalized for unsportmanlike behavior - especially considering you BROKE quite a few of the rules - the resolution was meant to be scientific, and you turned it into the precise thing the resolution was not supposed to be knowing that - I could have listed far more reasons for your conduct, but that is all I need.
This is all, assuming your right about the latter point btw, which you aren't. The two contentions were entirely separate - it is far more likely you are connecting them for the sake of saving face - which I find even more unsportmanlike