I guess I'll see what you mean. Did I misrepresent your claim about personhood? I remember clearly quoting you exactly on the second line of my debate...
I could have changed the resolution to "asdfewr doesn't exits" and I can still make my case. Nevertheless, the name "Santa Clause" was used in a famous Christmas movie so I'm sure my point was conveyed.
I will be making a case for hard AI. As for machine or AI, I will be arguing that, if the technology allows, machines can have the potential to think. I can say that machines will be apart of the argument I will make.
" Conduct to Con for Pro's hidden argument and the fact that he never made any arguments for immorality prove that he never wanted to argue for "homosexuality is wrong" but rather that the desire or attraction could not be within the moral sphere."
I believe this to be an improper vote. My BoP was never to argue that homosexuality is wrong. In creating this debate, I never set out to argue that homosexuality was wrong. From the beginning, my BoP was to prove that homosexuality is not moral, something which I believe I have fulfilled. Therefore, this hidden premise was something which could have been spotted by a skilful debater.
In order for a conduct point to be deducted, the voter must
1)Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
2)Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
3)Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Where did you get the 50 percent of sex was coerced number from? Could you provide the link? I've been fishing around and wanted to see exactly what your source says.
That’s what I was thinking. I’m sure i can make a strong case but with a strong debater like David initiating this debate , I’ll be interested to see if he has any cards up his sleeves.
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Leviticus 18:22
“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:13
Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
1 Corinthians 6:9
It's okay for a man and women to participate in oral sex but for a man to do the exact same with a man? That'll be eternity in hell unless you bend your knees and beg for forgiveness. The "acting upon" part doesn't really change anything. A lot of people believe that certain acts can only be morally permissible if acted with the opposite gender.
However it is worth nothing that at many pro-gay marriage rallies, you can almost certainly find people saying "gay marriage is moral" which is what I (take it how you like) disagree with.
I rather not get into how i intend on winning this debate at this stage, so perhaps you would like to keep an eye out for how this one turns out.
I was hoping I would rally up someones emotion with my (seemingly) strongly worded resolution which would make them rush into accepting this debate without thinking too deeply.
That's not to say I was hoping to trick someone. Plenty of people believe that being gay is moral and I would have proved otherwise by demonstrating how that statement would be flawed. (in a way that you would probably not expect)
Please debate tradesecret on this topic. I've given it my best go to persuade him on forums but my efforts have been without result. It'll be a funny one to watch.
I'm not sure why some of my words connected in my debate. I think this is an issue which comes with using a different word processor to that of which is provided by DART. Could be agree that we tie the S&G section thus far?
I'm surprised to say that I am having difficulties staying within the 20 000 character limit. Nevertheless, I can assure that you will have a fruitful response in due time.
The disagree with what the source says.
oh yeah, fair call, my mistake. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree.
I guess I'll see what you mean. Did I misrepresent your claim about personhood? I remember clearly quoting you exactly on the second line of my debate...
damn
"Pro has to show that Santa Clause exists"
and yet...
Are you managing to follow on?
The ability to comprehend information.
I could have changed the resolution to "asdfewr doesn't exits" and I can still make my case. Nevertheless, the name "Santa Clause" was used in a famous Christmas movie so I'm sure my point was conveyed.
I will be making a case for hard AI. As for machine or AI, I will be arguing that, if the technology allows, machines can have the potential to think. I can say that machines will be apart of the argument I will make.
Yes, that'll be great.
I see a literally game ending flaw in your argument, though I won't mention it now.
Could you change the reply time to at lest a couple more days? I'm pretty sure 1 day is impossible as most of us are from different timezones.
Only one day to reply?
Increase the world limit to 20 000 and i may consider taking this debate. Unless having a low character to work with is the challenge...
There's a typo in the topic btw
Hard to play the bias card when we're in such an intense clash.
The RFD is half the length of the whole debate...
" Conduct to Con for Pro's hidden argument and the fact that he never made any arguments for immorality prove that he never wanted to argue for "homosexuality is wrong" but rather that the desire or attraction could not be within the moral sphere."
I believe this to be an improper vote. My BoP was never to argue that homosexuality is wrong. In creating this debate, I never set out to argue that homosexuality was wrong. From the beginning, my BoP was to prove that homosexuality is not moral, something which I believe I have fulfilled. Therefore, this hidden premise was something which could have been spotted by a skilful debater.
In order for a conduct point to be deducted, the voter must
1)Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
2)Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
3)Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Please inform me as to where the breach occurred.
Got it.
Where did you get the 50 percent of sex was coerced number from? Could you provide the link? I've been fishing around and wanted to see exactly what your source says.
Thanks for an enjoyable debate.
Good stuff.
Just reminding you the your argument is due in under two days! I'm in no way rushing you, just making sure it doesn't slip past your diary.
That’s what I was thinking. I’m sure i can make a strong case but with a strong debater like David initiating this debate , I’ll be interested to see if he has any cards up his sleeves.
Yes, I'll be interested to see how my opponent responds.
Very tempted to take this. I'll see.
Fair point. I probably just should have stuck with my comparison with height.
Yes, Alex never fails to convince
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Leviticus 18:22
“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:13
Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
1 Corinthians 6:9
It's okay for a man and women to participate in oral sex but for a man to do the exact same with a man? That'll be eternity in hell unless you bend your knees and beg for forgiveness. The "acting upon" part doesn't really change anything. A lot of people believe that certain acts can only be morally permissible if acted with the opposite gender.
Ah, an inexcusable error on my part.
Have I made a spelling issue?
However it is worth nothing that at many pro-gay marriage rallies, you can almost certainly find people saying "gay marriage is moral" which is what I (take it how you like) disagree with.
I rather not get into how i intend on winning this debate at this stage, so perhaps you would like to keep an eye out for how this one turns out.
:-)
I was hoping I would rally up someones emotion with my (seemingly) strongly worded resolution which would make them rush into accepting this debate without thinking too deeply.
That's not to say I was hoping to trick someone. Plenty of people believe that being gay is moral and I would have proved otherwise by demonstrating how that statement would be flawed. (in a way that you would probably not expect)
Surprisingly, I'm not homophobic. I've got a few tricks up my sleeves.
Of course. Our clash is priority :)
Please debate tradesecret on this topic. I've given it my best go to persuade him on forums but my efforts have been without result. It'll be a funny one to watch.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5280-god-and-the-bop?page=4&post_number=79
No problem. I usually use as much time as I need, but this time, the word count ticked away before time did.
Cheers. Good to know.
I'm not sure why some of my words connected in my debate. I think this is an issue which comes with using a different word processor to that of which is provided by DART. Could be agree that we tie the S&G section thus far?
Cheers. That's a big compliment coming from the alpha pro-lifer.
So you're the alpha pro-lifer on this cite then?
I'm surprised to say that I am having difficulties staying within the 20 000 character limit. Nevertheless, I can assure that you will have a fruitful response in due time.
Thanks! I look forwards to a fruitful debate.
...what?
Do you care about homeless people? If you care about people wouldn't you allow them to stay in your house?
Do you care about animals? I don't see you adopting every single animal at a shelter.
Do you care about kids from the 3rd world country? Why don't you send them all your money?
Just because I am pro-life, does not mean some other sexually irresponsible person's child is mine.
Don't let the noob like profile fool you.