Effective at shutting down churches, censoring media and dragging out a war so he loses hundreds of thousands of extra lives to defend Russian speaking regions who prefer to be a part of Russia and let's be honest. Russian and Ukraine are both shitholes and there is no discernable difference living in either one. If you went to sleep in Ukraine and woke up in Russia you literally wouldn't notice
I think Tigerlord got the vote right. I am going to refrain voting on this because votes are probably more time consuming than creating arguments and my time is limited. I am willing to reconsider and place a vote, and can't know 100% where my vote would go but given its a 3 round debate and con missed a round and I generally will not accept new arguments in the final round, I most likely would vote for pro
I might be wrong about that. There is a few ways and all of them combined could work.
1. Natural forces such as humans, animals etc. Are not the only ones on the earth, demons, Satan etc could influence a lot of the evil. I think you guys mention something called the DJINN or Jin for the same thing.
2. A perfect God allows free will and humans decide to use their free will for evil purposes and it's not on God but on humans essentially.
I know certain arguments popular in Islam are similarly popular in Christianity to answer theological problems. This is unrelated to the POE (problem of evil) but I have seen Christians and Muslims use the Kalam cosmological argument for example.
I was currently just explaining Christian beliefs not debating the validity of them.
As far as the Problem of Evil is concerned, Jesus doesn't explain it nor attempt to. Jesus is an answer to the Jewish belief in a coming Messiah. Christians and Muslims i believe both answer the problem of evil in similar ways
"The Trinity is the Christian doctrine that God is one being who exists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. "
It might be more accurate to call them the 3 nature's of God instead of treating it like 3 separate individuals but even that fails to capture it. It just comes closer than seeing them as 3 individuals.
It's just like you have an angry side and a happy side. We could call that the 2 nature's of you and name one tiger and the other lion, but it wouldn't really make them separate people though they are distinct enough where you also wouldn't necessarily call them the same thing
This is where the issue of trinity is hard to grasp. It's literally that no human on earth has the IQ to comprehend it. It's like explaining physics to an ant.
"The Trinity is the Christian doctrine that God is one being who exists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. "
Wrong. I understand the difficulty in grasping the concept because we are so much inferior to God that it isn't possible to comprehend but.
Jesus is entirely God. The holy Spirit is entirely God and the father is entirely God. They are all one and the same exact thing.
They are all also completely unique.
As soon as somebody tries to pin down the concept to debunk it, they get it wrong.
You have to first understand it to debunk it and it's impossible to understand.
One time Saint Augustine was walking along a beach trying to understand the trinity. He couldn't quite grasp his head around it and he saw a boy digging a hole.
The wave would come and fill the hole with water and Augustine asked what he was trying to do?
The Boy said "I am trying to catch the ocean and put it in this hole"
Saint Augustine said "that's impossible you can't fit the ocean in that hole"
The boy responded "and you cannot fit the concept of the trinity in you puny human brain"
I am paraphrasing this of course, but the boy disappeared afterwards and that is when Augustine realized that the Trinity just has to stay a mystery.
It's uncomfortable for humans to admit they can't wrap their head around a concept, but we just can't.
Reminder. Jesus converted by telling people to give their wealth to the poor.
Muhhamed converted by telling people that if they took over a village then they could enslave and fuck all the women they enslave from the village they took over.
One religion seeks to help mankind because God love his creation and the other religion seeks to lure people in through degeneracy like having multiple women or marrying little girls or by allowing you to commit incest by marrying your cousin.
Here a few verses later the Quran expands on it, and ask yourself this. Is this how you would expect an all knowing God to talk or is it more like arrogant atheists speak?
"The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. (5:75)"
"Look how they are deluded"
Only an arrogant evil person would write that and Muhhamed claims the words come from an angel. However on top of that look at how weak and pathetic the Muslim blasphemers see God. They say he is too weak to become human and eat food? When you point this out they claim God cannot be human and still control the universe. Again they blaspheme God for saying he cannot do the impossible and be both human and divine at the same exact time if he feels like it.
These people support Satan and I pray everyday that they come to the real God and start noticing things like when the Quran says thay God is the great deceiver. No Satan is the deceiver and if you are calling your God the great deceiver than you are worshipping Satan.
Muhhamed even admits he struggled to know whether the words came from the arch Angel Michael or the Djinn and he confessed to writing the words of the Djinn once. However he said he threw those words away, but the truth is he could never really know if his words came from God, Satan, angels or the Djinn.
This is where even Muslims are confused. The Quran says Christianity was corrupted but not the Bible.
The Quran pretty much admits the bible is true.
The Quran is however pretty obviously false. It's professed to be from God. However it makes silly mistakes. For example it thinks that the trinity mentioned by Catholics is Mary, Jesus and God. However everyone who is a Christian knows that Christians profess to believe in the trinity of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit.
It is so stupid to use tarriffs on countries tha5 use slave labor. So what if people are forced to work in the service industry instead of getting decent wages at factories. It still harms consumers because they have to pay a fair price for products, instead of being able to benefit off of slave labor.
You are trying to do too much pro. You have to prove way too many things.
1. It is a mental health issue
2. It is not an identity issue
3. We should stop medically transitioning them
4. We should stop socially transitioning people
5. That because of 1 and 2, we should do 3 and4
Technically I can agree with points 1 2 3 and 4 and disagree with 5 and win. So con can choose one point to defend while you are stuck defending 5 different things
Since this debate is practically over I will go ahead and state an uncomfortable fact. The expensive shit uses the exact same slave labor as fast fashion. You can't escape it by banning fast fashion
I don't have time although I do fear that my side doesn't get heard enough so you'll likely have some sort of influence on day and legitimately think you are doing something good by pushing this.
I do see an angle which doesn't require as much work from me, but I don't know if I feel like using that angle.
I can see you crafted this one to avoid the arguments I made last time. This would definitely be tougher to attack because it relies on fewer arguments by con but I think con's arguments are powerful
"Which was vague and very misleading especially since what you said later was inconsistent with this statement."
I am pretty sure I gave at least one example of each. For example when you focused on the history of abortion in America. That was a red herring you focused on or in the first round where you touched on how The supreme court decides what is constitutional but you didn't seem to stick with the argument and it never was expanded on or brought back up in additional rounds. That is what we are referring to as a drop here. You dropped your own argument, not your opponents. You seemed to address his arguments but failed to fully understand his premises and instead focused on counter arguments as opposed to rebuttals about his premises.
"My issue came about the comments you made, which eventually became offensive as time went on."
The comments actually explain the vote and are not the vote, so obviously will be a shortened version of 2 hours of logic boiled down to a sentence or 2, but those sentences should have brought up some ideals in your head of where you went wrong. I know when I debate I know what mistakes I made, even before the judge points them out.
""I looked at both arguments and while I am not convinced of either one, the Cons argument was better to me based on (whatever examples you want). Had Pro done (whatever other example you want to give), I might have been more inclined to vote for them.""
That's actually what I did
"Now, that might be what you did in your video, but that is not what you did not this site"
well the video is the vote, and the few sentences is a summary of the video so not sure why you would judge the vote based on the summary of the vote, I am also not sure why you would continue to misrepresent the explanation of the vote either.
" you think I am mentally challenged just for disagreements I had with what you said. "
Who cares what I think. I can say I don't think you are stupid for disagreeing with me. I think a lot of people who disagree with me are bright. I thought you were stupid for the comprehension issues.
"you may not have known this but telling someone born with autism what level they are on or not. Is very disrespectful in particular. "
I likely have autism. Either that or OCPD which is nearly the same thing. I did google it and a high functioning autist can have an IQ as low as 80, but I personally have autistic cousins who have IQs in the 130-150 range and so I was thinking of them, when I thought of high functioning. I can now see that maybe my standards for high functioning, may have been too high.
"you have gone on to call me a shity person and I suck too bad to win a debate with you."
You literally forfeited after seeing my argument, so........................ Now when I list out realistic reasons for that to occur only one came up.
"The Point I am making is that if you want your critique to be heard, and even listened to. Then you need to show decorum and respect"
That's dumb. Decorum is another word for lying, and I do give respect.
" if you can manage that, then I would have no issue taking criticisms from you or improvements."
If you are only going to improve when somebody who criticizes you also kisses your ass, then you will never improve.
"That means No insulting a person by calling them Retarded or shity, nor trying to insult their intellect."
Saying an argument is bad is a statement of fact. Intelligence being high or low is not a value statement. Still, it really shows somebody's character when they think mentally disabled people are bad and they are offended by being called one. You wouldn't be offended if you thought somebody with a mental disability was equal to you.
I also feel like you disrespected me by not understanding what I said. A failure to understand me for whatever reason, really pisses me off. Maybe that's because I grew up and needed a ton of speech classes because I couldn't speak right and be understood. Maybe that is because I myself have been surrounded by teams of psychologists as a kid because people cannot understand me, maybe it is due to me having a learning disability and feeling like I am stupid and when people do not understand me, I am not sure if I am being called too stupid to write clearly or if I am actually so stupid that my logic is incomprehensible and thus stupid and it offends me. Essentially I felt like you were calling me stupid with your response, and I was offended, so I really fail to see why I wouldn't insult you back the same way you insulted me.
"You say that You feel like you failed as a voter because you did not give criticism that helped both sides of the debate improve"
I did not say this
" However, what you fail to realize is that your idea of "Criticism" borders on bullying and toxicity rather than real advice."
Give me the minute mark on the criticism video where I bullied
"It was because when you told me your reasoning, it did not make sense to me"
I wish you knew how much it pisses me off when I speak clearly and am not understood. It makes me feel as if there is something wrong with the way my brain works and like I am crazy tbh.
used my credits to push this to the top o hopefully it gets the recognition it deserves
definitely want to vote on this at some point
They don't want kyev. They want the dumb ass region.
Effective at shutting down churches, censoring media and dragging out a war so he loses hundreds of thousands of extra lives to defend Russian speaking regions who prefer to be a part of Russia and let's be honest. Russian and Ukraine are both shitholes and there is no discernable difference living in either one. If you went to sleep in Ukraine and woke up in Russia you literally wouldn't notice
It's fair . I don't have time for this shit but I think his predecessor was better so maybe I could be persuaded.
Why are you limiting the positions you will take?
How is defending Nazis harmful?
I could understand if the Holocaust happened but it didnt
Which merriem Webster dictionary?
it's delicious but yeah they are right, shits bad for you
I think Tigerlord got the vote right. I am going to refrain voting on this because votes are probably more time consuming than creating arguments and my time is limited. I am willing to reconsider and place a vote, and can't know 100% where my vote would go but given its a 3 round debate and con missed a round and I generally will not accept new arguments in the final round, I most likely would vote for pro
He is literally deporting rapists right now so I am looking forward to cons argument for having more rapists and child molestors roaming the street
I would accept this debate but your argument against water being ineffective at putting out fires will likely be impossible to win against
I kindly ask you to post your arguments quickly, even at the cost of quality because that's what I will be doing as well
will do. I may respond to it with a video of my own if i can get some peace where I am at
2 minutes in and freezing up on me will try to watch later with better connection hopefully. I am uploading a large file so it may be an issue.
Please do
I might be wrong about that. There is a few ways and all of them combined could work.
1. Natural forces such as humans, animals etc. Are not the only ones on the earth, demons, Satan etc could influence a lot of the evil. I think you guys mention something called the DJINN or Jin for the same thing.
2. A perfect God allows free will and humans decide to use their free will for evil purposes and it's not on God but on humans essentially.
I know certain arguments popular in Islam are similarly popular in Christianity to answer theological problems. This is unrelated to the POE (problem of evil) but I have seen Christians and Muslims use the Kalam cosmological argument for example.
I was currently just explaining Christian beliefs not debating the validity of them.
As far as the Problem of Evil is concerned, Jesus doesn't explain it nor attempt to. Jesus is an answer to the Jewish belief in a coming Messiah. Christians and Muslims i believe both answer the problem of evil in similar ways
"The Trinity is the Christian doctrine that God is one being who exists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. "
It might be more accurate to call them the 3 nature's of God instead of treating it like 3 separate individuals but even that fails to capture it. It just comes closer than seeing them as 3 individuals.
It's just like you have an angry side and a happy side. We could call that the 2 nature's of you and name one tiger and the other lion, but it wouldn't really make them separate people though they are distinct enough where you also wouldn't necessarily call them the same thing
This is where the issue of trinity is hard to grasp. It's literally that no human on earth has the IQ to comprehend it. It's like explaining physics to an ant.
"The Trinity is the Christian doctrine that God is one being who exists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. "
Wrong. I understand the difficulty in grasping the concept because we are so much inferior to God that it isn't possible to comprehend but.
Jesus is entirely God. The holy Spirit is entirely God and the father is entirely God. They are all one and the same exact thing.
They are all also completely unique.
As soon as somebody tries to pin down the concept to debunk it, they get it wrong.
You have to first understand it to debunk it and it's impossible to understand.
One time Saint Augustine was walking along a beach trying to understand the trinity. He couldn't quite grasp his head around it and he saw a boy digging a hole.
The wave would come and fill the hole with water and Augustine asked what he was trying to do?
The Boy said "I am trying to catch the ocean and put it in this hole"
Saint Augustine said "that's impossible you can't fit the ocean in that hole"
The boy responded "and you cannot fit the concept of the trinity in you puny human brain"
I am paraphrasing this of course, but the boy disappeared afterwards and that is when Augustine realized that the Trinity just has to stay a mystery.
It's uncomfortable for humans to admit they can't wrap their head around a concept, but we just can't.
Why would you limit it to the NSRV?
Why can't I actually look up the. Original Greek it was translated from and parse our what it means?
I don't remember blocking but it's unblocked
I don't think I blocked either of you and nobody offered any rebuttals
It is a capitol a i not an L in my name if that helps
Reminder. Jesus converted by telling people to give their wealth to the poor.
Muhhamed converted by telling people that if they took over a village then they could enslave and fuck all the women they enslave from the village they took over.
One religion seeks to help mankind because God love his creation and the other religion seeks to lure people in through degeneracy like having multiple women or marrying little girls or by allowing you to commit incest by marrying your cousin.
Here a few verses later the Quran expands on it, and ask yourself this. Is this how you would expect an all knowing God to talk or is it more like arrogant atheists speak?
"The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. (5:75)"
"Look how they are deluded"
Only an arrogant evil person would write that and Muhhamed claims the words come from an angel. However on top of that look at how weak and pathetic the Muslim blasphemers see God. They say he is too weak to become human and eat food? When you point this out they claim God cannot be human and still control the universe. Again they blaspheme God for saying he cannot do the impossible and be both human and divine at the same exact time if he feels like it.
These people support Satan and I pray everyday that they come to the real God and start noticing things like when the Quran says thay God is the great deceiver. No Satan is the deceiver and if you are calling your God the great deceiver than you are worshipping Satan.
Muhhamed even admits he struggled to know whether the words came from the arch Angel Michael or the Djinn and he confessed to writing the words of the Djinn once. However he said he threw those words away, but the truth is he could never really know if his words came from God, Satan, angels or the Djinn.
I would say to judge a tree by its fruits though.
This is where even Muslims are confused. The Quran says Christianity was corrupted but not the Bible.
The Quran pretty much admits the bible is true.
The Quran is however pretty obviously false. It's professed to be from God. However it makes silly mistakes. For example it thinks that the trinity mentioned by Catholics is Mary, Jesus and God. However everyone who is a Christian knows that Christians profess to believe in the trinity of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit.
I am actually black so pro is wrong
Fair enough
How debate works is that both sides in this debate will determine through debate what qualifies as cruel
You may want to alter the debate a bit.
While I know "anybody" Is mostly hyperbolic, if your opponent is pedantic they may argue that they personally would benefit
Don't waste your time listening g to the songs if you don't want to. Just vote against me. I concede
Will take a look soon
It is so stupid to use tarriffs on countries tha5 use slave labor. So what if people are forced to work in the service industry instead of getting decent wages at factories. It still harms consumers because they have to pay a fair price for products, instead of being able to benefit off of slave labor.
You are trying to do too much pro. You have to prove way too many things.
1. It is a mental health issue
2. It is not an identity issue
3. We should stop medically transitioning them
4. We should stop socially transitioning people
5. That because of 1 and 2, we should do 3 and4
Technically I can agree with points 1 2 3 and 4 and disagree with 5 and win. So con can choose one point to defend while you are stuck defending 5 different things
The second rule is to avoid debating people not good at logic
Since this debate is practically over I will go ahead and state an uncomfortable fact. The expensive shit uses the exact same slave labor as fast fashion. You can't escape it by banning fast fashion
They literally just legalized pedophilia in California so I guess you got your wish
Actually morality is not subjective at all so the I stigator is factually incorrect
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11801-the-case-for-objective-morality
are you syrian, French or Chilean? I have it narrowed to those 3 but think Syrian
I don't have time although I do fear that my side doesn't get heard enough so you'll likely have some sort of influence on day and legitimately think you are doing something good by pushing this.
I do see an angle which doesn't require as much work from me, but I don't know if I feel like using that angle.
I can see you crafted this one to avoid the arguments I made last time. This would definitely be tougher to attack because it relies on fewer arguments by con but I think con's arguments are powerful
Thank God it is 4 rounds. I still have a chance
That's annoyin
actually there is no audio WTF
It's not just you. Damn it
I hope it is just you. let me see
here is an unlisted video, I made responding to all of that. Only people with a link can see the video
SMV is important but to think it is the only consideration of every single woman alive, is silly
That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis
will look into it.
"Which was vague and very misleading especially since what you said later was inconsistent with this statement."
I am pretty sure I gave at least one example of each. For example when you focused on the history of abortion in America. That was a red herring you focused on or in the first round where you touched on how The supreme court decides what is constitutional but you didn't seem to stick with the argument and it never was expanded on or brought back up in additional rounds. That is what we are referring to as a drop here. You dropped your own argument, not your opponents. You seemed to address his arguments but failed to fully understand his premises and instead focused on counter arguments as opposed to rebuttals about his premises.
"My issue came about the comments you made, which eventually became offensive as time went on."
The comments actually explain the vote and are not the vote, so obviously will be a shortened version of 2 hours of logic boiled down to a sentence or 2, but those sentences should have brought up some ideals in your head of where you went wrong. I know when I debate I know what mistakes I made, even before the judge points them out.
""I looked at both arguments and while I am not convinced of either one, the Cons argument was better to me based on (whatever examples you want). Had Pro done (whatever other example you want to give), I might have been more inclined to vote for them.""
That's actually what I did
"Now, that might be what you did in your video, but that is not what you did not this site"
well the video is the vote, and the few sentences is a summary of the video so not sure why you would judge the vote based on the summary of the vote, I am also not sure why you would continue to misrepresent the explanation of the vote either.
" you think I am mentally challenged just for disagreements I had with what you said. "
Who cares what I think. I can say I don't think you are stupid for disagreeing with me. I think a lot of people who disagree with me are bright. I thought you were stupid for the comprehension issues.
"you may not have known this but telling someone born with autism what level they are on or not. Is very disrespectful in particular. "
I likely have autism. Either that or OCPD which is nearly the same thing. I did google it and a high functioning autist can have an IQ as low as 80, but I personally have autistic cousins who have IQs in the 130-150 range and so I was thinking of them, when I thought of high functioning. I can now see that maybe my standards for high functioning, may have been too high.
"you have gone on to call me a shity person and I suck too bad to win a debate with you."
You literally forfeited after seeing my argument, so........................ Now when I list out realistic reasons for that to occur only one came up.
"The Point I am making is that if you want your critique to be heard, and even listened to. Then you need to show decorum and respect"
That's dumb. Decorum is another word for lying, and I do give respect.
" if you can manage that, then I would have no issue taking criticisms from you or improvements."
If you are only going to improve when somebody who criticizes you also kisses your ass, then you will never improve.
"That means No insulting a person by calling them Retarded or shity, nor trying to insult their intellect."
Saying an argument is bad is a statement of fact. Intelligence being high or low is not a value statement. Still, it really shows somebody's character when they think mentally disabled people are bad and they are offended by being called one. You wouldn't be offended if you thought somebody with a mental disability was equal to you.
I also feel like you disrespected me by not understanding what I said. A failure to understand me for whatever reason, really pisses me off. Maybe that's because I grew up and needed a ton of speech classes because I couldn't speak right and be understood. Maybe that is because I myself have been surrounded by teams of psychologists as a kid because people cannot understand me, maybe it is due to me having a learning disability and feeling like I am stupid and when people do not understand me, I am not sure if I am being called too stupid to write clearly or if I am actually so stupid that my logic is incomprehensible and thus stupid and it offends me. Essentially I felt like you were calling me stupid with your response, and I was offended, so I really fail to see why I wouldn't insult you back the same way you insulted me.
"You say that You feel like you failed as a voter because you did not give criticism that helped both sides of the debate improve"
I did not say this
" However, what you fail to realize is that your idea of "Criticism" borders on bullying and toxicity rather than real advice."
Give me the minute mark on the criticism video where I bullied
"It was because when you told me your reasoning, it did not make sense to me"
I wish you knew how much it pisses me off when I speak clearly and am not understood. It makes me feel as if there is something wrong with the way my brain works and like I am crazy tbh.