Currently, I'm having a technical problem in the Debate section: I cannot enter any text in the argument rounds. Moderation is looking into it, but so far, has not been able to resolve the issue. I've had one recent debate, and had to copy/paste my arguments/sources of each round from my Apple Pages app for each round, which makes it difficult for an opponent and for voters to switch back and forth from comments to the arguments page. That's more trouble than it's worth. Otherwise, I'd be glad to engage a debate.
Personally, I find the debate over the interpretation of Matthew 16: 15-18 to be a grammatic squabble that is actually too simple by interpretation of the passage in Greek [probably it's first language as written], then translated to Latin, in the 4th century, and, ultimately, English [in the 17th century]. I have a formal education in Greek, but none but personal research in Latin; English is my mother tongue, and I have a recently earned baccalaureate in linguistics [mostly English]
The issue entered by Pro and Con is the interpretation of Peter [Πετρος] being called "the rock," [Πετρα] and, as such, whether he is "the foundation of the church." [verse 18] But everyone ignores the trailing reference at tree end of the verse following :the gates of hell shall not prevail against..." the word following is a 3rd person singular pronoun that, if it referred to Peter, would be "you" [συ], which is a 2nd person singular pronoun. Biut, no, the 3rd person singular pronoun is "it," which the Greeks, and the English [but not dependably in Latin] use as a neutered pronoun referring to inanimate objects and non-human animals. Sorry, but I believe the "it" refers back to verse 15's [ἀπεκάλυψέν], "revealed," as in "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven." Revelation [that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God] is the "it" that is the foundation of the church. There is no reference to a "pope" nor a "papacy" existing in any translation of biblical text, not in Greek, not the Latin Vulgate, nor in your cited NRSV, nor my KJV, nor any other English translation as offered by https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/16.htm . While both participants speck to "revelation" in their arguments, neither refers to this specific revelation from God to Peter, nor that it plays a role as foundation of the church. I am too jaded by this grammar, and the linkage of revelation to see any way to vote on this debate for either side. Words do mean things, and their use in syntax is meaningful and informative, particularly when talking about translated works such as is the Bible.
I should have added in my vote that Pro's argument in R1 included mention that the description of creation in Genesis, which Pro cites, indicates that God created heaven and earth, but did not describe how it was done. This is an adequate description by Pro that evolution, itself, may have played a part in the creative process.
I would add the possibility that creation continues to this day by that means, and I see no contradiction biblically to refute the possibility, but do not make that last comment a feature of my vote because it is conjecture, and Pro did not specifically make that argument.
Jesus has no genetic material from Joseph, while he does from Mary. Joseph and Mary were cousins of some removal from one another, but both still of the house of Judah. But since Jesus had no genetic tie to Joseph, he is of some other blood, as well as from Mary, therefore not just of Judah [therefore, not just a Jew]. We have no idea of what genetics is God the Father, the true father of the flesh of Jesus Christ.
Now that I’ve voted, I thought I’d expand with an explanation of the “caution.” You wasted R2 with a question of clarification that ought to have been in comments. Don’t waste a round like that. You could have pressed your R1 argument of other prevailing agents that relieve personal accountability for actions as you argued in R1 and R3, and found a source or two to underpin the argument. Good work, though. Well done.
I perceived your entire argument set over three rounds of “X’s don’t do do Y” when, in fact, that kind of generalization is an excuse to be
1. Authoritative
2. Lacking in supporting data
3. Unwilling to allow for individual, independent thought and action (belief and practice, if you will).
Further, your Resolution insisted on “the direct inverse of everything Christian,” not just several or most things. Every little dogma must directly oppose Christianity when, in fact, Islam has the Hadith #13 (my R1) which was never rebutted to combat the golden rule, or your R2 argument of “fatted Christians” (another generalization not describing all Christian’s when “all” is your Resolution’s threshold.) Hence my unrebutted claim, with supporting source reference, of fatted vegans, thus again defeating your Resolution of “everything.” “Everything” was your BoP. It failed.
Seems to me Savant’s vote misinterprets the Resolution as a moral dilemma, good v. bad, when it states being “the direct inverse of everything” which is neither good or bad, but opposed in every condition when even atheism and Christianity believe and practice identical principles, such as the golden rule, which fails the Resolution.
No, you miss my point. How am I poorer in consumption of meat when it it is no sacrifice to my pocket for its procuration? When a month is done, and my procurations, obligatory and discretionary, have not depleted my increase, but have increased above and beyond expense? That’s called continuous creation of wealth; a status enduring longer than any political, social, or economic Marxism, for that systemic mode merely spends, but knows not creation of personal wealth, and never will as long as the self denies himself the ambition, planning, and execution of that wealth, just because the mirror tells you, “You cannot.”
Then your issue is economic, not culinary, and has little to do with relative intelligence. Poverty, for many, is a choice to want wealth, and act accordingly, or not, and don’t. What’s stopping you? I’ll tell you: your mirror. That guy is your only nemesis.
Your vote suggests I should have argued something that is bad as being a direct inverse of Christian belief and practice, but the Resolution is not a moral question of good and bad, but, rather, a question of direct inverse of everything. Therefore, I argued in all three rounds that Christians and atheists share beliefs and practices such as the golden rule, aka, the law of reciprocity, which are not direct inverse opposition, but merely similar practices for different reasons. Different does not qualify as direct inverse. As I concluded, “everything” cannot have mere difference in reason for shared belief and practice, but must make direct inverse by definition.
Three kinds of people:
Make things happen
Watch what happens
Wonder what happened
Guess where I put agnosticism (which has a greater scope than just religion)?
I’ve waited patiently for four days for a re-assessment of your vote. As Barney advised, I discovered only after accepting the debate challenge that I was prevented somehow from entering argument in the argument field of each round, so I entered them in each round in comments, clearly identified as round 1, 2, etc. complete with listed source references. I did not forfeit any round, and do not deserve that assessment.
Barney, I'd appreciate your ratification of my comment below [#16], if acceptable to you, an appeal to readers and voters to consider and vote on this debate, appealing to fair-mindedness. Thank you.
To all readers and voters on this debate:
I appeal to your fair-minded consideration of the arguments of this debate. Clearly, it appears I forfeited this debate as there are no posts of my challenges to the Resolution in the argument fields required of instigators and challengers in DebateArt Debate Policy and Code of Conduct. I, fauxlaw, am not a novice; having, now, 78 debates-experience. I began in March of 2020, currently listed at #14 of well over 100 debaters, ranked at 1702 points, I am well aware of policies and codes, but have been prohibited, not by my process, but by some DebateArt process glitch, from entering a single character, let alone an entire round argument for three rounds in this debate, the effect of which was unknown to me, accepting the challenge in good faith that I could proceed with debating prior to acceptance of the challenge to engage this debate. Discovering I could not enter my arguments directly into the debate argument field in each round, I appealed to Mods to find out what was preventing my "posting" of the first round argument. To date, that investigation continues. I am, by all normal consideration, eligible to debate.
Therefore, I appeal to your fairminded approach to this debate since, clearly, I have done the best I can to post my arguments, rebuttals, and conclusion for each round in the comments section since the argument fields remain closed to me as of the posting of this comment [02/08/25] - well within the rounds argument due date of this 3rd round, as all rounds were "posted" on time, but in comments. I shall not accept another challenge for debate, nor issue a challenge for a regular debate, until this process glitch is resolved. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Resolution: “One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything Christians believe in and practice.”
I Rebuttal: Gish Gallop into the sunset…
1a I know that repetition expecting different results is a sign of something, but I cannot remember what it was. Oh, right, it was the Resolution.
1a1 Pr4o’s R3 “Not every aspect of Christianity is a direct extrapolation out of theism any more than Islam is.” No, it isn’t but the Resolution is “Christians” and the “direct inverse of everything” thereof. I am accused of dodging. No, I argued that even “theism and atheism” are also outside the debate scope. Pro’s BoP was to prove the Resolution, but Pro, instead, gave us indirect inverses of off-topic opposites. I demonstrated they have direct identity with Christianity. More gish gallop failure by Pro.
Ib Insanity is, indeed, the result of doing over and over and over again. We have a questionable debate Resolution that has been my BoP to disprove. I have squarely addressed and defeated the Gish Gallop routine in my R1, R2, and R3, thus, this Resolution fails.
Ib1 Pro R3 rebuttal claimed “You are relying on twisting the Bible's words to support your point, cherry picking a single quote out of dozens, all of which prove that slavery is allowed in God's law, to find one that MIGHT be interpreted as being against slavery provided you are illiterate.” Nope. Example: 1 Peter 2: 18 “Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.” Pro insisted I am “…twisting the Bible’s words.” No, I quote Pro’s ESV version.
Ib2 Example: Luke 1: 37: “For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Ib3 Example: Matthew 5: 17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” 78% of these “slaves and gays” verses, statistically, are unrelated to Pro’s claim.
Conclusion: The Resolution’s “everything Christians…” condition allowed for shared beliefs and practices of Christians, plus Muslims, atheists, hedonists, vegans, slaves and gays, and assorted others, making the “direct inverse” necessity an impossible achievement. Perhaps Pro’s Resolution might have carried the day had “the direct inverse of everything” not been included in his Resolution. The Resolution could have been worded “One should believe in and practice anything but what Christians believe in and practice,” without getting into the weeds of all of Pro’s gish galloping. I say ‘the direct inverse of everything’ scuttled Pro’s Resolution.
Thank you for reading this debate. After due consideration of the arguments, please vote for Con.
Just below,
I have posted my Round 2 argument, finding I amn still unable to post in the Arguments section - a tech issue Mods are trying to resolve.
One suggested resolve I have been advised might work on a subsequent debate, but I'll let the Mod who suggested it reveal what that resolve is because it is definitely outside the box.
My Round 2:
D 202501231 #5926 R2. https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
Resolution: “One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything Christians believe in and practice.”
I Rebuttal: Introducing Mr. Gish
Ia In 2 rounds, my opponent has engaged in a misguided tactic known as “gish gallop;”[1] an attempt to overwhelm a debate by unsubstantiated, personal opinion statements. Why have one good argument with a source reference when ten personal opinion pieces will suffice?
1a1 Example, Pro’s R2 mention of fatted v. veganism. What does veganism have to do with theism v. atheism, let alone any belief and practice? Is merely the “-ism” supposed to represent direct inverse? Thus, Pro’s “arguments” fail his Resolution by excessive dependence on Mr. Duane Gish, a Christian.
Ib Pro’s tactic [per my 1a, above] will be entertained thusly: theism v. atheism, appeal to authority v. compassion, hating pleasure v. hedonism, science denial v. “trust the soyience [rendered undefined - you figure it out], and an… and on and on… are dismissed out of hand as being excessive verbosity without purpose to support Pro’s Resolution, and, in fact, they infest it with thorns and thistles. Is Pro attempting to usurp God in warning of the results of being cast out of Eden?[2] One example will suffice; one that actually has a sourced reference - a flawed one.
II Rebuttal: Slaves and Gays [are mistreated by Christians]
IIa Pro has a particular issue with the Bible “owning slaves and stoning gays.” [Pro R2] In the face of a Pro claim in R1 of scriptural support for slaves and gays, my R1 rebuttal [Ic] asked for a scripture reference. Pro’s R2 offered several [157, specifically, an two related websites], but they included Exodus 21: 16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Does not sound like a positive affirmation for either practice to me, whether or not the stealing man first had his way with the man stolen.
IIb There is ongoing problem with Pro’s R2 citing of 2 sources on treatment of slaves and gays biblically. Both independently offered Old and New Testament verses — slaves, 57 verses; gays, 100 verses — allegedly supporting his argument. But, on detailed examination, I found in a sampling of >half of each, 40 of slaves; 80 of gays, sequential verses reviewed in each website. Of the 80 reviewed for gays, 62 made no mention of “homosexuals” or ”man laying with man,” 27 made no mention of putting anyone to death by any means, and one verse spoke of stoning a cow. I call foul, and throw a red flag. In Pro’s cited sources, 78% failed to support his claim; a landslide against Pro. Similar results stained the slavery verses.
IIb1 Example; John 8: 8: “And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.” Please advise what the !$%#@ that verse has to do with slaves or gays? I question whether Pro actually read his sources, or was merely dazzled by the headings.
III Rebuttal: Veganism vs. Fatted Christians
IIIa One more gish gallop deserves mention: Pro’s R2: “All Christian denominations follow … and talk about saturated fat as if it's a delicacy.” Fatted Christians exist. How about fatted vegans? Meet one.[3] So, where’s the direct inverse since it is proven that both Christians and vegans [some of each] eat excessively, regardless of the consumed groceries?
IV Conclusion
IVa Pro’s arguments amount to a misguided tactic known as “gish gallop;”an attempt to overwhelm a debate by unsubstantiated statements. Does one gish gallop from one to the another Pro claim into the sunset…? Thus, Pro’s arguments fail his Resolution by excessive dependence on Mr. Duane Gish, a Christian creationist. Go figure.
I wish you would take the advice of Help Center/Debates to number your paragraphs. It makes for easy reference by everyone involved; yourself, debate opponents, commenters, interested viewers, and voters. How about it?
To all, With an hour to go to time of forfeiture under normal circumstances, IU want all to know that I have posted and argument addressed to my opponent, FishChaser, but, as of now, if you read all comments posted to date, I* have encountered tech difficulties that do nt allow posting my R1 argument but the regular posting method. Barney authorized my posting it to FishChaser directly, which I* have done. Wg=hat is posted in open comments here is a down rev version. Barney noted this action is not entirely kosher, but5 given the circumstances, and doing what I can with the means available, I am counting on the fair consideration of voters and commenters to accept this.
FishChaser, this is my R1 rebuttal/argument. It is sent at Barney's suggestion just in case my tech issue is not resolved by the deadline, so you can properly prepare an R2 argument.
D 202501231 #5925
Resolution: “One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything Christians believe in and practice.”
I Rebuttal: 10 opposing condiitons
1a Pro’s R1 arguments are a series of 10 opposing conditions, virtually none of which expand on, let alone speak to Pro’s Resolution. The Resolution has five keywords: belief, practice, Christians, direct inverse, and everything. We are left with the impression that, speaking of belief, practice, and Christianity, Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S.; worldwide, there are a few thousand separate denominations with differing doctrine in their details. [1] By insisting on separate doctrine regarding Christianity and its “direct inverse,” whatever that happens to be, that “direct inverse” is asked to differ by “everything.” A direct inverse-style debate would be a debate of proposed arguments and rebuttals of light, and its direct inverse, dark. In this debate case, religious belief and practice. The polar opposite of such is non-belief and non-practice, regardless of what the religions may be. Otherwise, merely claiming belief in one religion any more than another is not a direct inverse, but merely different. For example, relative to position, clock hands pointed at 12 and 6 are in direct inverse position, whereas at 2 and 5, the hands are merely in different, random positions. Just so, Christianity and Islam, for example, are merely different, but not in direct inverse belief or practice. A simple comparison of their respective holy writ, the Holy Bible, and the Qur’an, will demonstrate the claim.
1b For example, the familiar Christian doctrine, “do unto others…”[2] is a shared doctrine with Islam: Qur’an, The Hadith #13 Even one example defeats the Resolution’s demand of “everything.” Thus, Pro’s Resolution, and his attempt to justify it by argument, fails.
1c Pro’s ten X v. Y arguments may be entertaining, vulgar though several of them are, but they give nothing to support the Resolution. I am fully aware by the vulgarity that Pro thinks little of Christianity; that’s fine. To each their own. But Pro’s vulgarity goes to the point of personal attack. In his arguments, I am said to be stupid, retarded, and evil for being a Christian. Such language violates DA Code of Conduct, and I call Pro on such references. Further, he accuses Christians of disgusting sexual action, and claims God, who, by Pro’s argument, is not supposed to exist, says, “Go ahead and own slaves and stone gays masturbate, but better not masturbate or smoke weed.” [3] I challenge Pro to offer book, chapter and verse from whence that quote is cited from the Holy Bible.
II Argument: Direct Inverse
IIa Pro offers no definitions, particularly for “direct inverse.” Since no argument by Pro in R1 demonstrated direct inverse, let’s explore why it is not demonstrated in his arguments. Direct inverse is otherwise known as polar opposite. The Resolution demands that the direct inverse of Christianity must differ from Christianity by “everything.” All doctrine must oppose Christianity to qualify as a direct inverse.
IIc Is Islam a direct inverse of Christianity? No, they are merely different because Islam is not a religion with tenets in “everything” that is the direct inverse of Christian tenets. In fact, the two share many tenets, such as above, Ib, and such as being humble, forgiving, and generous. The keywords of Pro’s challenge [belief, practice, Christianity, everything] simply do not merit having direct inverses of anything, if not all that Satan represents — a familiar personage or concept of Christianity, but also of Islam, except the name recognized in the latter is Iblis, [4] and that there is not a comparative opposite volume of unholy writ on which satanist converge around common, if not identical tenets of “faith,” or whatever term applies as its opposite — but Pro did not entertain the subject of satanic belief or practice of direct inverse, nor beliefs and practices of any description. Therefore, Pro’s Resolution, and his arguments, fail.
Absurd. We humans are, by design, having been given canine teeth, and salivary amylase, an enzyme released in the mouth and stomach to breakdown complex protein ]meat] and carbohydrates, seems we were designed to be omnivores. Natural and cultivated wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes and oceans produce more atmospheric Methane than do cows, according to a 1980s Columbia University study. Vegans, go ahead and eat your rice [I eat it, too], but. leave my filet mignon alone.
I don't know, maybe some research is required. Do you doubt NOAA findings that the temp measurement is random, not a continuous rise year after year? Complain to them.
Pro’s arguments are a series of 10 opposing conditions, virtually none of which expand on, let alone speak to Pro’s Resolution. The Resolution has five keywords: belief, practice, Christianity, direct inverse, and everything. We are left with the impression that, speaking of belief, practice, and Christianity, Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S.; worldwide, there are a few thousand separate denominations with differing doctrine in their details. [1] By insisting on separate doctrine regarding Christianity and its “direct inverse,” whatever that happens to be, that “direct inverse” is asked to differ by “everything.” A direct inverse-style debate would be a debate of proposed arguments and rebuttals of light, and its direct inverse, dark. In this debate case, religious belief and practice. The polar opposite of such is non-belief and non-practice, regardless of what the religions may be. Otherwise, merely claiming belief in one religion any more than another is not a direct inverse, but merely different. For example, relative to position, clock hands pointed at 12 and 6 are in direct inverse position, whereas at 2 and 5, the hands are merely in different, random positions. Just so, Christianity and Islam, for example, are merely different, but not in direct inverse belief or practice. A simple comparison of their respective holy writ, the Holy Bible, and the Qur’an, will demonstrate the claim.
For example, the familiar Christian doctrine, “do unto others…”[2] is a shared doctrine with Islam: Qur’an, The Hadith #13 Even one example defeats the Resolution’s demand of “everything.” Thus, Pro’s Resolution, and his attempt to justify it by argument, fails.
Pro’s ten X v. Y arguments may be entertaining, vulgar though several of them are, but they give nothing to support the Resolution. I am fully aware by the vulgarity that Pro thinks little of Christianity; that’s fine. To each their own. But Pro’s vulgarity goes to the point of personal attack. In his arguments, I am said to be stupid, retarded, and evil for being a Christian. Such language violates DA Code of Conduct, and I call Pro on such references. Further, he accuses Christians of disgusting sexual action, and claims God, who, by Pro’s argument, is not supposed to exist, says, “Go ahead and own slaves and stone gays masturbate, but better not masturbate or smoke weed.” [3] I challenge Pro to offer book, chapter and verse from whence that quote is cited from the Holy Bible.
Pro offers no definitions, particularly for “direct inverse.” Since no argument by Pro in R1 demonstrated direct inverse, let’s explore why it is not demonstrated in his arguments. Direct inverse is otherwise known as polar opposite. The Resolution demands that the direct inverse of Christianity must differ from Christianity by “everything.” All doctrine must oppose Christianity to qualify as a direct inverse.
Is Islam a direct inverse of Christianity? No, they are merely different because Islam is not a religion with tenets in “everything” that is the direct inverse of Christian tenets. In fact, the two share many tenets, such as above, and such as being humble, forgiving, and generous. The keywords of Pro’s challenge [belief, practice, Christianity, everything] simply do not merit having direct inverses of anything, if not all that Satan represents — a familiar personage or concept of Christianity, but also of Islam, except the name recognized in the latter is Iblis, [4] and that there is not a comparative opposite volume of unholy writ on which satanist converge around common, if not identical tenets of “faith,” or whatever term applies as its opposite — but Pro did not entertain the subject of satanic belief or practice, nor beliefs and practices of any description. Therefore, Pro’s Resolution, and his arguments, fail.
NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] has kept temperature measurement records since 1997, and over the next twenty years, not even a blink in geologic time, reported measurements in their Annual Report. The problem is, as you accuse our human insensitivity to "climate change," the highest temperature measurements have not been in consistently consecutive years as activists claim. Further, 11 years in those 20 were not even in the top ten hottest years, so it would seem we're looking at natural variation, not a trend. Further, I am professionally familiar with measurement tools and their calibration, and I ask: how many global measurement stations are there in the world? Are they all using the same measurement equipment? Is the equipment used the optimum equipment for the measurement intended? Is the accuracy of the equipment meet the ten-times-accuracy required to assure accuracy of measurement for whatever the allowed tolerance is? How accurate and timely are the calibration schedules for these measurement devices? These are just a few of the measurement questions that must be asked. And I'll tell you, from professional experience: the data collected is not recognizing the importance of these questions, resulting in flawed data. So, what are your expectations, again, regarding the accuracy of measuring "climate change?" Inaccurate data means what for accurate conclusions?
I just voted on this debate, but I was not allowed to enter the point value - it defaulted to 1 point, whereas in the body of my vote, I arrived to the following: Con - 5 points; Pro: 2 points.
Given the format of the Resolution as a question, you need to identify your position; was it justified, or not. It is not at all clear just because you have initiated and challenged the debate. A no-infomation Description is not sufficient when a Resolution is offered as a question.
Coming back?
You do not own a house. Truth
You do not own your car, outright, if you are even legally allowed to drive. Truth
I believe my reference was that you take advice from your sock puppet, not that you are one. Truth.
My, my, carrying a grudge for over a month? Get over yourself, punk.
There is still no mystery to the notion that youth is wasted on the young. I am still in the top ten in debate, which says something for staying power. Let's see if you rank as well when you have engaged as many debates. Hint: I don't gloat when I win. A lesson lost on a child. If you want to wear "sock puppet," be my guest. Tough? You have no idea what that is. You will.
Having argued this from one side, though I honestly cannot currently recall if it was in Debate, or in Forum, I'll play. Good luck, Intel. This will be fun. Enjoy
If you only want a 3-round debate, call it a 3-round debate. What's the sense of trading first-and-last round waivers [what you call "forfeit]? This even contradicts what is said in Help Center on debates: that as for arguments [including rebuttal, defense] "The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate." A four-round debate has argument in all four rounds by each opponent. To me, the initiator who waives a first round is a coward, wanting see the opponent's hand before revealing their own. Seems to me, you initiate a debate, you have the courage to present your argument first, whether you are Pro or Con.
Normally, once I've begun a debate, and posted the beginning argument, I avoid comments until after voting is completed, to avoid influence on voters. Although you posted your question prior to my posting of my first round, I did not see it before I posted. I don't think it will influence anyone who may vote because you are correct: by definition, free will depends on the co-existence of both both good and evil, which is why the Resolution is worded as it is.
Oh, boy! Forget that mention in my R1, I.e- something about not feeling my age [71]. Just pulled a muscle between the groin and knee. What can a doctor do about a pulled muscle? Nada. "Stay off your leg and let it heal," Doc will say. I can figure that out on my own, thanks. Well, don'tcha know, I tried a chocolate chip cookie pill. Didn't work for the pain, but, satisfying nonetheless. Meanwhile, I feel ashamed saddled to a cane. Not for long!
It would appear, based on action taken by Mod [SupaDudz] today, that my opponent has been banned until 9/5 for alt usage, which will cause a forfeiture of at least R2. I have already composed argument for R2, and, as there will be no Pro R2, with rebuttal of my R1, I need no further rebuttal, and I can post my R2 immediately [in 12 days +]. I also have some of R3 composed [not new argument]. Pro may not achieve an R3, either. We'll see. Too bad, I was looking forward to this, as I have had additional thoughts on the matter. What is it about the Internet that fosters aliases? Why can't we just be ourselves? We can't be anyone else; they're already taken.
By your definition of God, I, a confirmed theist, would meet your definition of an atheist; that God, as defined, does not exist. It's an odd position for me, as I totally disagree that God is defined as you have; without a physical body. Yes, I am fully aware of the various scriptures that say God is a spirit, and some of them even add that to properly worship God, we must worship him in spirit. Tell me how we do that as physically embodied, but not just spirits. We are physical bodies and spirits. In my view, God is no different, except that his physical body is perfect, as ours will one day be. Perhaps there is an interrupt here the scriptures do not adequately explain. Maybe they once did, and those explanations were removed in translation from Hebrew and Greek in order to convey an agenda to explain how God can be everywhere at once. There are other explanations. With technology, we see dignitaries and celebrities on TV around the world. I'm suspicious that God's tech is superior to ours.
As it has naught to do with this debate, I will explain partially - for everyone's information to avoid self-promotion & trying to remain aligned with DA policy - that there is a specific reason why I insist that any reference to me, on this site, is completely in lowercase and lowercase only. I have explained this before more fully long ago, in Forum, and, in fact, it's in my profile, which I expect exists for the purpose of members to get to know one another, and regret having to repeat it.Thank you, Ragnar, for your input.
Congratulations to fauxlaw, who has struck out, and is, therefore, out of competition in Comments during this debate; his preferred condition, in any event. I'll take my two quocs and head for the ranch.
Currently, I'm having a technical problem in the Debate section: I cannot enter any text in the argument rounds. Moderation is looking into it, but so far, has not been able to resolve the issue. I've had one recent debate, and had to copy/paste my arguments/sources of each round from my Apple Pages app for each round, which makes it difficult for an opponent and for voters to switch back and forth from comments to the arguments page. That's more trouble than it's worth. Otherwise, I'd be glad to engage a debate.
Personally, I find the debate over the interpretation of Matthew 16: 15-18 to be a grammatic squabble that is actually too simple by interpretation of the passage in Greek [probably it's first language as written], then translated to Latin, in the 4th century, and, ultimately, English [in the 17th century]. I have a formal education in Greek, but none but personal research in Latin; English is my mother tongue, and I have a recently earned baccalaureate in linguistics [mostly English]
The issue entered by Pro and Con is the interpretation of Peter [Πετρος] being called "the rock," [Πετρα] and, as such, whether he is "the foundation of the church." [verse 18] But everyone ignores the trailing reference at tree end of the verse following :the gates of hell shall not prevail against..." the word following is a 3rd person singular pronoun that, if it referred to Peter, would be "you" [συ], which is a 2nd person singular pronoun. Biut, no, the 3rd person singular pronoun is "it," which the Greeks, and the English [but not dependably in Latin] use as a neutered pronoun referring to inanimate objects and non-human animals. Sorry, but I believe the "it" refers back to verse 15's [ἀπεκάλυψέν], "revealed," as in "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven." Revelation [that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God] is the "it" that is the foundation of the church. There is no reference to a "pope" nor a "papacy" existing in any translation of biblical text, not in Greek, not the Latin Vulgate, nor in your cited NRSV, nor my KJV, nor any other English translation as offered by https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/16.htm . While both participants speck to "revelation" in their arguments, neither refers to this specific revelation from God to Peter, nor that it plays a role as foundation of the church. I am too jaded by this grammar, and the linkage of revelation to see any way to vote on this debate for either side. Words do mean things, and their use in syntax is meaningful and informative, particularly when talking about translated works such as is the Bible.
Another non-existing debate just taking up space. Both participants lose
I should have added in my vote that Pro's argument in R1 included mention that the description of creation in Genesis, which Pro cites, indicates that God created heaven and earth, but did not describe how it was done. This is an adequate description by Pro that evolution, itself, may have played a part in the creative process.
I would add the possibility that creation continues to this day by that means, and I see no contradiction biblically to refute the possibility, but do not make that last comment a feature of my vote because it is conjecture, and Pro did not specifically make that argument.
Jesus has no genetic material from Joseph, while he does from Mary. Joseph and Mary were cousins of some removal from one another, but both still of the house of Judah. But since Jesus had no genetic tie to Joseph, he is of some other blood, as well as from Mary, therefore not just of Judah [therefore, not just a Jew]. We have no idea of what genetics is God the Father, the true father of the flesh of Jesus Christ.
Pro and Con just demonstrated they can utterly waste 16 hours. A less-than-useless use of time.
Now that I’ve voted, I thought I’d expand with an explanation of the “caution.” You wasted R2 with a question of clarification that ought to have been in comments. Don’t waste a round like that. You could have pressed your R1 argument of other prevailing agents that relieve personal accountability for actions as you argued in R1 and R3, and found a source or two to underpin the argument. Good work, though. Well done.
I perceived your entire argument set over three rounds of “X’s don’t do do Y” when, in fact, that kind of generalization is an excuse to be
1. Authoritative
2. Lacking in supporting data
3. Unwilling to allow for individual, independent thought and action (belief and practice, if you will).
Further, your Resolution insisted on “the direct inverse of everything Christian,” not just several or most things. Every little dogma must directly oppose Christianity when, in fact, Islam has the Hadith #13 (my R1) which was never rebutted to combat the golden rule, or your R2 argument of “fatted Christians” (another generalization not describing all Christian’s when “all” is your Resolution’s threshold.) Hence my unrebutted claim, with supporting source reference, of fatted vegans, thus again defeating your Resolution of “everything.” “Everything” was your BoP. It failed.
Seems to me Savant’s vote misinterprets the Resolution as a moral dilemma, good v. bad, when it states being “the direct inverse of everything” which is neither good or bad, but opposed in every condition when even atheism and Christianity believe and practice identical principles, such as the golden rule, which fails the Resolution.
No, you miss my point. How am I poorer in consumption of meat when it it is no sacrifice to my pocket for its procuration? When a month is done, and my procurations, obligatory and discretionary, have not depleted my increase, but have increased above and beyond expense? That’s called continuous creation of wealth; a status enduring longer than any political, social, or economic Marxism, for that systemic mode merely spends, but knows not creation of personal wealth, and never will as long as the self denies himself the ambition, planning, and execution of that wealth, just because the mirror tells you, “You cannot.”
Then your issue is economic, not culinary, and has little to do with relative intelligence. Poverty, for many, is a choice to want wealth, and act accordingly, or not, and don’t. What’s stopping you? I’ll tell you: your mirror. That guy is your only nemesis.
Then why did you accept the challenge as is? Why didn’t you ask Pro to change argument time before accepting the challenge?
Your vote suggests I should have argued something that is bad as being a direct inverse of Christian belief and practice, but the Resolution is not a moral question of good and bad, but, rather, a question of direct inverse of everything. Therefore, I argued in all three rounds that Christians and atheists share beliefs and practices such as the golden rule, aka, the law of reciprocity, which are not direct inverse opposition, but merely similar practices for different reasons. Different does not qualify as direct inverse. As I concluded, “everything” cannot have mere difference in reason for shared belief and practice, but must make direct inverse by definition.
Per Americandebaters #21 comment, pls remove his vote of forfeit. This
Three kinds of people:
Make things happen
Watch what happens
Wonder what happened
Guess where I put agnosticism (which has a greater scope than just religion)?
I’ve waited patiently for four days for a re-assessment of your vote. As Barney advised, I discovered only after accepting the debate challenge that I was prevented somehow from entering argument in the argument field of each round, so I entered them in each round in comments, clearly identified as round 1, 2, etc. complete with listed source references. I did not forfeit any round, and do not deserve that assessment.
Barney, I'd appreciate your ratification of my comment below [#16], if acceptable to you, an appeal to readers and voters to consider and vote on this debate, appealing to fair-mindedness. Thank you.
To all readers and voters on this debate:
I appeal to your fair-minded consideration of the arguments of this debate. Clearly, it appears I forfeited this debate as there are no posts of my challenges to the Resolution in the argument fields required of instigators and challengers in DebateArt Debate Policy and Code of Conduct. I, fauxlaw, am not a novice; having, now, 78 debates-experience. I began in March of 2020, currently listed at #14 of well over 100 debaters, ranked at 1702 points, I am well aware of policies and codes, but have been prohibited, not by my process, but by some DebateArt process glitch, from entering a single character, let alone an entire round argument for three rounds in this debate, the effect of which was unknown to me, accepting the challenge in good faith that I could proceed with debating prior to acceptance of the challenge to engage this debate. Discovering I could not enter my arguments directly into the debate argument field in each round, I appealed to Mods to find out what was preventing my "posting" of the first round argument. To date, that investigation continues. I am, by all normal consideration, eligible to debate.
Therefore, I appeal to your fairminded approach to this debate since, clearly, I have done the best I can to post my arguments, rebuttals, and conclusion for each round in the comments section since the argument fields remain closed to me as of the posting of this comment [02/08/25] - well within the rounds argument due date of this 3rd round, as all rounds were "posted" on time, but in comments. I shall not accept another challenge for debate, nor issue a challenge for a regular debate, until this process glitch is resolved. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Resolution: “One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything Christians believe in and practice.”
I Rebuttal: Gish Gallop into the sunset…
1a I know that repetition expecting different results is a sign of something, but I cannot remember what it was. Oh, right, it was the Resolution.
1a1 Pr4o’s R3 “Not every aspect of Christianity is a direct extrapolation out of theism any more than Islam is.” No, it isn’t but the Resolution is “Christians” and the “direct inverse of everything” thereof. I am accused of dodging. No, I argued that even “theism and atheism” are also outside the debate scope. Pro’s BoP was to prove the Resolution, but Pro, instead, gave us indirect inverses of off-topic opposites. I demonstrated they have direct identity with Christianity. More gish gallop failure by Pro.
Ib Insanity is, indeed, the result of doing over and over and over again. We have a questionable debate Resolution that has been my BoP to disprove. I have squarely addressed and defeated the Gish Gallop routine in my R1, R2, and R3, thus, this Resolution fails.
Ib1 Pro R3 rebuttal claimed “You are relying on twisting the Bible's words to support your point, cherry picking a single quote out of dozens, all of which prove that slavery is allowed in God's law, to find one that MIGHT be interpreted as being against slavery provided you are illiterate.” Nope. Example: 1 Peter 2: 18 “Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.” Pro insisted I am “…twisting the Bible’s words.” No, I quote Pro’s ESV version.
Ib2 Example: Luke 1: 37: “For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Ib3 Example: Matthew 5: 17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” 78% of these “slaves and gays” verses, statistically, are unrelated to Pro’s claim.
Conclusion: The Resolution’s “everything Christians…” condition allowed for shared beliefs and practices of Christians, plus Muslims, atheists, hedonists, vegans, slaves and gays, and assorted others, making the “direct inverse” necessity an impossible achievement. Perhaps Pro’s Resolution might have carried the day had “the direct inverse of everything” not been included in his Resolution. The Resolution could have been worded “One should believe in and practice anything but what Christians believe in and practice,” without getting into the weeds of all of Pro’s gish galloping. I say ‘the direct inverse of everything’ scuttled Pro’s Resolution.
Thank you for reading this debate. After due consideration of the arguments, please vote for Con.
Just below,
I have posted my Round 2 argument, finding I amn still unable to post in the Arguments section - a tech issue Mods are trying to resolve.
One suggested resolve I have been advised might work on a subsequent debate, but I'll let the Mod who suggested it reveal what that resolve is because it is definitely outside the box.
My Round 2:
D 202501231 #5926 R2. https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
Resolution: “One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything Christians believe in and practice.”
I Rebuttal: Introducing Mr. Gish
Ia In 2 rounds, my opponent has engaged in a misguided tactic known as “gish gallop;”[1] an attempt to overwhelm a debate by unsubstantiated, personal opinion statements. Why have one good argument with a source reference when ten personal opinion pieces will suffice?
1a1 Example, Pro’s R2 mention of fatted v. veganism. What does veganism have to do with theism v. atheism, let alone any belief and practice? Is merely the “-ism” supposed to represent direct inverse? Thus, Pro’s “arguments” fail his Resolution by excessive dependence on Mr. Duane Gish, a Christian.
Ib Pro’s tactic [per my 1a, above] will be entertained thusly: theism v. atheism, appeal to authority v. compassion, hating pleasure v. hedonism, science denial v. “trust the soyience [rendered undefined - you figure it out], and an… and on and on… are dismissed out of hand as being excessive verbosity without purpose to support Pro’s Resolution, and, in fact, they infest it with thorns and thistles. Is Pro attempting to usurp God in warning of the results of being cast out of Eden?[2] One example will suffice; one that actually has a sourced reference - a flawed one.
II Rebuttal: Slaves and Gays [are mistreated by Christians]
IIa Pro has a particular issue with the Bible “owning slaves and stoning gays.” [Pro R2] In the face of a Pro claim in R1 of scriptural support for slaves and gays, my R1 rebuttal [Ic] asked for a scripture reference. Pro’s R2 offered several [157, specifically, an two related websites], but they included Exodus 21: 16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Does not sound like a positive affirmation for either practice to me, whether or not the stealing man first had his way with the man stolen.
IIb There is ongoing problem with Pro’s R2 citing of 2 sources on treatment of slaves and gays biblically. Both independently offered Old and New Testament verses — slaves, 57 verses; gays, 100 verses — allegedly supporting his argument. But, on detailed examination, I found in a sampling of >half of each, 40 of slaves; 80 of gays, sequential verses reviewed in each website. Of the 80 reviewed for gays, 62 made no mention of “homosexuals” or ”man laying with man,” 27 made no mention of putting anyone to death by any means, and one verse spoke of stoning a cow. I call foul, and throw a red flag. In Pro’s cited sources, 78% failed to support his claim; a landslide against Pro. Similar results stained the slavery verses.
IIb1 Example; John 8: 8: “And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.” Please advise what the !$%#@ that verse has to do with slaves or gays? I question whether Pro actually read his sources, or was merely dazzled by the headings.
III Rebuttal: Veganism vs. Fatted Christians
IIIa One more gish gallop deserves mention: Pro’s R2: “All Christian denominations follow … and talk about saturated fat as if it's a delicacy.” Fatted Christians exist. How about fatted vegans? Meet one.[3] So, where’s the direct inverse since it is proven that both Christians and vegans [some of each] eat excessively, regardless of the consumed groceries?
IV Conclusion
IVa Pro’s arguments amount to a misguided tactic known as “gish gallop;”an attempt to overwhelm a debate by unsubstantiated statements. Does one gish gallop from one to the another Pro claim into the sunset…? Thus, Pro’s arguments fail his Resolution by excessive dependence on Mr. Duane Gish, a Christian creationist. Go figure.
Thank you, all. I rest my case for R2.
Source References:
[1] https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/11/gish-gallop/#:~:text=Gish%20Gallop%20is%20a%20technique,each%20point%20in%20real%20time.
[2] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 3: 18
[3] https://www.taylorwolfram.com/vegan-fatphobia/
I wish you would take the advice of Help Center/Debates to number your paragraphs. It makes for easy reference by everyone involved; yourself, debate opponents, commenters, interested viewers, and voters. How about it?
To all, With an hour to go to time of forfeiture under normal circumstances, IU want all to know that I have posted and argument addressed to my opponent, FishChaser, but, as of now, if you read all comments posted to date, I* have encountered tech difficulties that do nt allow posting my R1 argument but the regular posting method. Barney authorized my posting it to FishChaser directly, which I* have done. Wg=hat is posted in open comments here is a down rev version. Barney noted this action is not entirely kosher, but5 given the circumstances, and doing what I can with the means available, I am counting on the fair consideration of voters and commenters to accept this.
I've done as you suggested
FishChaser, this is my R1 rebuttal/argument. It is sent at Barney's suggestion just in case my tech issue is not resolved by the deadline, so you can properly prepare an R2 argument.
D 202501231 #5925
Resolution: “One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything Christians believe in and practice.”
I Rebuttal: 10 opposing condiitons
1a Pro’s R1 arguments are a series of 10 opposing conditions, virtually none of which expand on, let alone speak to Pro’s Resolution. The Resolution has five keywords: belief, practice, Christians, direct inverse, and everything. We are left with the impression that, speaking of belief, practice, and Christianity, Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S.; worldwide, there are a few thousand separate denominations with differing doctrine in their details. [1] By insisting on separate doctrine regarding Christianity and its “direct inverse,” whatever that happens to be, that “direct inverse” is asked to differ by “everything.” A direct inverse-style debate would be a debate of proposed arguments and rebuttals of light, and its direct inverse, dark. In this debate case, religious belief and practice. The polar opposite of such is non-belief and non-practice, regardless of what the religions may be. Otherwise, merely claiming belief in one religion any more than another is not a direct inverse, but merely different. For example, relative to position, clock hands pointed at 12 and 6 are in direct inverse position, whereas at 2 and 5, the hands are merely in different, random positions. Just so, Christianity and Islam, for example, are merely different, but not in direct inverse belief or practice. A simple comparison of their respective holy writ, the Holy Bible, and the Qur’an, will demonstrate the claim.
1b For example, the familiar Christian doctrine, “do unto others…”[2] is a shared doctrine with Islam: Qur’an, The Hadith #13 Even one example defeats the Resolution’s demand of “everything.” Thus, Pro’s Resolution, and his attempt to justify it by argument, fails.
1c Pro’s ten X v. Y arguments may be entertaining, vulgar though several of them are, but they give nothing to support the Resolution. I am fully aware by the vulgarity that Pro thinks little of Christianity; that’s fine. To each their own. But Pro’s vulgarity goes to the point of personal attack. In his arguments, I am said to be stupid, retarded, and evil for being a Christian. Such language violates DA Code of Conduct, and I call Pro on such references. Further, he accuses Christians of disgusting sexual action, and claims God, who, by Pro’s argument, is not supposed to exist, says, “Go ahead and own slaves and stone gays masturbate, but better not masturbate or smoke weed.” [3] I challenge Pro to offer book, chapter and verse from whence that quote is cited from the Holy Bible.
II Argument: Direct Inverse
IIa Pro offers no definitions, particularly for “direct inverse.” Since no argument by Pro in R1 demonstrated direct inverse, let’s explore why it is not demonstrated in his arguments. Direct inverse is otherwise known as polar opposite. The Resolution demands that the direct inverse of Christianity must differ from Christianity by “everything.” All doctrine must oppose Christianity to qualify as a direct inverse.
IIc Is Islam a direct inverse of Christianity? No, they are merely different because Islam is not a religion with tenets in “everything” that is the direct inverse of Christian tenets. In fact, the two share many tenets, such as above, Ib, and such as being humble, forgiving, and generous. The keywords of Pro’s challenge [belief, practice, Christianity, everything] simply do not merit having direct inverses of anything, if not all that Satan represents — a familiar personage or concept of Christianity, but also of Islam, except the name recognized in the latter is Iblis, [4] and that there is not a comparative opposite volume of unholy writ on which satanist converge around common, if not identical tenets of “faith,” or whatever term applies as its opposite — but Pro did not entertain the subject of satanic belief or practice of direct inverse, nor beliefs and practices of any description. Therefore, Pro’s Resolution, and his arguments, fail.
I rest my case for R1.
References
[1] https://medium.com/biblical-christian-worldview/how-many-christian-denominations-are-there-and-why-76f74de55a60#:~:text=“Estimations%20show%20there%20are%20more,globally%20(details%20here).”
[2] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 12 disgusting
[3] Pro’s R1 argument.
[4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Iblis
I am aware of that, but something is preventing g my posting the argument. I've appealed to a Mod to find out why
Absurd. We humans are, by design, having been given canine teeth, and salivary amylase, an enzyme released in the mouth and stomach to breakdown complex protein ]meat] and carbohydrates, seems we were designed to be omnivores. Natural and cultivated wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes and oceans produce more atmospheric Methane than do cows, according to a 1980s Columbia University study. Vegans, go ahead and eat your rice [I eat it, too], but. leave my filet mignon alone.
I don't know, maybe some research is required. Do you doubt NOAA findings that the temp measurement is random, not a continuous rise year after year? Complain to them.
Pro’s arguments are a series of 10 opposing conditions, virtually none of which expand on, let alone speak to Pro’s Resolution. The Resolution has five keywords: belief, practice, Christianity, direct inverse, and everything. We are left with the impression that, speaking of belief, practice, and Christianity, Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S.; worldwide, there are a few thousand separate denominations with differing doctrine in their details. [1] By insisting on separate doctrine regarding Christianity and its “direct inverse,” whatever that happens to be, that “direct inverse” is asked to differ by “everything.” A direct inverse-style debate would be a debate of proposed arguments and rebuttals of light, and its direct inverse, dark. In this debate case, religious belief and practice. The polar opposite of such is non-belief and non-practice, regardless of what the religions may be. Otherwise, merely claiming belief in one religion any more than another is not a direct inverse, but merely different. For example, relative to position, clock hands pointed at 12 and 6 are in direct inverse position, whereas at 2 and 5, the hands are merely in different, random positions. Just so, Christianity and Islam, for example, are merely different, but not in direct inverse belief or practice. A simple comparison of their respective holy writ, the Holy Bible, and the Qur’an, will demonstrate the claim.
For example, the familiar Christian doctrine, “do unto others…”[2] is a shared doctrine with Islam: Qur’an, The Hadith #13 Even one example defeats the Resolution’s demand of “everything.” Thus, Pro’s Resolution, and his attempt to justify it by argument, fails.
Pro’s ten X v. Y arguments may be entertaining, vulgar though several of them are, but they give nothing to support the Resolution. I am fully aware by the vulgarity that Pro thinks little of Christianity; that’s fine. To each their own. But Pro’s vulgarity goes to the point of personal attack. In his arguments, I am said to be stupid, retarded, and evil for being a Christian. Such language violates DA Code of Conduct, and I call Pro on such references. Further, he accuses Christians of disgusting sexual action, and claims God, who, by Pro’s argument, is not supposed to exist, says, “Go ahead and own slaves and stone gays masturbate, but better not masturbate or smoke weed.” [3] I challenge Pro to offer book, chapter and verse from whence that quote is cited from the Holy Bible.
Pro offers no definitions, particularly for “direct inverse.” Since no argument by Pro in R1 demonstrated direct inverse, let’s explore why it is not demonstrated in his arguments. Direct inverse is otherwise known as polar opposite. The Resolution demands that the direct inverse of Christianity must differ from Christianity by “everything.” All doctrine must oppose Christianity to qualify as a direct inverse.
Is Islam a direct inverse of Christianity? No, they are merely different because Islam is not a religion with tenets in “everything” that is the direct inverse of Christian tenets. In fact, the two share many tenets, such as above, and such as being humble, forgiving, and generous. The keywords of Pro’s challenge [belief, practice, Christianity, everything] simply do not merit having direct inverses of anything, if not all that Satan represents — a familiar personage or concept of Christianity, but also of Islam, except the name recognized in the latter is Iblis, [4] and that there is not a comparative opposite volume of unholy writ on which satanist converge around common, if not identical tenets of “faith,” or whatever term applies as its opposite — but Pro did not entertain the subject of satanic belief or practice, nor beliefs and practices of any description. Therefore, Pro’s Resolution, and his arguments, fail.
I rest my case for R1.
References
[1] https://medium.com/biblical-christian-worldview/how-many-christian-denominations-are-there-and-why-76f74de55a60#:~:text=“Estimations%20show%20there%20are%20more,globally%20(details%20here).”
[2] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 12 disgusting
[3] Pro’s R1 argument.
[4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Iblis
NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] has kept temperature measurement records since 1997, and over the next twenty years, not even a blink in geologic time, reported measurements in their Annual Report. The problem is, as you accuse our human insensitivity to "climate change," the highest temperature measurements have not been in consistently consecutive years as activists claim. Further, 11 years in those 20 were not even in the top ten hottest years, so it would seem we're looking at natural variation, not a trend. Further, I am professionally familiar with measurement tools and their calibration, and I ask: how many global measurement stations are there in the world? Are they all using the same measurement equipment? Is the equipment used the optimum equipment for the measurement intended? Is the accuracy of the equipment meet the ten-times-accuracy required to assure accuracy of measurement for whatever the allowed tolerance is? How accurate and timely are the calibration schedules for these measurement devices? These are just a few of the measurement questions that must be asked. And I'll tell you, from professional experience: the data collected is not recognizing the importance of these questions, resulting in flawed data. So, what are your expectations, again, regarding the accuracy of measuring "climate change?" Inaccurate data means what for accurate conclusions?
I just voted on this debate, but I was not allowed to enter the point value - it defaulted to 1 point, whereas in the body of my vote, I arrived to the following: Con - 5 points; Pro: 2 points.
Voting period ought not exceed 30 days. No, there is no standard suggested, but six months is excessive.
Given the format of the Resolution as a question, you need to identify your position; was it justified, or not. It is not at all clear just because you have initiated and challenged the debate. A no-infomation Description is not sufficient when a Resolution is offered as a question.
Coming back?
You do not own a house. Truth
You do not own your car, outright, if you are even legally allowed to drive. Truth
I believe my reference was that you take advice from your sock puppet, not that you are one. Truth.
My, my, carrying a grudge for over a month? Get over yourself, punk.
There is still no mystery to the notion that youth is wasted on the young. I am still in the top ten in debate, which says something for staying power. Let's see if you rank as well when you have engaged as many debates. Hint: I don't gloat when I win. A lesson lost on a child. If you want to wear "sock puppet," be my guest. Tough? You have no idea what that is. You will.
Thank you for voting
Both lose by forfeit
Having argued this from one side, though I honestly cannot currently recall if it was in Debate, or in Forum, I'll play. Good luck, Intel. This will be fun. Enjoy
If you only want a 3-round debate, call it a 3-round debate. What's the sense of trading first-and-last round waivers [what you call "forfeit]? This even contradicts what is said in Help Center on debates: that as for arguments [including rebuttal, defense] "The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate." A four-round debate has argument in all four rounds by each opponent. To me, the initiator who waives a first round is a coward, wanting see the opponent's hand before revealing their own. Seems to me, you initiate a debate, you have the courage to present your argument first, whether you are Pro or Con.
The proof of my Resolution relative to the necessity of comprehension is given in my R1, I, with citations [1] through [7].
Thank you for voting
Normally, once I've begun a debate, and posted the beginning argument, I avoid comments until after voting is completed, to avoid influence on voters. Although you posted your question prior to my posting of my first round, I did not see it before I posted. I don't think it will influence anyone who may vote because you are correct: by definition, free will depends on the co-existence of both both good and evil, which is why the Resolution is worded as it is.
Oh, boy! Forget that mention in my R1, I.e- something about not feeling my age [71]. Just pulled a muscle between the groin and knee. What can a doctor do about a pulled muscle? Nada. "Stay off your leg and let it heal," Doc will say. I can figure that out on my own, thanks. Well, don'tcha know, I tried a chocolate chip cookie pill. Didn't work for the pain, but, satisfying nonetheless. Meanwhile, I feel ashamed saddled to a cane. Not for long!
@ RM
Thanks for voting
Thank you for voting
It would appear, based on action taken by Mod [SupaDudz] today, that my opponent has been banned until 9/5 for alt usage, which will cause a forfeiture of at least R2. I have already composed argument for R2, and, as there will be no Pro R2, with rebuttal of my R1, I need no further rebuttal, and I can post my R2 immediately [in 12 days +]. I also have some of R3 composed [not new argument]. Pro may not achieve an R3, either. We'll see. Too bad, I was looking forward to this, as I have had additional thoughts on the matter. What is it about the Internet that fosters aliases? Why can't we just be ourselves? We can't be anyone else; they're already taken.
Thank you for your vote
By your definition of God, I, a confirmed theist, would meet your definition of an atheist; that God, as defined, does not exist. It's an odd position for me, as I totally disagree that God is defined as you have; without a physical body. Yes, I am fully aware of the various scriptures that say God is a spirit, and some of them even add that to properly worship God, we must worship him in spirit. Tell me how we do that as physically embodied, but not just spirits. We are physical bodies and spirits. In my view, God is no different, except that his physical body is perfect, as ours will one day be. Perhaps there is an interrupt here the scriptures do not adequately explain. Maybe they once did, and those explanations were removed in translation from Hebrew and Greek in order to convey an agenda to explain how God can be everywhere at once. There are other explanations. With technology, we see dignitaries and celebrities on TV around the world. I'm suspicious that God's tech is superior to ours.
As it has naught to do with this debate, I will explain partially - for everyone's information to avoid self-promotion & trying to remain aligned with DA policy - that there is a specific reason why I insist that any reference to me, on this site, is completely in lowercase and lowercase only. I have explained this before more fully long ago, in Forum, and, in fact, it's in my profile, which I expect exists for the purpose of members to get to know one another, and regret having to repeat it.Thank you, Ragnar, for your input.
Congratulations to fauxlaw, who has struck out, and is, therefore, out of competition in Comments during this debate; his preferred condition, in any event. I'll take my two quocs and head for the ranch.