must break my own rule of commentary during debate due to this absurdity in your post #25 in these comments.
"detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".
You allege to quote me. If you are going to quote me, then. quote me, do not use your own interpretation as a quote from me. I never wrote those words. If
I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction. I will not be quoted incorrectly. That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always. Stay in your own head.
I have, on occasion, on. this site, taken a position in debate with which I personally disagree, all for the effort of research for personal enlightenment, but also to challenge wider consideration of personal opinion, so, to detractors of my methods, take note. I will, other than by specific posting of debate rounds, avoid commentary within this comments field for the duration of this debate, and I often make that choice to not engage commentary during debate. So, see you in the rounds, only. unless absolutely necessary, which is often not.
Barney, relative to your comment on a link to my R1, note that though instigator, I am Con, not Pro.
Round 1
I Argument: Due process: an invention of God or man?
I.a The Fifth Amendment gives us the Constitution’s first mention of “due process of law:” saying to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”[4]
1.b The XIVth Amendment does, as well: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[5]
I.c The Magna Carta, from 1215, without using the specific words, gives us the same sense: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in anyway, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”[6]
1.d The concept is older, still, from “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” but known anciently by another name: “Spells of Coming Forth by Day” from about 1400 B.C.E, “I have driven away for thee wickedness. I have not done iniquity to mankind. Not have I done harm to animals. Not have I done wickedness in the place of Maàt. Not have I known evil. Not have I done what is abominable to God…”[7] These spells had the purpose of preparing the dead, not the living, to encounter God in supplication for their eternal soul by a commitment of right-doing during mortal life; a “due process” process, that is obviously a God-centered process, not merely secular.
1.e But we were introduced to the idea of due process earlier still, from Genesis, from Eden, at creation: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat…”[8] but there were consequences. Due process is a process of obedience and consequence for legal obedience or disobedience. There is the source of due process: God.
II Argument: Words mean things
II.a Contrary to conventional wisdom, Con contends that the Lord God is mentioned within the text of the U.S. Constitution. The argument is simple, and cited from the Constitution, itself, even if the citation is couched within the typical context of official documents of the 18th century to acknowledge God even in the mundane necessity of dating the document:
II.b “…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,”[9]
II.c It is granted that this commentary is not a legislated philosophy or legality of the United States by the present Constitution, but, the matter of the Resolution does not require the language therein to have a specified purpose above and beyond being the “…supreme law of the land…”[10] but merely mention for the same of convention, as the Description describes.
III Conclusion: A warning
III.1 It is further contended that as the U.S. Constitution is “…the supreme law of the land…” it stands as a beacon, like a lighthouse, which warns of malfeasance, but does not register the the ships that sail safely through the warned waters of treacherous result for lack of careful sailing. The results of careful “sailing,” by abiding by the caring words of due process, are marked in the words of the Constitution’s Preamble: “…in order to form a more perfect union.”[11] Is there anything that is not god-like that is associated with perfection? Therefore, to what purpose is the Constitution if not that, according to our author of these words, James Madison. No, God may not be otherwise mentioned constitutionally but in Article VII, but Madison intended by the Preamble that God be part and parcel of the Constitution.
III.2 Note the argument of I.a, above. It is not so much that the the Ist Amendment warns that Religion must not impose itself on Government, and thereby the infamous, “separation wall,” as alleged to Tommy Jefferson, but he happened to have been away from both church and state at the time, in France, and so never signed the U.S. Constitution, or its Ist Amendment. No, but the matter was that Government not impose itself on Religion, and thereby avoid its own violations of due process of law.
III.3 It is, therefore, proposed that the Resolution is defeated by these arguments. It is a matter of simple adherence to law; namely, due process of law; both man’s, and God’s.
Thank you for your attention. To pro for R1.
Sources:
[4] U.S. Constitution, Vth Amendment
[5] U.S. Constitution, XIVth Amendment, Section 1
[6] Magna Carta, Clause 39
[7] E.A. Wallis Budge, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” Plate XXIX-Appendix, pg 194
[8] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 16
[9] U.S. Constitution, Article VII
[10] U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2
[11] U.S. Constitution, Preamble
Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. To accept this debate, Pro, as well as voters and commenters must agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended, however, in another debate proposed bye another member was engaged by me a few days ago and I attempted to enter my 1st round argument last night and could not, so I suppose this debate will not be accepted in the argument field, either, though I will make the attempt. We will all see the result together. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
By accepting this debate, Sir Lancelot, per the Description, has accepted to have my arguments posted in these comments fields. Further, readers amid voters are asked to ignore the otherwise automatic forfeit notices of each round since they will be evident in each round of the site refuses my entry of arguments as should be allowed, but may not be. I will be making the attempt today or tonight.
Your #11: "The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. "
And who insists that God is only to be discussed in those terms; "theological" or "doctrinal?" I do not think of him elusively in those terms. I call him "Dad," on occasion in addressing him, and have those kinds of conversations. It is a personal reelationshbp. Shouldn't it be?
Re: Your #12:
You hee not yet consulted https://allthingsliberty.com. suggested on my #5, have you? Do so, you may have a better understanding of my perspective in launching this debater. Also, consider that I am currently wresting a sequel to mat previous volume re: the Constitution, proposing that the Document may be considered holy writ. Being perfectly serious.
Resolution: The Tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term have had a negative effect on our economy so far
Round 1
Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
I. Rebuttal: What tarrifs?
I.a On 4/2/2025, President Trump announced intent to issue tariffs, to begin on 4/5/2025, on trading partners with whom the U.S. has trade deficits [higher exports to U.S. from them than U.S. imports to them]. As of now, our top trading partners in export/import [from US perspective] are in trade deficit with the U.S. with the exception of Great Britain on the list.[1]
I.a.1 However, Pro’s R1 claim is with citation of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_administration. Those plans were actually announced by Trump to be delayed as of 4/4, and, as of today [4/20/2025] the plans remain delayed in favor of Trump conducting one-on-one negotiations to improve the trade imbalance making tariffs unnecessary.[2] Pro’s citation sources make no mention of these delays.
I.a.1.a Aside: Using Wikipedia as a source is curious since Wiki’s own published opinion of its own reliability is questionable because Wiki says “Wikipedia allows anonymous editing…”[3] Where, then, is credible scholarship? It cannot be “anonymous.”
I.a.2 I therefore propose that, rather than Trump being the cause of Pro’s Resolution of “negative effect,” I suggest the negative is due to the short-term U.S. financial market speculation, which has had ongoing issue with Donald Trump for other reasons than trade and alleged economic woes, and going back to the beginning of Trump’s first term, when Washington Post, on 1/20/2017, released a special edition for the inauguration that “…the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,” and continues into his second term. At the time [first term inauguration], his only apparent “high crime” was walking with his wife in a parade.[4] The media, and many other detractors, have had Trump occupying their heads, rent-free, ever since.
1.a.2.a “Long-threatened tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump have plunged the country into trade wars abroad — all while on-again, off-again new levies continue to escalate uncertainty.”[5]
I.a.3 I am not implying that there are no tariffs currently applied to trading partners, but Pro’s argument is limited to tariffs Trump has personally imposed, and only “in his second term,” and that it is these tariffs, specifically, and only, which are claimed by Pro to have “a negative effect on our economy, so far.” So, what tariffs, since they have been delayed?
II Rebuttal: “Tariffs don’t bring manufacturing back home…”
II.a Quoted from Pro’s R1, The statement sounds legit; “everyone” says so. Well, StreetInsider disagrees.[6] They point to ten countries and companies committing to invest a collective $3T into American manufacturing as of March 2025. “Everyone” has not been listening.
III.a I have been buying gold in 1 oz bar increments for the past 50 years, beginning in the late 70s when gold bars were marketed at $400/oz [rounded]. My latest purchase was 5 years ago, by which time, I was in possession of over 100 lbs, last purchased at $2,800/oz. As of today [04/20] gold spot price is $3,400 [rounded as above].[7] My personal increase from 50 years ago is >700%; not a “negative effect.” I have the same experience with silver 10 oz bars at a lower percentage increase, but still an increase, not a negation, and I do not claim Trump is the only cause of that increase, but is a participant.
III.b Therefore, by personal experience, using the metrics of the gold and silver bar commodities, I refute Pro’s Resolution and call it failed. Same experience with a few selected stocks on the NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges [Apple & Amazon, for example].[8, 9], which I own. Since when is verifiable personal experience not a legitimate debate argument?
IV Argument: “Use any economic indicator you want”[10]
IV.a So, I have, as noted above in Arguments II & III.
IV.b However, then Pro offers this conundrum in the Description: “I won’t provide a metric for ‘negative economic effect’ because I leave that up to the debater. You can choose your own metric, but you will need to defend why it is a better metric than the ones I will use.”[11]. What are we to conclude? Will Pro argue an economic metric, or not? I do not see how the debate is won without it. Nope, Pro offered one metric: tariffs. And all Pro sources are reacting to what was announced from the White House on April 2, 2025, with no reaction cited for reversals made days later. Oh, there was one other metric noted: the NYSE. Well, we can look at the results just since 4/2, all of 19 days’ effect. But, better, look at NYSE as we should, not on recent dailies, as Pro insists, but over the long haul of investing the last 15 years; since 2010. That’s how we should look at stock market commodities, and precious metals, etc. We are not in a ‘negative economic effect,’ period. Over the long haul, even longer than Trump’s first term, let alone the short second, we are doing very well; short-term naysayers notwithstanding. They are myopic, if not altogether blind.
IV.c Pro’s Resolution presents a curious attempted syllogism: the deductive conclusion being, “…[has] a negative effect on our economy so far.” And its alleged supporting premise is singular: “The tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term…” However, just because the syllogistic sense is used does not imply that the conclusion reached is supported by a valid premises. For example:
IV.c.1 [P1] Birds fly. [P2] Camels walk. [C] Therefore, butterflies swim.
This looks and acts like a legitimate syllogism, but is it? No, because the premises given, though true, do not support the conclusion in any way, even though it is true we have a [human] swimming stroke called the “butterfly.” But that is human, not butterfly. The same illogic applies to Pro’s attempted syllogistic Resolution, as demonstrated by the arguments, above.
V Conclusion
V.a I conclude that Pro’s Resolution is false. Thank you for your attention.
To Pro for R2.
Sources:
[7] https://www.jmbullion.com/
[8] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/stock-price-history#google_vignette
[9] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/stock-price-history
[10] Taken from Pro’s debate challenge description
[11] ibid
You claim from post #4 "Debate is designed to make 'the year of our Lord' win this for Con."
You have implied a "hidden agenda" by your claim of "designed." i.e. "to win the debate" No, I claim the Resolution, as worded, will not win the debate as a burden of proof for Pro. That's not a "design;" that's in- your-face obvious, isn't it?
All threes of you have demonstrated the point of my resolution, when attempting to poke holes in it, yet substantiated it, regardless, making the debate totally unnecessary. Thank you. You might find the following website interesting: https://allthingsliberty.com. It is the origin of the "Journal of the American Revolution," which shares your "godless Constitution." The real problem with your shared position is that the Constitution does not warn against an illegitimate incursion of God into U.S. politics, but, rather, prohibits the illegitimate incursion of politics into religion. There is your "wall," gentlemen. Consider that at the time, Tommy Jefferson, for example, during the calculated composition of the Constitution, was separated from both church and state, being located in France as our first minister there [that was his curious title, then, when we now call them ambassadors, so, how separated is that?] and not in the Constitutional Convention. He never signed the Document.
Sir.Lance: What bait and switch? My every word in the negation of the Resolution stands with merit. I made no remark, nor any conditional illusion in the Resolution that is true. The Constitution does "make mention" of the Lord, when no less of a puffed-pastry institution than the website noted above spends a good deal of cyberspace proudly claiming the Constitution is unconditionally Godless.
Clause: " Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this." You want my entire argument presented in the Description? Pray tell, what are following arguments for? So you can prematurely efactulate all over them?Just clean up, please.
Savant; Did I offer conditions for the debate in my Resolution, or description? No. Take them at face value. You seem to think I have a hidden agenda. when the agenda is there to see at face value, religious, or not. It truly does not matter.
notice to all:
Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate. This notice will be repeated in my R1 argument should it fail to post in Debate argument field as iy should.
I am accepting this debate on conditional proviso that I will be able to enter arguments in the Argument field of each Con round. A previous debate I enter a couple of months ago failed to allow my posting of arguments in the ARgument field, and my opponent accepted my round posts tyt be in the Comments section. I won't kn ow if I am now able to post in the argument field, or not. Are you willing to allow my round arguments to be posted in Comments if need be? Moderators are, so far, stumped for the reason why I am prohibited from making entry. I just purchased a new iMac, but its os may be beyond the DebateArt site to recognize it, although I am operational here in comments and in Forum, so I don 't think it's an os problem
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.
must break my own rule of commentary during debate due to this absurdity in your post #25 in these comments.
"detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".
You allege to quote me. If you are going to quote me, then. quote me, do not use your own interpretation as a quote from me. I never wrote those words. If
I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction. I will not be quoted incorrectly. That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always. Stay in your own head.
Assuming playing cards correctly:
Aye, there's the rub. looking forward to your R1, and the rest. Good hunting.
I have, on occasion, on. this site, taken a position in debate with which I personally disagree, all for the effort of research for personal enlightenment, but also to challenge wider consideration of personal opinion, so, to detractors of my methods, take note. I will, other than by specific posting of debate rounds, avoid commentary within this comments field for the duration of this debate, and I often make that choice to not engage commentary during debate. So, see you in the rounds, only. unless absolutely necessary, which is often not.
Barney, relative to your comment on a link to my R1, note that though instigator, I am Con, not Pro.
Round 1
I Argument: Due process: an invention of God or man?
I.a The Fifth Amendment gives us the Constitution’s first mention of “due process of law:” saying to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”[4]
1.b The XIVth Amendment does, as well: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[5]
I.c The Magna Carta, from 1215, without using the specific words, gives us the same sense: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in anyway, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”[6]
1.d The concept is older, still, from “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” but known anciently by another name: “Spells of Coming Forth by Day” from about 1400 B.C.E, “I have driven away for thee wickedness. I have not done iniquity to mankind. Not have I done harm to animals. Not have I done wickedness in the place of Maàt. Not have I known evil. Not have I done what is abominable to God…”[7] These spells had the purpose of preparing the dead, not the living, to encounter God in supplication for their eternal soul by a commitment of right-doing during mortal life; a “due process” process, that is obviously a God-centered process, not merely secular.
1.e But we were introduced to the idea of due process earlier still, from Genesis, from Eden, at creation: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat…”[8] but there were consequences. Due process is a process of obedience and consequence for legal obedience or disobedience. There is the source of due process: God.
II Argument: Words mean things
II.a Contrary to conventional wisdom, Con contends that the Lord God is mentioned within the text of the U.S. Constitution. The argument is simple, and cited from the Constitution, itself, even if the citation is couched within the typical context of official documents of the 18th century to acknowledge God even in the mundane necessity of dating the document:
II.b “…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,”[9]
II.c It is granted that this commentary is not a legislated philosophy or legality of the United States by the present Constitution, but, the matter of the Resolution does not require the language therein to have a specified purpose above and beyond being the “…supreme law of the land…”[10] but merely mention for the same of convention, as the Description describes.
III Conclusion: A warning
III.1 It is further contended that as the U.S. Constitution is “…the supreme law of the land…” it stands as a beacon, like a lighthouse, which warns of malfeasance, but does not register the the ships that sail safely through the warned waters of treacherous result for lack of careful sailing. The results of careful “sailing,” by abiding by the caring words of due process, are marked in the words of the Constitution’s Preamble: “…in order to form a more perfect union.”[11] Is there anything that is not god-like that is associated with perfection? Therefore, to what purpose is the Constitution if not that, according to our author of these words, James Madison. No, God may not be otherwise mentioned constitutionally but in Article VII, but Madison intended by the Preamble that God be part and parcel of the Constitution.
III.2 Note the argument of I.a, above. It is not so much that the the Ist Amendment warns that Religion must not impose itself on Government, and thereby the infamous, “separation wall,” as alleged to Tommy Jefferson, but he happened to have been away from both church and state at the time, in France, and so never signed the U.S. Constitution, or its Ist Amendment. No, but the matter was that Government not impose itself on Religion, and thereby avoid its own violations of due process of law.
III.3 It is, therefore, proposed that the Resolution is defeated by these arguments. It is a matter of simple adherence to law; namely, due process of law; both man’s, and God’s.
Thank you for your attention. To pro for R1.
Sources:
[4] U.S. Constitution, Vth Amendment
[5] U.S. Constitution, XIVth Amendment, Section 1
[6] Magna Carta, Clause 39
[7] E.A. Wallis Budge, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” Plate XXIX-Appendix, pg 194
[8] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 16
[9] U.S. Constitution, Article VII
[10] U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2
[11] U.S. Constitution, Preamble
Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. To accept this debate, Pro, as well as voters and commenters must agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended, however, in another debate proposed bye another member was engaged by me a few days ago and I attempted to enter my 1st round argument last night and could not, so I suppose this debate will not be accepted in the argument field, either, though I will make the attempt. We will all see the result together. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
By accepting this debate, Sir Lancelot, per the Description, has accepted to have my arguments posted in these comments fields. Further, readers amid voters are asked to ignore the otherwise automatic forfeit notices of each round since they will be evident in each round of the site refuses my entry of arguments as should be allowed, but may not be. I will be making the attempt today or tonight.
Your #11: "The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. "
And who insists that God is only to be discussed in those terms; "theological" or "doctrinal?" I do not think of him elusively in those terms. I call him "Dad," on occasion in addressing him, and have those kinds of conversations. It is a personal reelationshbp. Shouldn't it be?
Re: Your #12:
You hee not yet consulted https://allthingsliberty.com. suggested on my #5, have you? Do so, you may have a better understanding of my perspective in launching this debater. Also, consider that I am currently wresting a sequel to mat previous volume re: the Constitution, proposing that the Document may be considered holy writ. Being perfectly serious.
My total R1 rebuttal/argument is in the previous posts, # 20 and #19
Resolution: The Tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term have had a negative effect on our economy so far
Round 1
Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
I. Rebuttal: What tarrifs?
I.a On 4/2/2025, President Trump announced intent to issue tariffs, to begin on 4/5/2025, on trading partners with whom the U.S. has trade deficits [higher exports to U.S. from them than U.S. imports to them]. As of now, our top trading partners in export/import [from US perspective] are in trade deficit with the U.S. with the exception of Great Britain on the list.[1]
I.a.1 However, Pro’s R1 claim is with citation of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_administration. Those plans were actually announced by Trump to be delayed as of 4/4, and, as of today [4/20/2025] the plans remain delayed in favor of Trump conducting one-on-one negotiations to improve the trade imbalance making tariffs unnecessary.[2] Pro’s citation sources make no mention of these delays.
I.a.1.a Aside: Using Wikipedia as a source is curious since Wiki’s own published opinion of its own reliability is questionable because Wiki says “Wikipedia allows anonymous editing…”[3] Where, then, is credible scholarship? It cannot be “anonymous.”
I.a.2 I therefore propose that, rather than Trump being the cause of Pro’s Resolution of “negative effect,” I suggest the negative is due to the short-term U.S. financial market speculation, which has had ongoing issue with Donald Trump for other reasons than trade and alleged economic woes, and going back to the beginning of Trump’s first term, when Washington Post, on 1/20/2017, released a special edition for the inauguration that “…the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,” and continues into his second term. At the time [first term inauguration], his only apparent “high crime” was walking with his wife in a parade.[4] The media, and many other detractors, have had Trump occupying their heads, rent-free, ever since.
1.a.2.a “Long-threatened tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump have plunged the country into trade wars abroad — all while on-again, off-again new levies continue to escalate uncertainty.”[5]
I.a.3 I am not implying that there are no tariffs currently applied to trading partners, but Pro’s argument is limited to tariffs Trump has personally imposed, and only “in his second term,” and that it is these tariffs, specifically, and only, which are claimed by Pro to have “a negative effect on our economy, so far.” So, what tariffs, since they have been delayed?
II Rebuttal: “Tariffs don’t bring manufacturing back home…”
II.a Quoted from Pro’s R1, The statement sounds legit; “everyone” says so. Well, StreetInsider disagrees.[6] They point to ten countries and companies committing to invest a collective $3T into American manufacturing as of March 2025. “Everyone” has not been listening.
Sources
[1] https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2021/trade_by_industry_sectors
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-tariffs-live-markets-selloff-us-reciprocal-tariffs-kick-2025-04-09/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
[5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/a-timeline-of-trumps-tariff-actions-so-far
[6] https://www.streetinsider.com/Investing/Investment+commitments+in+U.S.+nears+$3+trillion+since+Trump+took+office/24538801.html
III Argument: Personal Experience
III.a I have been buying gold in 1 oz bar increments for the past 50 years, beginning in the late 70s when gold bars were marketed at $400/oz [rounded]. My latest purchase was 5 years ago, by which time, I was in possession of over 100 lbs, last purchased at $2,800/oz. As of today [04/20] gold spot price is $3,400 [rounded as above].[7] My personal increase from 50 years ago is >700%; not a “negative effect.” I have the same experience with silver 10 oz bars at a lower percentage increase, but still an increase, not a negation, and I do not claim Trump is the only cause of that increase, but is a participant.
III.b Therefore, by personal experience, using the metrics of the gold and silver bar commodities, I refute Pro’s Resolution and call it failed. Same experience with a few selected stocks on the NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges [Apple & Amazon, for example].[8, 9], which I own. Since when is verifiable personal experience not a legitimate debate argument?
IV Argument: “Use any economic indicator you want”[10]
IV.a So, I have, as noted above in Arguments II & III.
IV.b However, then Pro offers this conundrum in the Description: “I won’t provide a metric for ‘negative economic effect’ because I leave that up to the debater. You can choose your own metric, but you will need to defend why it is a better metric than the ones I will use.”[11]. What are we to conclude? Will Pro argue an economic metric, or not? I do not see how the debate is won without it. Nope, Pro offered one metric: tariffs. And all Pro sources are reacting to what was announced from the White House on April 2, 2025, with no reaction cited for reversals made days later. Oh, there was one other metric noted: the NYSE. Well, we can look at the results just since 4/2, all of 19 days’ effect. But, better, look at NYSE as we should, not on recent dailies, as Pro insists, but over the long haul of investing the last 15 years; since 2010. That’s how we should look at stock market commodities, and precious metals, etc. We are not in a ‘negative economic effect,’ period. Over the long haul, even longer than Trump’s first term, let alone the short second, we are doing very well; short-term naysayers notwithstanding. They are myopic, if not altogether blind.
IV.c Pro’s Resolution presents a curious attempted syllogism: the deductive conclusion being, “…[has] a negative effect on our economy so far.” And its alleged supporting premise is singular: “The tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term…” However, just because the syllogistic sense is used does not imply that the conclusion reached is supported by a valid premises. For example:
IV.c.1 [P1] Birds fly. [P2] Camels walk. [C] Therefore, butterflies swim.
This looks and acts like a legitimate syllogism, but is it? No, because the premises given, though true, do not support the conclusion in any way, even though it is true we have a [human] swimming stroke called the “butterfly.” But that is human, not butterfly. The same illogic applies to Pro’s attempted syllogistic Resolution, as demonstrated by the arguments, above.
V Conclusion
V.a I conclude that Pro’s Resolution is false. Thank you for your attention.
To Pro for R2.
Sources:
[7] https://www.jmbullion.com/
[8] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/stock-price-history#google_vignette
[9] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/stock-price-history
[10] Taken from Pro’s debate challenge description
[11] ibid
You claim from post #4 "Debate is designed to make 'the year of our Lord' win this for Con."
You have implied a "hidden agenda" by your claim of "designed." i.e. "to win the debate" No, I claim the Resolution, as worded, will not win the debate as a burden of proof for Pro. That's not a "design;" that's in- your-face obvious, isn't it?
All threes of you have demonstrated the point of my resolution, when attempting to poke holes in it, yet substantiated it, regardless, making the debate totally unnecessary. Thank you. You might find the following website interesting: https://allthingsliberty.com. It is the origin of the "Journal of the American Revolution," which shares your "godless Constitution." The real problem with your shared position is that the Constitution does not warn against an illegitimate incursion of God into U.S. politics, but, rather, prohibits the illegitimate incursion of politics into religion. There is your "wall," gentlemen. Consider that at the time, Tommy Jefferson, for example, during the calculated composition of the Constitution, was separated from both church and state, being located in France as our first minister there [that was his curious title, then, when we now call them ambassadors, so, how separated is that?] and not in the Constitutional Convention. He never signed the Document.
Sir.Lance: What bait and switch? My every word in the negation of the Resolution stands with merit. I made no remark, nor any conditional illusion in the Resolution that is true. The Constitution does "make mention" of the Lord, when no less of a puffed-pastry institution than the website noted above spends a good deal of cyberspace proudly claiming the Constitution is unconditionally Godless.
Clause: " Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this." You want my entire argument presented in the Description? Pray tell, what are following arguments for? So you can prematurely efactulate all over them?Just clean up, please.
Savant; Did I offer conditions for the debate in my Resolution, or description? No. Take them at face value. You seem to think I have a hidden agenda. when the agenda is there to see at face value, religious, or not. It truly does not matter.
Used to go backpacking with my brothers every summer in the High Sierras - long time ago. Those days are long behind me. Take your time.
notice to all:
Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate. This notice will be repeated in my R1 argument should it fail to post in Debate argument field as iy should.
Thanks. No prob with character limit. Shall we proceed?
I am accepting this debate on conditional proviso that I will be able to enter arguments in the Argument field of each Con round. A previous debate I enter a couple of months ago failed to allow my posting of arguments in the ARgument field, and my opponent accepted my round posts tyt be in the Comments section. I won't kn ow if I am now able to post in the argument field, or not. Are you willing to allow my round arguments to be posted in Comments if need be? Moderators are, so far, stumped for the reason why I am prohibited from making entry. I just purchased a new iMac, but its os may be beyond the DebateArt site to recognize it, although I am operational here in comments and in Forum, so I don 't think it's an os problem
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.