You're all qualified to vote. Why no votes with only one day remaining; why just commentary? Come on, does this truly deserve a tie? I'm not trolling for votes; vote by the standards, and may the best debate arguments win.
I've considered your round 4 argument that I enjoined a new argument regarding debt forgiveness as a strategy of financial penalty to China, and you argued in your fourth that such was a violation of debate ethic. However, I figured since you had a remaining rebuttal opportunity as having the final argument that it would not be a violation due to waiving of rounds. If I have erred in that calculation, I apologize.
Yes, I've said that that, but I weighed the options of debating Blamonkey, who had become a friend, and opposition to waiving rounds, and not waiving rounds lost. Blamonkey offered my choice of argument, pro or con, based on my choice of argument in a Forum post. But I've also said that I would argue by a devil's advocate if ned be, because I love debate so much, I'll take a position with which I disagree just for the opportunity to debate it at all. In this case, however, I really do believe a financial penalty is deserved.
I'm afraid, my friend, you missed the entire point of the debate. It is not about only eating quiche, or not eating it, yet that seems to be, other than getting in weeds with rights and gender, the thrust of your argument. Making quiche is the real man part, or real woman, for that matter. Making it is the point, and if you've never made it, you just don't know.
"God is in control" is too open-ended. That He is omnipotent, I don't argue. But, I will argue that just because He is omnipotent does not mean that He is compelled to use that power, all the time, every time, else he denies man free agency, as demonstrated by the command in Genesis 2 that Adam could eat of "every tree of the garden." That means from one, several, or every one, including the tree of kowledge. There was a condition set on that particular tree that was not a condition of any other, but Adam was still free to eat of it.
Perhaps if my opponent would fill something in on the profile, instead of accepting and reflecting "unknown," gender and other items would not be in question, yeah? I was merely generalizing and non-misogynous
Full forfeiture was the judgment against your opponent, however, you were on a genealogical course in your argument with regard to Trump's father, U.S. born, and his grandfather, German-born. We can't know what was in Trump's head, but, the fact remains that since his grandfather was German, therefore, Trump is, effectively 1/6 German [two sets of grandparents plus one set of parents - six contributors to his genome], so could rightly consider himself ore than 1/6 German, let alone saying his father was [German by ancestry of both parents, American only by legal immigration]. Another way of looking at it, a grandfather is, in essence, a genealogical father.
Holy sacred cows redeem us!!! [sorry, mean no disrespect to Hindus or cows - just an expletive I couldn't delete!] I'll read with interest, and, of course, a measure of skepticism. What, we're opponents, yeah? although I'll gladly carry your water.
How do you propose we collect anything from China ?
>>Since the WTO lacks the power to impose penalty for one of China's most flagrant violations, currency manipulation, I suggest WTO be ignored, other than removing China's MFN status. Every nation should acquire the brass ones to impose calculated tariffs, as Trump did.
Oh yes, Trump can impose more tariffs on Chinese goods.
>>Yes, he can, and other nations, as in #1.
Do you know what that has accomplished so far ?
>>Yeah, it brought China to the negotiation table to complete the Phase 1 trade deal.
I'll add as an aside that Con's argument smacked of a complaint against use of fossil fuels, arguing for electric cars. Perhaps Con ignores that there is one significant correlation between internal combustion and electric cars: they both use petroleum to lubricate moving parts and fabricate plastic parts. There is no green-energy AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum. Better get cracking to solve that.
Research is a waste of time? No wonder you complain. Yes, your claims of bankruptcy on everyone else come too close to home. Just working for money rather than the alternative? Put your money to work for you, which is why Donald Trump has never declared personal bankruptcy. However, as the former scion of a 500+ company empire, he has used corporate bankruptcy of a few companies to stop their lack of productivity. It's a tool to protect the other companies from the drain of non-productivity. You would know that with research.
Ah, welcome User! Let's have fun with this one. Yes, I agree, we debate the title, not the description. Good luck [although I really don't understand why you oppose. Never ate a good quiche, I guess. Well, there's still time, my friend. To the kitchen, then! or not...
eh bien, passionnés de quiche, ma recette pour quiche lorraine, le classique! That double 'rr' better be deep in the back of the throat, this isn't spanish.
can't give you my wife's pie crust recipe; it's a trade secret, but it's buttery, flakey decadence. Sorry, you're on your own.
the custard:
in a bowl, combine:
1.25 C cream Damn you, if you use milk, you are not my friend! Just put away your cholesterol counter, okay? This is not an everyday meal.
4 eggs- fresh-cracked
1/2 tsp salt
1/2 tsp black pepper
1/4 tsp FRESH GRATED nutmeg. if you shake it from a glass jar - I don't care who the label is - you are not my friend
1 Tbs flour - best fresh ground, not store bought, but who has a wheat grinder besides me, and several million of my LDS friends?
blend with a wire whisk. No, do not use your electric blender. [in the kitchen, I'm a purist when it comes to custards. Treat your eggs with respect.
Set aside, you'll be back to it in a minute.
1 C fresh grated cheese. I do a blend, 3/4 C gruyère, 1/4 emmentaler [swiss, but if you find emmentaler, buy it. You're likely not to find g pre-grated. if you do, I wouldn't buy it, anyway.
six slices bacon, pre-cooked until just crisp, then broken into small [1/2" to 3/4"] This can be prepared in advance in stored in a tight container [zip-loc will do] in the fridge.
six crimini [button] mushrooms, sliced 1/4"
Set oven to bake at 350˚ F
If you're making a fresh crust, pre-bake while the oven warms up, about 5 min., then remove. Do the same if you're using a frozen pie crust. Use the deep-dish variety.
Layer the cheese, bacon, and mushroom, a little of each in each layer util you've filled the crust. Do not tamp down, you wanty the custard blen to fill in and around.
RE-whisk the custard mix, and pour it slowly, moving your bowl around over the cheese bend to near the top [don't over flow - you have to pick up the bloody thing to put it in the oven.
Melt 1 Tbs of butter [yes, BUTTER] and pour it slowly around over the surface. If you like, add a few grates of more nutmeg
Bake for 25 minutes - use a timer. Apple HomePod is good, but if you prefer Google, or Aria, or whatever her name is, go ahead. Who's gonna know?
Depending on your oven [I know mine, but all bets are off on yours] open the door and check you quiche with a toothpick. You're likely to need a little more time, may five minutes or so - every oven id different. You're looking for a semi-firm golden brown custard. If it still is soupy, bake more, but WATCH IT. You don't want scrambled eggs. Take it out, let it set for 5 min om the counter, and EAT. slice like an apple pie.
instead of the bacon, you can try caramelized onion, flaked salmon, crab, shrimp, lobster, or whatever floats your boat. Do a veggie with asparagus, broccoli, whatever.
Store-bought frozen???? Yeechhh! If that was your only taste of quiche, you were royally ripped off. It is highly possible that what you had was a frittata masquerading as a quiche. I've had some bad frittata, and some bad quiche [neither out of my kitchen. Get thee to a patisserie
This is a whimsical debate, but, once launched, I will apply the full measure of my argument. Seriously. To me, quiche deserves the effort. Hint: my secret: fresh nutmeg.
Shouldn't one start with finding out:
1. How many bankruptcies is "endless?"
2. Did Trump ever declare personal bankruptcy?
3. Let's calculate the number of bankruptcies to the number of businesses under the Trump umbrella.
From #3, I would inquire if the instigator is as successful.
You, my friend, are fond of saying I have not yet argued this or that, apparently forgetting I have a round remaining. I hesitated to advise you of this when you first started complaining about a schedule that has and remains mine to manage, regardless of your constant barrage of complaint. That you initiated this debate does not give you licenser to manage my schedule of argument. I say: patience, my friend. All will be revealed in my conclusion. Thanks for playing.
4 Shakespeare, William, Hamlet, I, iii
5 Scott, Ridley, Kingdom of Heaven, 20th Century Fox, 2005.
6 Rafferty, Gerry; Egan, Joe, Stuck in the Middle with You, Stealers Wheel, Apple, 1972
7 https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/biologist/job-market/
Well, you hold onto your 24-hour day. It appears precious. But, you must remember it continues to expand in length, even as we speak...
I am not a Christian? News to me. But, thanks for your excommunication. Sorry, not recognized.
Hint: "ibid" is defined as: "in the same source (used to save space in textual references to a quoted work which has been mentioned in a previous reference)."
You don't click on an "ibid" reference; you click on the reference immediately above - in this case, ref #1. And if there are multiple "ibid" references in a string of references, each "ibid" reference refers to the one immediately above the first ibid reference in the string. If you would stop stopping at wiki, you would learn this typical referencing shorthand.
You said, "I purely made a claim this is what Science says." What, the science of NYC schools? The science of wiki?
Come on, dig deeper. You're supposed to win this debate, not me. I even agree with you, but not your science, so far.
Only problem is 2 problems:
1. define "fertilization. It's more than boy meets girl.
2. stop stopping at wiki, goddamit.
3. [there's always more than 2, in spite of what's said] most is not some. be specific.
While I was composing my initial comment, and only after accepting the debate, you have altered your challenge. Is it "personhood" or is it "when life begins?" I submit there is scientific debate even on that. Since the debate title says "personhood," which, again, you have not defined, I will reject any argument from you declaring "when life begins." Make up your mind and hold onto it for a little longer than a few hours.
I accept taking the Con argument, but, yet again [I've done this before] I do so only from a position of it being a challenge because I actually favor the pro argument. However, without given definitions by Pro before the debate begins [in my judgment, definitions, without prior recording, will cause the debate to turn on these factors. If Pro is to take the first round first, these definitions ought to be recorded in the description so that a contender knows what the deal is before the debate begins. Common courtesy, folks.
How do you define "a day?" It's relative scholastically, but, does it really matter in the end since I'll wager you believe God is omnipotent? Or, are there limitations, exceptions? Or, consider that, although omnipotent, God is not compelled to act on the power He has. So, maybe His "day" is not only a 24-hour period, but may be eons in the course of the sun across our sky. In fact, we already know that just 600M years ago, earth's "day" by our modern perspective, was just 21 hours long. Our day is increasing in time even as we speak, increasing by 0.007 seconds every century.
1. You actually trust China's numbers? That's like holding out your hand to an angry dog.
2. The China vs. US and other Euro nations have such a vast difference in population [China 1.4B, and US/Euro, combined, 0.523B] that total death rates just as a hard number does not reflect the total impact of covid-19. You will note that the rating used is deaths per 1,000, or deaths per 100,000, etc. That way, the statistics are normalized taking in account that huge difference in relative populations. By that statistical normalization, China's deths per x exceed USA + Europe, combined. If you don't understand statistics, you're lost. I am a certified six sigma black belt. I am not lost.
I absolutely agree with Blamonkey. This will be a fun debate. So, let's cross swords, sheath them, and come out with words. Something about the pen is mightier than... or some such nonsense. Bonne chance, mon vieux.
Your post #25 alleged that "Some debates can be started by simply asking a question while not favoring either side of the argument. It can mean that the (Pro) side is confused of a situation & wants to find an answer."
Debate is a process of argument that establishes, first, the nature of the debate [X is the function of Y, for example] and two sides then argue in support of, or against the proposition. Pro/Con is derived from Latin, "Pro et Contra," meaning, literally, "For and Against. In other words, both sides are certain of their arguments. Debate is not the vehicle to move from doubt on a subject to full confidence of understanding. That's another process. It's called learning.
IV.b Faith expanded by God’s continued revelation
However, contrary to Pro’s claim, citing a modified syllogism from Theodore Drange “If the God of Christianity were to exist, then the Bible would be God’s only written revelation.” According to whom? Teddy Drange? Who’s he? Well, I know who he is, and he has a doctorate in philosophy and religion. I know of another fellow. Richard Bach. He’s an author. No, he doesn’t have credentials like Drange, but his credentials are biting: “The greatest sin is to limit God. Don’t.” I agree. Who will tell God He cannot reveal anything more than the Bible? Doesn’t the Bible conclude with the verse: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:”
In truth, how can there be more scripture revealed after that? Well, because as John was writing those words on the Isle of Patmos, the “Holy Bible” did not yet exist; that was not the book to which he referred. It was his book, Revelation, his scroll upon which he was writing. John, having witnessed much, knew better than to limit God.
IV.b.1 Working faith: a new revelation
So I will offer, for example, the Book of Mormon, which describes exactly the formula we seek in putting action into hope and faith to deliver a knowledge of God: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
“And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”
As there is no substance to the claim that God does not reveal anything anymore, and that only the Bible can be the sole revelation to Christendom, on the say-so of a man, a man, by the way, who claims there is no God [so, what else is he going to claim?], I, also being a man, declare that God can speak to any damn fool He pleases, thank you very much.
I will particularly raise this claim against many Christians who also believe God stopped talking to man when he revealed to John the words God knew would conclude His Bible some hundred years later, and has clammed up since.
Why? Because we claim He no longer reveals to man? Tell me when we were granted omnipotent power to cause that. Omniscient power. Blasphemy, then? I didn’t limit God. Y’all did that. I’m claiming He still reveals to man, and always will.
So, study the words of Moroni above. He gives a formula as dependable as 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 = ∞. The following formula may be used in conjunction with the latter simple sum by saying:
This < ∞
𝚺 1
N = 1 N. [sorry, this formula messes up in the comments - can't make it right]
Which effectively says: sum the reciprocols of natural numbers given in the first formula until the total is above infinity. In other words, repeat the first formula exactly until cows come home and you have acquired all the truth you need and want.
If the truth you seek happens to be: “Does God exist,” ask, as noted by Moroni’s formula, “Does God exist?” If all elements of the formula are engaged under the conditions noted, then refer to the end of the fourth, and the fifth verse. No further citation needed; try the formula as given. Citation will occur, direct from God by personal revelation, just as He revealed to Peter the divinity of Christ. I am serious. But, as the prophet, Yoda said: “Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.”
*all references to “OED” are linked to a paid members-only site that cannot be accessed by non-members. Unless you are a member, you must take my word of honor on these definitions. I swear upon my faithful quoting of same.
1 Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 1
2 Holy Bible, Acts 2: 3
3 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/193042?redirectedFrom=substance#eid *
4 Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 2
5 Holy Bible, Matthew 16: 15 - 17
6 Holy Bible, John 4: 24
7 Bach, Richard, Illusions, the adventures of a reluctant messiah, Dell, 1977
8 Holy Bible, Revelation 22: 17
9 Book of Mormon, Moroni 10: 4, 5
thanks for voting
You're all qualified to vote. Why no votes with only one day remaining; why just commentary? Come on, does this truly deserve a tie? I'm not trolling for votes; vote by the standards, and may the best debate arguments win.
That was the root of my argument, which also means that God, by choice, is not the total cause of anything
Thanks for voting with a detailed analysis.
It's all good. and you're welcome. Glad to help a student any time since I never plan to lose that moniker myself.
I've considered your round 4 argument that I enjoined a new argument regarding debt forgiveness as a strategy of financial penalty to China, and you argued in your fourth that such was a violation of debate ethic. However, I figured since you had a remaining rebuttal opportunity as having the final argument that it would not be a violation due to waiving of rounds. If I have erred in that calculation, I apologize.
Yes, I've said that that, but I weighed the options of debating Blamonkey, who had become a friend, and opposition to waiving rounds, and not waiving rounds lost. Blamonkey offered my choice of argument, pro or con, based on my choice of argument in a Forum post. But I've also said that I would argue by a devil's advocate if ned be, because I love debate so much, I'll take a position with which I disagree just for the opportunity to debate it at all. In this case, however, I really do believe a financial penalty is deserved.
Thanks for voting
Thank you for voting
I'm afraid, my friend, you missed the entire point of the debate. It is not about only eating quiche, or not eating it, yet that seems to be, other than getting in weeds with rights and gender, the thrust of your argument. Making quiche is the real man part, or real woman, for that matter. Making it is the point, and if you've never made it, you just don't know.
"God is in control" is too open-ended. That He is omnipotent, I don't argue. But, I will argue that just because He is omnipotent does not mean that He is compelled to use that power, all the time, every time, else he denies man free agency, as demonstrated by the command in Genesis 2 that Adam could eat of "every tree of the garden." That means from one, several, or every one, including the tree of kowledge. There was a condition set on that particular tree that was not a condition of any other, but Adam was still free to eat of it.
Thanks for voting
<<If you actually believe I give a rats arse winning a debate against fools like you, then I have a bridge to sell you!>>
Accusation of foolishness is exploring in the mirror. Have no use of a bridge, thanks. See to someone who cares.
If you spent half the energy in your overload of debates as you do in comments, you might win a couple of them.
Great arguments
Perhaps if my opponent would fill something in on the profile, instead of accepting and reflecting "unknown," gender and other items would not be in question, yeah? I was merely generalizing and non-misogynous
Cool. I'm also working on thoughts for my round 3, my last.
I wonder if my opponent has abandoned the debate; profile indicates has not been on the site in a month...
Full forfeiture was the judgment against your opponent, however, you were on a genealogical course in your argument with regard to Trump's father, U.S. born, and his grandfather, German-born. We can't know what was in Trump's head, but, the fact remains that since his grandfather was German, therefore, Trump is, effectively 1/6 German [two sets of grandparents plus one set of parents - six contributors to his genome], so could rightly consider himself ore than 1/6 German, let alone saying his father was [German by ancestry of both parents, American only by legal immigration]. Another way of looking at it, a grandfather is, in essence, a genealogical father.
I've made vindaloo. It's fabulous! good all.
>. accomplishing absolutely nothing!
Depends on who you are, bud. Worked for me. For who else am I responsible? You?
Been there. No prob, it's all good. just don't think I'll have a response for a couple of days. glad you left some daaaaaaaays for response.
Holy sacred cows redeem us!!! [sorry, mean no disrespect to Hindus or cows - just an expletive I couldn't delete!] I'll read with interest, and, of course, a measure of skepticism. What, we're opponents, yeah? although I'll gladly carry your water.
How do you propose we collect anything from China ?
>>Since the WTO lacks the power to impose penalty for one of China's most flagrant violations, currency manipulation, I suggest WTO be ignored, other than removing China's MFN status. Every nation should acquire the brass ones to impose calculated tariffs, as Trump did.
Oh yes, Trump can impose more tariffs on Chinese goods.
>>Yes, he can, and other nations, as in #1.
Do you know what that has accomplished so far ?
>>Yeah, it brought China to the negotiation table to complete the Phase 1 trade deal.
I'll add as an aside that Con's argument smacked of a complaint against use of fossil fuels, arguing for electric cars. Perhaps Con ignores that there is one significant correlation between internal combustion and electric cars: they both use petroleum to lubricate moving parts and fabricate plastic parts. There is no green-energy AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum. Better get cracking to solve that.
Research is a waste of time? No wonder you complain. Yes, your claims of bankruptcy on everyone else come too close to home. Just working for money rather than the alternative? Put your money to work for you, which is why Donald Trump has never declared personal bankruptcy. However, as the former scion of a 500+ company empire, he has used corporate bankruptcy of a few companies to stop their lack of productivity. It's a tool to protect the other companies from the drain of non-productivity. You would know that with research.
I will use comments as I please, thanks. Comments are not part of the debate. Yes, I use PMs frequently. You'll notice I did not direct #5 to anybody
Ah, welcome User! Let's have fun with this one. Yes, I agree, we debate the title, not the description. Good luck [although I really don't understand why you oppose. Never ate a good quiche, I guess. Well, there's still time, my friend. To the kitchen, then! or not...
eh bien, passionnés de quiche, ma recette pour quiche lorraine, le classique! That double 'rr' better be deep in the back of the throat, this isn't spanish.
can't give you my wife's pie crust recipe; it's a trade secret, but it's buttery, flakey decadence. Sorry, you're on your own.
the custard:
in a bowl, combine:
1.25 C cream Damn you, if you use milk, you are not my friend! Just put away your cholesterol counter, okay? This is not an everyday meal.
4 eggs- fresh-cracked
1/2 tsp salt
1/2 tsp black pepper
1/4 tsp FRESH GRATED nutmeg. if you shake it from a glass jar - I don't care who the label is - you are not my friend
1 Tbs flour - best fresh ground, not store bought, but who has a wheat grinder besides me, and several million of my LDS friends?
blend with a wire whisk. No, do not use your electric blender. [in the kitchen, I'm a purist when it comes to custards. Treat your eggs with respect.
Set aside, you'll be back to it in a minute.
1 C fresh grated cheese. I do a blend, 3/4 C gruyère, 1/4 emmentaler [swiss, but if you find emmentaler, buy it. You're likely not to find g pre-grated. if you do, I wouldn't buy it, anyway.
six slices bacon, pre-cooked until just crisp, then broken into small [1/2" to 3/4"] This can be prepared in advance in stored in a tight container [zip-loc will do] in the fridge.
six crimini [button] mushrooms, sliced 1/4"
Set oven to bake at 350˚ F
If you're making a fresh crust, pre-bake while the oven warms up, about 5 min., then remove. Do the same if you're using a frozen pie crust. Use the deep-dish variety.
Layer the cheese, bacon, and mushroom, a little of each in each layer util you've filled the crust. Do not tamp down, you wanty the custard blen to fill in and around.
RE-whisk the custard mix, and pour it slowly, moving your bowl around over the cheese bend to near the top [don't over flow - you have to pick up the bloody thing to put it in the oven.
Melt 1 Tbs of butter [yes, BUTTER] and pour it slowly around over the surface. If you like, add a few grates of more nutmeg
Bake for 25 minutes - use a timer. Apple HomePod is good, but if you prefer Google, or Aria, or whatever her name is, go ahead. Who's gonna know?
Depending on your oven [I know mine, but all bets are off on yours] open the door and check you quiche with a toothpick. You're likely to need a little more time, may five minutes or so - every oven id different. You're looking for a semi-firm golden brown custard. If it still is soupy, bake more, but WATCH IT. You don't want scrambled eggs. Take it out, let it set for 5 min om the counter, and EAT. slice like an apple pie.
instead of the bacon, you can try caramelized onion, flaked salmon, crab, shrimp, lobster, or whatever floats your boat. Do a veggie with asparagus, broccoli, whatever.
Store-bought frozen???? Yeechhh! If that was your only taste of quiche, you were royally ripped off. It is highly possible that what you had was a frittata masquerading as a quiche. I've had some bad frittata, and some bad quiche [neither out of my kitchen. Get thee to a patisserie
This is a whimsical debate, but, once launched, I will apply the full measure of my argument. Seriously. To me, quiche deserves the effort. Hint: my secret: fresh nutmeg.
Shouldn't one start with finding out:
1. How many bankruptcies is "endless?"
2. Did Trump ever declare personal bankruptcy?
3. Let's calculate the number of bankruptcies to the number of businesses under the Trump umbrella.
From #3, I would inquire if the instigator is as successful.
You, my friend, are fond of saying I have not yet argued this or that, apparently forgetting I have a round remaining. I hesitated to advise you of this when you first started complaining about a schedule that has and remains mine to manage, regardless of your constant barrage of complaint. That you initiated this debate does not give you licenser to manage my schedule of argument. I say: patience, my friend. All will be revealed in my conclusion. Thanks for playing.
Thank you for voting. Very concise assessment.
My round 3 references:
1 https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/
2 https://asq.org/cert/six-sigma-black-belt
3 https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/
4 Shakespeare, William, Hamlet, I, iii
5 Scott, Ridley, Kingdom of Heaven, 20th Century Fox, 2005.
6 Rafferty, Gerry; Egan, Joe, Stuck in the Middle with You, Stealers Wheel, Apple, 1972
7 https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/biologist/job-market/
Well, you hold onto your 24-hour day. It appears precious. But, you must remember it continues to expand in length, even as we speak...
I am not a Christian? News to me. But, thanks for your excommunication. Sorry, not recognized.
Hint: "ibid" is defined as: "in the same source (used to save space in textual references to a quoted work which has been mentioned in a previous reference)."
You don't click on an "ibid" reference; you click on the reference immediately above - in this case, ref #1. And if there are multiple "ibid" references in a string of references, each "ibid" reference refers to the one immediately above the first ibid reference in the string. If you would stop stopping at wiki, you would learn this typical referencing shorthand.
"Legally" is confused, Yes, your statement agrees with 1 USC §8, but disagrees with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 2004.
You said, "I purely made a claim this is what Science says." What, the science of NYC schools? The science of wiki?
Come on, dig deeper. You're supposed to win this debate, not me. I even agree with you, but not your science, so far.
Only problem is 2 problems:
1. define "fertilization. It's more than boy meets girl.
2. stop stopping at wiki, goddamit.
3. [there's always more than 2, in spite of what's said] most is not some. be specific.
Friendly suggestion: take more than 2 minutes.
To your question: yes
While I was composing my initial comment, and only after accepting the debate, you have altered your challenge. Is it "personhood" or is it "when life begins?" I submit there is scientific debate even on that. Since the debate title says "personhood," which, again, you have not defined, I will reject any argument from you declaring "when life begins." Make up your mind and hold onto it for a little longer than a few hours.
I accept taking the Con argument, but, yet again [I've done this before] I do so only from a position of it being a challenge because I actually favor the pro argument. However, without given definitions by Pro before the debate begins [in my judgment, definitions, without prior recording, will cause the debate to turn on these factors. If Pro is to take the first round first, these definitions ought to be recorded in the description so that a contender knows what the deal is before the debate begins. Common courtesy, folks.
How do you define "a day?" It's relative scholastically, but, does it really matter in the end since I'll wager you believe God is omnipotent? Or, are there limitations, exceptions? Or, consider that, although omnipotent, God is not compelled to act on the power He has. So, maybe His "day" is not only a 24-hour period, but may be eons in the course of the sun across our sky. In fact, we already know that just 600M years ago, earth's "day" by our modern perspective, was just 21 hours long. Our day is increasing in time even as we speak, increasing by 0.007 seconds every century.
thanks for voting
As religiously inclined as I am, I find little benefit to proving government by the Bible, or vice versa.
1. You actually trust China's numbers? That's like holding out your hand to an angry dog.
2. The China vs. US and other Euro nations have such a vast difference in population [China 1.4B, and US/Euro, combined, 0.523B] that total death rates just as a hard number does not reflect the total impact of covid-19. You will note that the rating used is deaths per 1,000, or deaths per 100,000, etc. That way, the statistics are normalized taking in account that huge difference in relative populations. By that statistical normalization, China's deths per x exceed USA + Europe, combined. If you don't understand statistics, you're lost. I am a certified six sigma black belt. I am not lost.
No problem. My 4th waived.
I absolutely agree with Blamonkey. This will be a fun debate. So, let's cross swords, sheath them, and come out with words. Something about the pen is mightier than... or some such nonsense. Bonne chance, mon vieux.
Your post #25 alleged that "Some debates can be started by simply asking a question while not favoring either side of the argument. It can mean that the (Pro) side is confused of a situation & wants to find an answer."
Debate is a process of argument that establishes, first, the nature of the debate [X is the function of Y, for example] and two sides then argue in support of, or against the proposition. Pro/Con is derived from Latin, "Pro et Contra," meaning, literally, "For and Against. In other words, both sides are certain of their arguments. Debate is not the vehicle to move from doubt on a subject to full confidence of understanding. That's another process. It's called learning.
Revision of round 1 with headings - #4
IV.b Faith expanded by God’s continued revelation
However, contrary to Pro’s claim, citing a modified syllogism from Theodore Drange “If the God of Christianity were to exist, then the Bible would be God’s only written revelation.” According to whom? Teddy Drange? Who’s he? Well, I know who he is, and he has a doctorate in philosophy and religion. I know of another fellow. Richard Bach. He’s an author. No, he doesn’t have credentials like Drange, but his credentials are biting: “The greatest sin is to limit God. Don’t.” I agree. Who will tell God He cannot reveal anything more than the Bible? Doesn’t the Bible conclude with the verse: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:”
In truth, how can there be more scripture revealed after that? Well, because as John was writing those words on the Isle of Patmos, the “Holy Bible” did not yet exist; that was not the book to which he referred. It was his book, Revelation, his scroll upon which he was writing. John, having witnessed much, knew better than to limit God.
IV.b.1 Working faith: a new revelation
So I will offer, for example, the Book of Mormon, which describes exactly the formula we seek in putting action into hope and faith to deliver a knowledge of God: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
“And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”
As there is no substance to the claim that God does not reveal anything anymore, and that only the Bible can be the sole revelation to Christendom, on the say-so of a man, a man, by the way, who claims there is no God [so, what else is he going to claim?], I, also being a man, declare that God can speak to any damn fool He pleases, thank you very much.
I will particularly raise this claim against many Christians who also believe God stopped talking to man when he revealed to John the words God knew would conclude His Bible some hundred years later, and has clammed up since.
Why? Because we claim He no longer reveals to man? Tell me when we were granted omnipotent power to cause that. Omniscient power. Blasphemy, then? I didn’t limit God. Y’all did that. I’m claiming He still reveals to man, and always will.
So, study the words of Moroni above. He gives a formula as dependable as 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 = ∞. The following formula may be used in conjunction with the latter simple sum by saying:
This < ∞
𝚺 1
N = 1 N. [sorry, this formula messes up in the comments - can't make it right]
Which effectively says: sum the reciprocols of natural numbers given in the first formula until the total is above infinity. In other words, repeat the first formula exactly until cows come home and you have acquired all the truth you need and want.
If the truth you seek happens to be: “Does God exist,” ask, as noted by Moroni’s formula, “Does God exist?” If all elements of the formula are engaged under the conditions noted, then refer to the end of the fourth, and the fifth verse. No further citation needed; try the formula as given. Citation will occur, direct from God by personal revelation, just as He revealed to Peter the divinity of Christ. I am serious. But, as the prophet, Yoda said: “Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.”
*all references to “OED” are linked to a paid members-only site that cannot be accessed by non-members. Unless you are a member, you must take my word of honor on these definitions. I swear upon my faithful quoting of same.
1 Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 1
2 Holy Bible, Acts 2: 3
3 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/193042?redirectedFrom=substance#eid *
4 Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 2
5 Holy Bible, Matthew 16: 15 - 17
6 Holy Bible, John 4: 24
7 Bach, Richard, Illusions, the adventures of a reluctant messiah, Dell, 1977
8 Holy Bible, Revelation 22: 17
9 Book of Mormon, Moroni 10: 4, 5