Rabbit hole all you wish, or don't. My vote, particularly the second, was entirely based on voting protocol from the policy:
"Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." I submit, and, in fact, the second in the list of voting policies deal with my voting result: in a critical features of your argument, [personhood, and consent] you had opinion followed by no sourcing. I awarded where argument included sourcing. You were not awarded points on each of the issues I referenced in voting. Such as not sourcing your opinion that consent means having a body "used," when the matter of a symbiotic relationship, woman and fetus, have no conscious decision of having anything taken or given.
A double miss. Re: human speciality, my argument did not point to cells or DNA. If you will read my argument [goes both ways, bud] I questioned your parenthetic clause, by asking for THAT source.
The nature of either "multiply and replenish the earth," or "There is grandeur in this view of life..." is that pregnancy, whether caused by consent, or not, establishes a symbiotic relationship but neither woman nor fetus can claim right over the other. In fact, the fetus is the ultimate innocent in the whole affair. As you cannot decide whether you accept personhood from conception [you claim both sides of that argument, against it in round 2, and for it in round 4], I say your arguments negate themselves, and Con's consistent argument prevails. You did no show argument supported by sourcing that demonstrates which condition, sex by force or consent, is the greater condition of pregnancy. As long as you are concerned about frequency of abortion before/after Roe and as relevant regarding abortion vs. restrictive laws, you must cite your sources that consent is a viable argument. Your sourcing is all about the numbers of abortion, but not for consent/no consent. You speak to the matter of consent in round 1 under "human rights," but have no sourcing. You address it again in round 45, but again, do not cite sources. As your argument is simply that the woman must always be granted legal right of preference, it is flawed on that basis.
You argue, "I am not unsympathetic to his argument, but the situation is much [too] nuanced to stop there." However, then you argue, "What makes humans special isn’t our cells or our DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception)," but you offer no source for that opinion; in particular, the parenthetic clause. Who says that? A credible source? Then cite it. But, you did not. Then you argue, "I have chosen, for the sake of the argument, to imagine the unborn as people," negating your entire argument against your opponent's relative to the person issue. If you also acknowledge that the unborn are people, what's the nuance? That another, the woman, also has nuance? If you admit that is so, I submit your argument is flawed. Thus, my decision. Do not assume I am driven by my personal preference.
As a counter argument by a pro-choice: "In summary, prohibition and restrictive laws do not appear to reduce the frequency of abortion overall, but they do decrease women’s health in a society by forcing women to reluctantly seek necessary medical treatment (at later stages when more complications can occur) without the oversight provided by government regulation." I do not regard that as a "better" argument. Frequency should not necessarily be a legal point any more than a singular murderer is any less illegal that a serial killer. It is matter of moral degree, perhaps, but not legal. Nor, should one consider a debate "lost" until the voting is finished. Let us not replace one indiscretion with another.
But, I will accept the judgment of another moderator.
In many cases, in order to understand a concept, I invite the elimination of mirrors. What I mean by that is that all of us are our worst enemy in understanding another's perspective, and we tend to consult our own paradigms for verification, like looking in a mirror. Lose the mirror, i.e., lose the paradigm. In this case, I would recommend losing the clock, because it seems to be an impediment. I don't even believe that, beyond our earth perspective, time exists at all. So, lose it if that is a hangup. I use this "tool" whenever challenged in my perception of eternity, because many people hang onto a concept of a Big Bang, then an infinity ahead, only, that's not infinity, at all. There is not beginning, but that's a paradigm many have difficulty accepting. I am not so troubled by the idea. Ergo, does it matter relative to the debate? Yes, I acknowledge that we have moved on in understanding of both Genesis creation and Darwin evolution, but it is my choice of debate parameters. And, yes, I understand that it appears that I am, contrary to losing mirrors, that I am imposing one. It is simply to restrain the debate in the confines of brackets of time. Why? Because there are arguments with the brackets such that either Pro or Con can win the debate. Accept, or don't.
No, it is not like debating who will win WWII because that event had a definitive outcome it is not a matter of debate. Although "On the Origin of Species" is 161 years since it's original publication, and Genesis is roughly 3,500 years in existence, the outcome of that debate obviously is still engaged. But, you're missing the entire premise of my proposition. It is not a debate of whether Genesis or Darwin is correct, but whether or not they actually cooperate in separate descriptions of the fact of origin and diversity of life on earth.
"It looks like you may be defining yourself to a win by with equating evolution to 'an ongoing process of creation.'"
So, that is my beginning argument. It is my burden of proof to demonstrate, isn't it? So, engage, and demonstrate by your arguments that I am wrong. Isn't that what debate is all about? However, may I remind you that when pasta is cooked, as is its intent, and has been for far longer than we've been alive, it is flexible.
I hesitate acceptance of an expansion of the discussion, both on the "Genesis" and the "Darwin" sides, because I obviously cannot commit to ubiquitous equivalence in advance. otherwise, we would have to agree that as the discussion might expand beyond my originally stated construct, that non-equivalence of design "intent," and random natural selection "intent," may occur. It is the equivalence of the two stated sources that I perceive, and have the burden of proof, to demonstrate. It is that aspect, burden of proof, that becomes endangered. I created the construct of Genesis vs. Darwin because that was the issue in the original debate that occurred immediately coincident with the publication of "On the Origin of Species." There were no other elements joining the debate. In effect, it is the definition of definitions that are virtually always a part of the debate format. The construct is not to weight the discussion in my favor because I can conceive of arguments that oppose my suggestion. Can you?
For example, below, SkepticalOne mentions Pastafarinianism as debatable construct. However, that belief post-dates the original discussion by over 140 years. Shall we also consider the universe construct of turtles, black holes, and Mickey Mouse as sorcerer? If you wish to engage such a debate, create it. This one is my debate; I define the construct, thank you very much.
With only 30 minutes remaining in the voting, I don't think I'm going to acquire the points necessary to overtake your lead. Therefore, my congratulations to you on an enjoyable, lively debate. I hope we have opportunity to debate again. In the meantime, my friend, good luck in other endeavors.
@SkepticalOne
Definitions can change. I'm wiling to negotiate.
By the way, I like your avatar. Mickie is a favorite of mine, but note, even in your modified imagination of the Sistine Chapel ceiling fresco, Adam and God's fingers are still just not touching, whereas, who is that tucked into God's left shoulder, the redhead in his embrace who also lovingly caresses His left arm? Mickie told us: that is Eve, "the mother of all living." He said this is her creation, in God's embrace, as opposed to Adam's creation at finger-length, and more. Says something about creative priorities, doesn't it? And, by your illustrative editing, Adam get's it.
What's a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Sue me. I took him at his word: "The problem isn’t that, in fact I had ‘quit’ the website if you analyse [sic] my activity before that statement that I was quitting."
I'm 18 days old on this site. Don't know the proclivities of anyone, yet, though I do recognize premature efactulation when I see it.
Too many interrupts in the debate conditions to make it an equitable debate. BoP shared? The Instigator has Burden of Proof, just as in a court of law as borne by the prosecutor. The Contender, also as the defense in a court of law, need only plant doubt in the Instigator's arguments, but need not prove a bloody thing.
Also, you imply that definitions must be shared, whereas, I've seen many debates with this proposition that fail only because neither side can agree on definitions. I believe the Instigator must provide definitions within the argument phase; best in the first round, or as I prefer, within the long description in proposing the debate. The Contender may argue the validity of the definitions, and that becomes, then, a construct of the opposing arguments, in which, again, the Instigator has burden of proof.
If you want to waive rounds, just lessen the number of rounds, otherwise, you have unnecessarily, but a little too conveniently favored the debate to your side. Bad form.
pro stated: "...pigs chew cud by the definition of the Torah. Unfortunately, pigs aren't ruminants."
Now that round 1 is complete. let's clear the air. Pigs are not ruminants, confirmed. However, there is no confusion over the definition of "cud." What the raw material happens to be is of no consequence; grass or some other vegetation. "Cud" is any vegetation consumed that is literally regurgitated to the mouth to be re-chewed. According to the OED: "Rumination: 2.a. The action of chewing the cud; the chewing by a herbivorous animal of partially digested food from the rumen." According to the same source: "Rumen: The first and largest stomach of a ruminant, in which food (esp. cellulose) is partly digested by bacteria, and from which it may pass back to the mouth as cud for further chewing, or on into the reticulum."
Given that the Torah stipulated two conditions: cloven hoof AND chewing cud [rumination], and that both must be met, it doesn't matter that pigs eat grass, in addition to just about everything else, eating grass, alone, is not descriptive of rumination; therefore, pigs do not meet the Torah's prohibition against non-cud chewers.
I was hoping to have a debate with you. I like your arguments, generally. I commit to serious debate, no person attack in disagreement, only lively opposition, and opportunity to compare different opinions with open mind. Hope you agree. Good luck
Singularity, what the hell do Jews and CNN have to do with this debate. Unless you ave something positive to contribute, be ignored.
Was "Day" as described in Genesis truly an exact 24 hours? proof is lacking, considering that the Hebrew word used in ancient texts we have is yom, which can imply an earth day, or a period of much longer duration.
Was man [Adam] created perfect? Not as he was tempted, and succumbed to temptation, and not if his mortal life was intended to die.
Were animals created perfect? No, they, too, were created to die.
Was creation, itself, perfect? Not by the results. Perfection is not a beginning state; it is achieved.
"Could have" is a conditional past tense conjugation. Such conjugation indicates an event that could have happened, but did not happen. You seem to imply that because God [that is a title, not a name] is omnipotent that He must act. You have the power to walk across the street against the traffic light, but it does not mean you must. God could have created perfect man, but He did not, did He? You think that was by accident? Nope, there was purpose in such a creation, just as there was purpose, as I explained, to prevent Noah's flood victims from crossing a threshold from which they could not reverse.
Uselessless: you like my opponent, gravitated to addressing "Useless" as a matter of frequency of use of a word. No, I explained in round 3 that "'Useless' is interpreted by my opponent as a function of mere frequency of use, and not recognized by my opponent as a function of unaccomplished purpose, arguing merely that “floccinaucinihilipilification” is a word used less often than 'if'"
Did you miss that?
You said "Pro never challenges the fact that there are 8 definitions for the word "if". This argument stands."
My round 2 argument:
"[Opponent's] Arg #1: 'Any word with multiple meanings…” [a polyseme] “…is more useful than a word with only one meaning.'
"My opposing proof: Polysemes, particularly when they are also homonyms [polysemes with the same spelling, and usually the same sound] have the disadvantage of being ambiguous. When meaning is ambiguous [as your eight definitions show proof] usefulness declines. How useful is that? It goes for virtually “any” polysemic homonym."
Did you miss that, too?
Doesn't help the process if you don't read with comprehension, and then vote by your limitations. Thanks.
"Pulling this thread dismantles the entire Noah story."
Does it? Your proof is an if/then statement? Not enough.
As a debate I initiated relates: If is the most functionally useless word in the language because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. What is currently not true is that God could have saved everything or anything He wanted without an ark, because He did not save everything or anything He wanted without an ark - excepting the fishes of the sea and the on the ark.
The more germane point ignored is that to simply wave a wand and not allow the flood, which God initiated in the first place, would have allowed the people who were destroyed to continue their debauchery to the point that they would have denied themselves access to the most wonderful gift to man other than his life: the atonement of Jesus Christ. Expecting, by your generic pronoun use of God that you do not accept it yourself is entirely your choice, and that's the secondary point: the atonement is infinitely available to all who will accept it, and even if you don't agree with it, as the people of the flood who were destroyed did not. But, they were in a worse condition than that. They had the potential too sin further; to sin against the Holy Ghost, a sin so egregious, infinitely more serious than murder, there is no redemption from it, even if they later wanted to do so. Yes, the flood pre-dated Jesus, but, as said, the atonement is infinitely available, backward and forward in human history to all who will accept it before they reach the point of no return - sin against the Holy Ghost.
As the destroyed were about to cross that barrier of no return, God acted to take their mortal lives, and their mortal lives only, before they doomed their souls to damnation to a place with no doors. This was actually an act of love, by His preventive act, because it allowed them the opportunity to eventually repent of their less serious sins, if they were of a mind to accept the Lord's atonement. Same with the people of Sodom & Gomorrah; an act of ultimate love. God is a God of love, and He desires that we maintain our free agency, because if we remain obedient to Him by our agency, death by any means is not the end; it is merely a door. A door to further righteous living in glory with Him, if we are obedient now. The is why He allows suffering, because even death does not mean the end if we accept the atonement of Christ, and then act to be of service to others, demonstrating our gratitude to God for His gifts to us.
Thank you. Glad to be of service. However, I must advise, and should have in my previous commentary, that I do not believe a God can be evil. I respect God as a title, and not as a name of an omnipotent being, and, as a title, refers to a person who has achieved perfection in every respect, whereas evil is a complete lack of perfection. It is chaos. However, from a strictly logical argument, which may entertain concepts that are not true, the possibility of an evil god must be considered.
I have erred even at the outset, proving the point that perfection is, indeed, a mountain, not a mole hill. Please read the title of the debate as "Does a good, perfect person [not just a man] struggle with evil."
I don't use Windows, either, anymore. I've always had a Mac, but, with my familiarity with Windows, I prefer using Word for Mac, which functions much better than it does for Micronuts. I am broke on the pane of windows. Are you on Mac and Pages? Although I am friends with oromagi, I, too, am suspicious of the record. But since I agree with your position, I chose to not engage. However, since, I have done exactly that, taking a debate position with which I disagree, just to see if I could pull it off.
This is a 4-month old challenge. Why is there no debate? No arguments? Just a claim? Great subject, but it lacks substance. As I have familiarity with all holy writ noted, I am greatly disappointed. When this dies, if you don't raise it again, I will, but not from your claimed perspective.
Good grief! Did I write that first paragraph in my vote reasoning without editing it, or what? "...but by acceptance but by allowing a debate to proceed..." ?! What a mash! I apologize
By the way, your argument is very well prepared. Great beginning. I had not heard about your reference to the apparent human signature in the virus RNA. Wow!
Hope you're not offended by my previous comment on sources. I see you are, like me, new on the site. I wondered, too, how to deal with sourcing, and discovered what I already knew in Word about reference notes, and found the sequence works. There may be a better way...
The origin of your issue with posting sources is closer to home than the site. It functions perfectly well in accepting text with embedded source notes.
1. prepare your document in Word
2. As you compose, when needing to reference a source, click on <insert>, <footnote>
3. In the pop-up box, under <location>, select <endnotes> which will collect all source references at the end of the document. [The other selection, <footnotes> will collect them at the foot of each page.] The notes are automatically assigned numeric sequence, and enters the number both within the text, and at the end of the document. Enter your reference in each end note as you compile them.
4. Copy/paste your text, not including the endnotes into the argument entry box as usual, and make a note in the text that your sources are listed in the comments section.
5. Enter the comments section, copy/paste your endnotes into the comment box. Done.
Being first to comment on a debate that has been posted for a month is troublesome. I just found this one and am intrigued by the arguments so far.
I have a few comments, just general observations.
1. I am troubled by the challenge to limit the period of the flood to 4,000 years. The Holy Bible, and its description of creation, notes the creative segments as "days." However, the Hebrew is Yom, יום, and it significance varies from a single day to a "period" of undefined duration. We cannot assume for simplicity sake that the individual segments of creation were 24-hour periods. Common sense with our gained knowledge of geological phenomena does not allow for such high-speed creation. I'll assume that God would follow natural law, and not black magic. After all, what's the hurry? Creation may have occupied billions of years. What is tat to a Being of infinite duration, and for whom "Time" is inconsequential. Does that crumble anybody'e cookie?
Also, specifically in the generations noted in Genesis, there are genealogical gaps. That means unaccounted for passage of time and possibly generations of it. So what? Why not just accept that the Bible is not as chronologically accurate as we might wish it was. What if Noah was 10,000 years ago? 20,000? To quote a the most innocent [tongue-in-cheek] investigate woman in history, "What difference does it make, now?"
Second, the conundrum of the storage of animals, food, water, hay, whatever, I like ascribing to ancients more capability and innovation that the TV show, Ancient Aliens, will grant them. According to that show, our ancestors were straw man dummies, who, without alien intervention, we would still be poking goats. What if, rather, Noah were a sort of genetic engineer, managing a floating laboratory of DNA samples of every beast and fowl on earth? if God can teach Noah how to build a ship, I suppose he can also teach a little genetic theory along the way. After all, I don't think Noah built his ship, maybe christened "Rome," in one day. No need for fish on board. As one of you suggested, Genesis allows for the creatures of the sea to survive. Yeah, the water would have been mightily diluted from salt water by that much rain, but, who knows? Since God can make an ass talk [Numbers 22:], I suspect He can make fish breath brackish water for an interim period. 300 days? 400? 200? Refer to the lady with answers above.
Thanks for your suggestions on definitions. I suppose it would be good to use the "Full Description" section when launching a new debate to offer definition. Too late now. However, I think a counter argument of Jesus being multiple figures might just confuse matters. On the other hand, I have accepted this debate being a firm believer in Jesus Christ, so the whole effort is contrary to my sensibilities. Nevertheless, There are 5 argument sessions, so I might need an added argument depending on the course my opponent takes, and "clones" is as good as any.
It appears by logicae's argument in round 1 that the purpose of FICA taxes are not acknowledged in the argument, but are noted on every paystub produced by every employer to its employees. By the argument, we are to understand that the government merely spends money to support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to the tune of $2.3 trillion, and, apparently, that money comes out of our pockets for everybody. Nope. Re-enter FICA taxes. FICA taxes are withdrawn from every employee, and matched dollar for dollar for each employee by the employer. And each dollar I paid in FICA while working [now retired] was earmarked FOR ME. FICA started as MY MONEY [plus the contribution of my employers], and continues to be MY MONEY, not yours, or anyone else's. This is NOT a socialist agenda, as I suspect logicae believes, nor is it even a welfare expenditure. The other $645B logicae argues is up for discussion, but the $2.3T is not party to "welfare" benefits because they are not shared from one big pot.
The parameters [definitions] offered for this debate, specifically with regard to "rare" is far too excessive at 30% to ave any meaning relative to the overall premise that only men are affected by poverty. For example, in an entirely different matter of an issue affecting a portion of the population, "rare" is defined as far less than 30%. According to NIH https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases - a rare disease in the United States is one affecting 200,000 people, or less, or 0.06% of the population. Not that disease and poverty are necessarily related, but that the condition of "rare" is considered so much less. Another factor: what is the most rare eye color? According to the World Atlas, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/only-two-percent-of-the-worlds-population-have-this-trait/ar-BBT3LTR
only 2% of the world's population has green eyes. That's rare. 30% is not. Therefore, on its face, I consider this debate as useless by definition.
No, I've decided citation is the better part of valor. I'm no Plato, but I do admire the man greatly, taught by my older brother who was a huge fan, but is now dead. I put his copy of The Republic in his hand in his casket. But thanks for the kind words.
Footnotes to Round 1 arguments:
1. https://www.oed.com
2. https://www.oed.com
3. Gardner, Sir Alan, Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd Edition, revised, Oxford University Press, London, 1949
4. The Holy Bible, New Testament, James 1: 5 Note: all use of the Bible herein uses the KJV.
5. The Holy Bible, New Testament, James 1: 2 - 6
6. Qur’an, The Imans 3: 169 – 170 Note: all uses of the Qur’an, except reference to the opponent’s reference, is The Koran, translated by N.J. Dawood,
5th edition, Penguin Books, London, 1993
7. RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion…” Argument round 1
8. RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion…” Argument round 1
9. Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 3 - 5
10. Holy Bible, New Testament, Matthew 5: 10 – 12
11 RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion” Argument round 1
12 RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion” Argument round 1
13 Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 6 - 11
14 McLaughlin, John L. (2000). "Elohim". In Freedman, David Noel; Myer, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible
15 OED: OE Homily (Corpus Cambr. 41) in K. G. Schaefer Five Old Eng. Homilies (Ph.D. diss., Columbia Univ.) (1972) 61 Ac hwæt wite ge þissum
hælende se is genemned Crist?
16 OED: 1. The name of God among Muslims and Arabic people in general.
17 https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-11-no-1-2010/name-titles-god-old-testament
You certainly did trounce me with sources. I know better, but I wanted to man the helm myself. I'm a stingy sailor. Set my own heading and didn't want to use a map. Ragnar really let me have it. Thanks, my friends. I am sufficiently ashamed on myself. [A turn of phrase my daughter spun when she was about five. Now has two children, nine and eleven, herself].
I am going to engage this debate from a Con perspective, even though I am a confirmed believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as well as a common man of Nazareth. It is engaged strictly as a personal challenge to take an opposing view, and I accept the challenge to keep any religious aspect of my argument out of the argument, but for Biblical reference if deemed necessary. I do consider one definition of the Bible as historic and literary text, of value on these considerations, alone.
By the way, the assertion by Pro that states still depend on selection of electoral college delegates by the respective State governments is no longer true, although it was at one time. Every state now selects electoral college delegates by direct vote of the people through their designated choice, by name, of presidential candidates.
Rabbit hole all you wish, or don't. My vote, particularly the second, was entirely based on voting protocol from the policy:
"Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." I submit, and, in fact, the second in the list of voting policies deal with my voting result: in a critical features of your argument, [personhood, and consent] you had opinion followed by no sourcing. I awarded where argument included sourcing. You were not awarded points on each of the issues I referenced in voting. Such as not sourcing your opinion that consent means having a body "used," when the matter of a symbiotic relationship, woman and fetus, have no conscious decision of having anything taken or given.
A double miss. Re: human speciality, my argument did not point to cells or DNA. If you will read my argument [goes both ways, bud] I questioned your parenthetic clause, by asking for THAT source.
The nature of either "multiply and replenish the earth," or "There is grandeur in this view of life..." is that pregnancy, whether caused by consent, or not, establishes a symbiotic relationship but neither woman nor fetus can claim right over the other. In fact, the fetus is the ultimate innocent in the whole affair. As you cannot decide whether you accept personhood from conception [you claim both sides of that argument, against it in round 2, and for it in round 4], I say your arguments negate themselves, and Con's consistent argument prevails. You did no show argument supported by sourcing that demonstrates which condition, sex by force or consent, is the greater condition of pregnancy. As long as you are concerned about frequency of abortion before/after Roe and as relevant regarding abortion vs. restrictive laws, you must cite your sources that consent is a viable argument. Your sourcing is all about the numbers of abortion, but not for consent/no consent. You speak to the matter of consent in round 1 under "human rights," but have no sourcing. You address it again in round 45, but again, do not cite sources. As your argument is simply that the woman must always be granted legal right of preference, it is flawed on that basis.
I'm acquainted with Orson, and we share a common understanding of the subject under debate here.
References in round 2 argument:
1 https://www.boredpanda.com/fennec-fox-vegan-diet-animal-abuse-jumanji-sonia-sae/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
2 Holy Bible, Matthew 5: 48
3 Holy Bible, Matthew 5, 6, 7, inclusive.
4 Holy Bible, Exodus 20: 16
5 Book of Mormon, I Nephi 3: 7
You argue, "I am not unsympathetic to his argument, but the situation is much [too] nuanced to stop there." However, then you argue, "What makes humans special isn’t our cells or our DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception)," but you offer no source for that opinion; in particular, the parenthetic clause. Who says that? A credible source? Then cite it. But, you did not. Then you argue, "I have chosen, for the sake of the argument, to imagine the unborn as people," negating your entire argument against your opponent's relative to the person issue. If you also acknowledge that the unborn are people, what's the nuance? That another, the woman, also has nuance? If you admit that is so, I submit your argument is flawed. Thus, my decision. Do not assume I am driven by my personal preference.
As a counter argument by a pro-choice: "In summary, prohibition and restrictive laws do not appear to reduce the frequency of abortion overall, but they do decrease women’s health in a society by forcing women to reluctantly seek necessary medical treatment (at later stages when more complications can occur) without the oversight provided by government regulation." I do not regard that as a "better" argument. Frequency should not necessarily be a legal point any more than a singular murderer is any less illegal that a serial killer. It is matter of moral degree, perhaps, but not legal. Nor, should one consider a debate "lost" until the voting is finished. Let us not replace one indiscretion with another.
But, I will accept the judgment of another moderator.
References for round 1:
1 https://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/, McCloskey, H.J. 1960, “God and Evil” Philosophical Quarterly 10: 97-114
2 Suzy Platt (1993). Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. Barnes & Noble. p. 123. ISBN 9780880297684.
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 16, 17
4 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
5 https://books.google.com/books?id=3cUOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA515&lpg=PA515&dq=does+perfection+imply+that+one+is+not+tempted&source=bl&ots=kAr19CdrIp&sig=ACfU3U2j7Cn_VrnWPGg3jQUcyvmSZi5vfg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLiej7u6LoAhVO7J4KHVBSC40Q6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=does%20perfection%20imply%20that%20one%20is%20not%20tempted&f=false
In many cases, in order to understand a concept, I invite the elimination of mirrors. What I mean by that is that all of us are our worst enemy in understanding another's perspective, and we tend to consult our own paradigms for verification, like looking in a mirror. Lose the mirror, i.e., lose the paradigm. In this case, I would recommend losing the clock, because it seems to be an impediment. I don't even believe that, beyond our earth perspective, time exists at all. So, lose it if that is a hangup. I use this "tool" whenever challenged in my perception of eternity, because many people hang onto a concept of a Big Bang, then an infinity ahead, only, that's not infinity, at all. There is not beginning, but that's a paradigm many have difficulty accepting. I am not so troubled by the idea. Ergo, does it matter relative to the debate? Yes, I acknowledge that we have moved on in understanding of both Genesis creation and Darwin evolution, but it is my choice of debate parameters. And, yes, I understand that it appears that I am, contrary to losing mirrors, that I am imposing one. It is simply to restrain the debate in the confines of brackets of time. Why? Because there are arguments with the brackets such that either Pro or Con can win the debate. Accept, or don't.
Then don't understand. Entirely your choice
R1 references:
1 https://morningconsult.com/2017/01/04/voters-prefer-traditional-communication-president/
2 https://www.bigeasymagazine.com/2018/12/04/the-progressive-policies-of-george-h-w-bush/
3 https://qz.com/1727/what-barack-owes-dubya/
4 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4978839&page=1
5 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/04/mccain-s-not-really-a-conservative.html
6 https://www.politico.com/story/2008/12/liberals-voice-concerns-about-obama-016292
7 https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/nov/14/obamas-hot-mic-moment-russian-president-2012-was-u/
8 https://www.politico.com/story/2008/12/liberals-voice-concerns-about-obama-01629
No, it is not like debating who will win WWII because that event had a definitive outcome it is not a matter of debate. Although "On the Origin of Species" is 161 years since it's original publication, and Genesis is roughly 3,500 years in existence, the outcome of that debate obviously is still engaged. But, you're missing the entire premise of my proposition. It is not a debate of whether Genesis or Darwin is correct, but whether or not they actually cooperate in separate descriptions of the fact of origin and diversity of life on earth.
"It looks like you may be defining yourself to a win by with equating evolution to 'an ongoing process of creation.'"
So, that is my beginning argument. It is my burden of proof to demonstrate, isn't it? So, engage, and demonstrate by your arguments that I am wrong. Isn't that what debate is all about? However, may I remind you that when pasta is cooked, as is its intent, and has been for far longer than we've been alive, it is flexible.
I hesitate acceptance of an expansion of the discussion, both on the "Genesis" and the "Darwin" sides, because I obviously cannot commit to ubiquitous equivalence in advance. otherwise, we would have to agree that as the discussion might expand beyond my originally stated construct, that non-equivalence of design "intent," and random natural selection "intent," may occur. It is the equivalence of the two stated sources that I perceive, and have the burden of proof, to demonstrate. It is that aspect, burden of proof, that becomes endangered. I created the construct of Genesis vs. Darwin because that was the issue in the original debate that occurred immediately coincident with the publication of "On the Origin of Species." There were no other elements joining the debate. In effect, it is the definition of definitions that are virtually always a part of the debate format. The construct is not to weight the discussion in my favor because I can conceive of arguments that oppose my suggestion. Can you?
For example, below, SkepticalOne mentions Pastafarinianism as debatable construct. However, that belief post-dates the original discussion by over 140 years. Shall we also consider the universe construct of turtles, black holes, and Mickey Mouse as sorcerer? If you wish to engage such a debate, create it. This one is my debate; I define the construct, thank you very much.
With only 30 minutes remaining in the voting, I don't think I'm going to acquire the points necessary to overtake your lead. Therefore, my congratulations to you on an enjoyable, lively debate. I hope we have opportunity to debate again. In the meantime, my friend, good luck in other endeavors.
You're very welcome, my friend
@SkepticalOne
Definitions can change. I'm wiling to negotiate.
By the way, I like your avatar. Mickie is a favorite of mine, but note, even in your modified imagination of the Sistine Chapel ceiling fresco, Adam and God's fingers are still just not touching, whereas, who is that tucked into God's left shoulder, the redhead in his embrace who also lovingly caresses His left arm? Mickie told us: that is Eve, "the mother of all living." He said this is her creation, in God's embrace, as opposed to Adam's creation at finger-length, and more. Says something about creative priorities, doesn't it? And, by your illustrative editing, Adam get's it.
What's a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Glad you're amused, Doctor. I don't think Ragnar was. Not a dig, Sir Ragnar, just an observation.
Sue me. I took him at his word: "The problem isn’t that, in fact I had ‘quit’ the website if you analyse [sic] my activity before that statement that I was quitting."
I'm 18 days old on this site. Don't know the proclivities of anyone, yet, though I do recognize premature efactulation when I see it.
Too many interrupts in the debate conditions to make it an equitable debate. BoP shared? The Instigator has Burden of Proof, just as in a court of law as borne by the prosecutor. The Contender, also as the defense in a court of law, need only plant doubt in the Instigator's arguments, but need not prove a bloody thing.
Also, you imply that definitions must be shared, whereas, I've seen many debates with this proposition that fail only because neither side can agree on definitions. I believe the Instigator must provide definitions within the argument phase; best in the first round, or as I prefer, within the long description in proposing the debate. The Contender may argue the validity of the definitions, and that becomes, then, a construct of the opposing arguments, in which, again, the Instigator has burden of proof.
If you want to waive rounds, just lessen the number of rounds, otherwise, you have unnecessarily, but a little too conveniently favored the debate to your side. Bad form.
pro stated: "...pigs chew cud by the definition of the Torah. Unfortunately, pigs aren't ruminants."
Now that round 1 is complete. let's clear the air. Pigs are not ruminants, confirmed. However, there is no confusion over the definition of "cud." What the raw material happens to be is of no consequence; grass or some other vegetation. "Cud" is any vegetation consumed that is literally regurgitated to the mouth to be re-chewed. According to the OED: "Rumination: 2.a. The action of chewing the cud; the chewing by a herbivorous animal of partially digested food from the rumen." According to the same source: "Rumen: The first and largest stomach of a ruminant, in which food (esp. cellulose) is partly digested by bacteria, and from which it may pass back to the mouth as cud for further chewing, or on into the reticulum."
Given that the Torah stipulated two conditions: cloven hoof AND chewing cud [rumination], and that both must be met, it doesn't matter that pigs eat grass, in addition to just about everything else, eating grass, alone, is not descriptive of rumination; therefore, pigs do not meet the Torah's prohibition against non-cud chewers.
Thank you.
I was hoping to have a debate with you. I like your arguments, generally. I commit to serious debate, no person attack in disagreement, only lively opposition, and opportunity to compare different opinions with open mind. Hope you agree. Good luck
Singularity, what the hell do Jews and CNN have to do with this debate. Unless you ave something positive to contribute, be ignored.
Thank you
Sorry, didn't read your message until after I posted my round 2.
Was "Day" as described in Genesis truly an exact 24 hours? proof is lacking, considering that the Hebrew word used in ancient texts we have is yom, which can imply an earth day, or a period of much longer duration.
Was man [Adam] created perfect? Not as he was tempted, and succumbed to temptation, and not if his mortal life was intended to die.
Were animals created perfect? No, they, too, were created to die.
Was creation, itself, perfect? Not by the results. Perfection is not a beginning state; it is achieved.
"Could have" is a conditional past tense conjugation. Such conjugation indicates an event that could have happened, but did not happen. You seem to imply that because God [that is a title, not a name] is omnipotent that He must act. You have the power to walk across the street against the traffic light, but it does not mean you must. God could have created perfect man, but He did not, did He? You think that was by accident? Nope, there was purpose in such a creation, just as there was purpose, as I explained, to prevent Noah's flood victims from crossing a threshold from which they could not reverse.
I'll set it up and set you as opposing argument
Uselessless: you like my opponent, gravitated to addressing "Useless" as a matter of frequency of use of a word. No, I explained in round 3 that "'Useless' is interpreted by my opponent as a function of mere frequency of use, and not recognized by my opponent as a function of unaccomplished purpose, arguing merely that “floccinaucinihilipilification” is a word used less often than 'if'"
Did you miss that?
You said "Pro never challenges the fact that there are 8 definitions for the word "if". This argument stands."
My round 2 argument:
"[Opponent's] Arg #1: 'Any word with multiple meanings…” [a polyseme] “…is more useful than a word with only one meaning.'
"My opposing proof: Polysemes, particularly when they are also homonyms [polysemes with the same spelling, and usually the same sound] have the disadvantage of being ambiguous. When meaning is ambiguous [as your eight definitions show proof] usefulness declines. How useful is that? It goes for virtually “any” polysemic homonym."
Did you miss that, too?
Doesn't help the process if you don't read with comprehension, and then vote by your limitations. Thanks.
"Pulling this thread dismantles the entire Noah story."
Does it? Your proof is an if/then statement? Not enough.
As a debate I initiated relates: If is the most functionally useless word in the language because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. What is currently not true is that God could have saved everything or anything He wanted without an ark, because He did not save everything or anything He wanted without an ark - excepting the fishes of the sea and the on the ark.
The more germane point ignored is that to simply wave a wand and not allow the flood, which God initiated in the first place, would have allowed the people who were destroyed to continue their debauchery to the point that they would have denied themselves access to the most wonderful gift to man other than his life: the atonement of Jesus Christ. Expecting, by your generic pronoun use of God that you do not accept it yourself is entirely your choice, and that's the secondary point: the atonement is infinitely available to all who will accept it, and even if you don't agree with it, as the people of the flood who were destroyed did not. But, they were in a worse condition than that. They had the potential too sin further; to sin against the Holy Ghost, a sin so egregious, infinitely more serious than murder, there is no redemption from it, even if they later wanted to do so. Yes, the flood pre-dated Jesus, but, as said, the atonement is infinitely available, backward and forward in human history to all who will accept it before they reach the point of no return - sin against the Holy Ghost.
As the destroyed were about to cross that barrier of no return, God acted to take their mortal lives, and their mortal lives only, before they doomed their souls to damnation to a place with no doors. This was actually an act of love, by His preventive act, because it allowed them the opportunity to eventually repent of their less serious sins, if they were of a mind to accept the Lord's atonement. Same with the people of Sodom & Gomorrah; an act of ultimate love. God is a God of love, and He desires that we maintain our free agency, because if we remain obedient to Him by our agency, death by any means is not the end; it is merely a door. A door to further righteous living in glory with Him, if we are obedient now. The is why He allows suffering, because even death does not mean the end if we accept the atonement of Christ, and then act to be of service to others, demonstrating our gratitude to God for His gifts to us.
References, round 3
1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
2 Law, Faux*, Faux Law, Amazon Books, 2019. *[a pseudonym]
3 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html
4 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 2, clause 5
5 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 5, clause 2
6 Clinton, Hillary, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8079693/Im-investigated-innocent-person-America-Hillary-Clinton-snaps-documentary.html
7 https://www.politifact.com/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
8 Copyright credit to Ragni, Jerome and Rado, James, Hair, papp, Joe, producer, 1967, alterations by law, faux.
Thank you. Glad to be of service. However, I must advise, and should have in my previous commentary, that I do not believe a God can be evil. I respect God as a title, and not as a name of an omnipotent being, and, as a title, refers to a person who has achieved perfection in every respect, whereas evil is a complete lack of perfection. It is chaos. However, from a strictly logical argument, which may entertain concepts that are not true, the possibility of an evil god must be considered.
I have erred even at the outset, proving the point that perfection is, indeed, a mountain, not a mole hill. Please read the title of the debate as "Does a good, perfect person [not just a man] struggle with evil."
I don't use Windows, either, anymore. I've always had a Mac, but, with my familiarity with Windows, I prefer using Word for Mac, which functions much better than it does for Micronuts. I am broke on the pane of windows. Are you on Mac and Pages? Although I am friends with oromagi, I, too, am suspicious of the record. But since I agree with your position, I chose to not engage. However, since, I have done exactly that, taking a debate position with which I disagree, just to see if I could pull it off.
This is a 4-month old challenge. Why is there no debate? No arguments? Just a claim? Great subject, but it lacks substance. As I have familiarity with all holy writ noted, I am greatly disappointed. When this dies, if you don't raise it again, I will, but not from your claimed perspective.
Good grief! Did I write that first paragraph in my vote reasoning without editing it, or what? "...but by acceptance but by allowing a debate to proceed..." ?! What a mash! I apologize
By the way, your argument is very well prepared. Great beginning. I had not heard about your reference to the apparent human signature in the virus RNA. Wow!
Hope you're not offended by my previous comment on sources. I see you are, like me, new on the site. I wondered, too, how to deal with sourcing, and discovered what I already knew in Word about reference notes, and found the sequence works. There may be a better way...
The origin of your issue with posting sources is closer to home than the site. It functions perfectly well in accepting text with embedded source notes.
1. prepare your document in Word
2. As you compose, when needing to reference a source, click on <insert>, <footnote>
3. In the pop-up box, under <location>, select <endnotes> which will collect all source references at the end of the document. [The other selection, <footnotes> will collect them at the foot of each page.] The notes are automatically assigned numeric sequence, and enters the number both within the text, and at the end of the document. Enter your reference in each end note as you compile them.
4. Copy/paste your text, not including the endnotes into the argument entry box as usual, and make a note in the text that your sources are listed in the comments section.
5. Enter the comments section, copy/paste your endnotes into the comment box. Done.
References, round 2
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/donald-trump-ad-hillary-clinton-50-points-ahead/index.html
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/upshot/why-trump-had-an-edge-in-the-electoral-college.html
[3] https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/
[4] https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/
[5] Reiner, Rob, The American President, Sony Pictures, 1995
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html
[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/02/super-tuesday-democrats-looking-consolidate-broad-coalition/4927159002/
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/democratic-candidates-race.html
[9] https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-only-two-delegates-isnt-first-candidate-stay-race-this-long-1491334
[10] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/02/super-tuesday-democrats-looking-consolidate-broad-coalition/4927159002/
[11] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-sanders-sit-down-debate-format-push-health-concerns
[12] https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/politics/tom-perez-swearing-trump/index.html
[13] ibid.
[14] ibid.
Being first to comment on a debate that has been posted for a month is troublesome. I just found this one and am intrigued by the arguments so far.
I have a few comments, just general observations.
1. I am troubled by the challenge to limit the period of the flood to 4,000 years. The Holy Bible, and its description of creation, notes the creative segments as "days." However, the Hebrew is Yom, יום, and it significance varies from a single day to a "period" of undefined duration. We cannot assume for simplicity sake that the individual segments of creation were 24-hour periods. Common sense with our gained knowledge of geological phenomena does not allow for such high-speed creation. I'll assume that God would follow natural law, and not black magic. After all, what's the hurry? Creation may have occupied billions of years. What is tat to a Being of infinite duration, and for whom "Time" is inconsequential. Does that crumble anybody'e cookie?
Also, specifically in the generations noted in Genesis, there are genealogical gaps. That means unaccounted for passage of time and possibly generations of it. So what? Why not just accept that the Bible is not as chronologically accurate as we might wish it was. What if Noah was 10,000 years ago? 20,000? To quote a the most innocent [tongue-in-cheek] investigate woman in history, "What difference does it make, now?"
Second, the conundrum of the storage of animals, food, water, hay, whatever, I like ascribing to ancients more capability and innovation that the TV show, Ancient Aliens, will grant them. According to that show, our ancestors were straw man dummies, who, without alien intervention, we would still be poking goats. What if, rather, Noah were a sort of genetic engineer, managing a floating laboratory of DNA samples of every beast and fowl on earth? if God can teach Noah how to build a ship, I suppose he can also teach a little genetic theory along the way. After all, I don't think Noah built his ship, maybe christened "Rome," in one day. No need for fish on board. As one of you suggested, Genesis allows for the creatures of the sea to survive. Yeah, the water would have been mightily diluted from salt water by that much rain, but, who knows? Since God can make an ass talk [Numbers 22:], I suspect He can make fish breath brackish water for an interim period. 300 days? 400? 200? Refer to the lady with answers above.
Thanks for your suggestions on definitions. I suppose it would be good to use the "Full Description" section when launching a new debate to offer definition. Too late now. However, I think a counter argument of Jesus being multiple figures might just confuse matters. On the other hand, I have accepted this debate being a firm believer in Jesus Christ, so the whole effort is contrary to my sensibilities. Nevertheless, There are 5 argument sessions, so I might need an added argument depending on the course my opponent takes, and "clones" is as good as any.
Cited references from argument #1:
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/scientists-finally-read-the-oldest-biblical-text-ever-found-a7323296.htm
[2] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Flavius-Josephus
[3] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tacitus-Roman-historian
[4] https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/what-are-the-earliest-versions-and-translations-of-the-bible
References in argument 1
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
[2] https://www.aiga.org/design-director-hillary-clinton-presidential-journey
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-road-to-victory/507203/
[4] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/13/406250488/the-13-questions-hillary-clinton-has-answered-from-the-press
[5] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/democrats-dont-want-to-nominate-another-white-man-for-president-226977
It appears by logicae's argument in round 1 that the purpose of FICA taxes are not acknowledged in the argument, but are noted on every paystub produced by every employer to its employees. By the argument, we are to understand that the government merely spends money to support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to the tune of $2.3 trillion, and, apparently, that money comes out of our pockets for everybody. Nope. Re-enter FICA taxes. FICA taxes are withdrawn from every employee, and matched dollar for dollar for each employee by the employer. And each dollar I paid in FICA while working [now retired] was earmarked FOR ME. FICA started as MY MONEY [plus the contribution of my employers], and continues to be MY MONEY, not yours, or anyone else's. This is NOT a socialist agenda, as I suspect logicae believes, nor is it even a welfare expenditure. The other $645B logicae argues is up for discussion, but the $2.3T is not party to "welfare" benefits because they are not shared from one big pot.
Ah, yes. I missed your misdirection. Sue me. I hesitated to vote on this debate, but will consider more and engage a vote.
The parameters [definitions] offered for this debate, specifically with regard to "rare" is far too excessive at 30% to ave any meaning relative to the overall premise that only men are affected by poverty. For example, in an entirely different matter of an issue affecting a portion of the population, "rare" is defined as far less than 30%. According to NIH https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases - a rare disease in the United States is one affecting 200,000 people, or less, or 0.06% of the population. Not that disease and poverty are necessarily related, but that the condition of "rare" is considered so much less. Another factor: what is the most rare eye color? According to the World Atlas, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/only-two-percent-of-the-worlds-population-have-this-trait/ar-BBT3LTR
only 2% of the world's population has green eyes. That's rare. 30% is not. Therefore, on its face, I consider this debate as useless by definition.
No, I've decided citation is the better part of valor. I'm no Plato, but I do admire the man greatly, taught by my older brother who was a huge fan, but is now dead. I put his copy of The Republic in his hand in his casket. But thanks for the kind words.
Footnotes to Round 1 arguments:
1. https://www.oed.com
2. https://www.oed.com
3. Gardner, Sir Alan, Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd Edition, revised, Oxford University Press, London, 1949
4. The Holy Bible, New Testament, James 1: 5 Note: all use of the Bible herein uses the KJV.
5. The Holy Bible, New Testament, James 1: 2 - 6
6. Qur’an, The Imans 3: 169 – 170 Note: all uses of the Qur’an, except reference to the opponent’s reference, is The Koran, translated by N.J. Dawood,
5th edition, Penguin Books, London, 1993
7. RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion…” Argument round 1
8. RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion…” Argument round 1
9. Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 3 - 5
10. Holy Bible, New Testament, Matthew 5: 10 – 12
11 RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion” Argument round 1
12 RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion” Argument round 1
13 Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 6 - 11
14 McLaughlin, John L. (2000). "Elohim". In Freedman, David Noel; Myer, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible
15 OED: OE Homily (Corpus Cambr. 41) in K. G. Schaefer Five Old Eng. Homilies (Ph.D. diss., Columbia Univ.) (1972) 61 Ac hwæt wite ge þissum
hælende se is genemned Crist?
16 OED: 1. The name of God among Muslims and Arabic people in general.
17 https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-11-no-1-2010/name-titles-god-old-testament
You certainly did trounce me with sources. I know better, but I wanted to man the helm myself. I'm a stingy sailor. Set my own heading and didn't want to use a map. Ragnar really let me have it. Thanks, my friends. I am sufficiently ashamed on myself. [A turn of phrase my daughter spun when she was about five. Now has two children, nine and eleven, herself].
I am going to engage this debate from a Con perspective, even though I am a confirmed believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as well as a common man of Nazareth. It is engaged strictly as a personal challenge to take an opposing view, and I accept the challenge to keep any religious aspect of my argument out of the argument, but for Biblical reference if deemed necessary. I do consider one definition of the Bible as historic and literary text, of value on these considerations, alone.
By the way, the assertion by Pro that states still depend on selection of electoral college delegates by the respective State governments is no longer true, although it was at one time. Every state now selects electoral college delegates by direct vote of the people through their designated choice, by name, of presidential candidates.