SCIENCE = GOD'S PERSONAL PROPERTY (PROOF of GOD)

My opponent wrote: "Subpoint A: Pro never once says how his supernatural deity" I never mentioned anything of the sort, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "This means that your entire argument" You have yet to address my actual argument -- you have so-far only set up a straw man and argued against your own strawman logical fallacy. Contention 2: Science is the Property of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" You are clearly a deluded moron and an ignorant douchebag that is incapable of engaging in actual debate: Thanks for your time! =) "Contention 3: Pro's Argument does not conform to the rules of the debate," Yes it does. " since he is not following HIS OWN RESOLUTION." Yes I am. "Subpoint A: The resolution states Science=God's Personal Property (Proof of God). " Yes, I did, and that is a fact, actually. "Certaintly his alleged God exists on paper" There is only one God, and he is not mine. In fact, you and I both belong to him, as does everyone else. ," but is he a real person?" Yes, he is. " Ergo, the resoultion itself is ridiculous" No it isn't." ", and this debate pointless." Debating with an ignorant two-legged animal such as yourself is pointless, yes. "Contention 4: There is no need for Science to be objectively true," I never claimed such a need, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. " since Science is not mathematics." Der! No kidding, you idiot. "Objectivity is a goal we can aspire to, but it can never be attained." The above statement is a self-refuting statement, and therefore it cannot possibly be true. Therefore its logical converse must necessarily be true: "Objectivity is a goal we can attain." "Most people would say that 2+2=4 is an example of an objective mathematical truth." They are correct -- it is. " But, in fact, it is only true relative to a certain set of axioms." That is a false statement. In reality, 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true. "2+2=4 may be false for you but true for me." That is a false statement: 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true whether or not any human or group of humans agrees. " So, it is clearly not a completely objective truth." Yes, it is an objective truth. " Because mathematical truth depends on our free, subjective choice of axioms" No it doesn't: You do not know the meaning of the word "objective." LOL SMH =) ", it is not completely objective." Yes it is. "we will both necessarily agree upon what is true and what is false." You do not know what thew word "objective" means, and in your above statement, you are referring to subjective opinions, not to objective truths. An objective truth is something that is true whether any human being or group of human beings agrees with it: You are too stupid and too uninformed to be qualified to engage in a debate that involves the concept of objectivity. " In that sense, mathematical truth is objective, but only if we agree" Again, you do not know what the word "objective" means -- poor silly kid! You are under the age of 12, aren't you? "And the football field will have one length in your frame and another length in mine." No it wouldn't. " We can say the length of the field is objective only if we agree" Again, you do not know the meaning of the word "objective," and as such, you are 100% unqualified to engage in a debate that includes the concept of objectivity. "A measurement of length is thus objective only relative to a choice" Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity. "All of this illustrates the fact that we can treat something as objective only to the extent that we define and explicitly specify the subjective conditions" Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity. " Objectivity arises as the result of imposing common constraints on subjective choices in our definitions and procedures." Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity. "That is, that which is objective is clearly defined only by clearly defining and rigorously constraining what is subjective. The objective arises by constraining the subjective." Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity. "Conclusion: Pro's contentions are fallacious," No they aren't. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the logically sound and the logically fallacious. " Pro's entire Argument is baseless and fallacious," No it isn't. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the logically sound and the logically fallacious; and without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the properly based and the baseless. "and this entire debate is a fallacious" The only fallacious elements of this debate were inserted into it by you. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the logically sound and the logically fallacious. "trap so that Pro can have an ego trip." Without God, having an ego trip could not be objectively wrong. Also, your entire belief in atheist Dogma is nothing but your own silly ego trip. You lost this debate, and you lost it HARD: Thanks for your time! =)