Mass Refutation Debate #1

Also, as a note for to the readers, I apologize for my misspelled word in the prior round. In the last sentence I accidentally spelled the word "set" as the word "sex". However I assure the word is meant to be "set". = Refutations = 6- P1: a. Men who think about having sex with other men every everyday can and be bisexual, pan-sexual, or homosexual. Men who think about having sex with other men aren't necessarily homosexual P2: a. Not that this claim isn't true, however my opponent does not warrant this claim. C: a. Despite the fact that I do not self-identify as a homosexual because I believe it to be an immoral lifestyle, I am in fact sexually attracted to other men. b. I am not sexually to women c. Because I am sexually attracted to other men, I am a homosexual despite the fact that I choose not to act on my urges. 7- Definition- 3. [6]Possible: "something that can be done" P1: a. Not all paper is flammable. Pacon, an art supply company, sells a type of paper called "Flameless" [7] which is flame retardant. P2: a. Not all oragami is made of paper. Despite the name literally meaning "the art of folding paper" Origami has branched out since it's creation to include multiple mediums[8] C: a. Because not all paper is flammable it is not possible for a "Flameless" paper origami to be flammable. [6] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [7] . http://www.pacon.com... [8] . http://www.copperwaterfall.com... 8- P1: a. I am not buckIPDA, that is only my username. My actual name is Dakota. b. My username isn't debating. I am. therefore buckIPDA isn't a participant in this debate. P2: a. DakotaKraffick may be your real name, but there is not any proof to know that it is beyond your telling us so. b. Even if your first name is Dakota, and your Surname is Kraffick, your name isn't DakotaKraffick because there is no space between Dakota and Kraffick in your username. C: a. Because I am actually debating this round and not my username, buckIPDA is not a participant in this round. b. Because no opponent in any other debate you've had has the name buckIPDA as of the time you posted your prior arguments (2/19/2012)[9], you are not debating buckIDA. [9] . http://www.debate.org... 9- Definitions- [10]4. Morality: "ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong" [11]5. Murder: "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" P1: a. Morality is a personal inward concept unique to each individual. The purpose of morality is meant to be one's guiding principle to help them distinguish right from wrong. b. Because Yahweh defines what what is right and what is wrong, he does not need a sense of morality. He defines morality. P2: a. Yahweh is not a human being, therefore when he kills humans it is not murder. b. Murder implies "unlawful" or unjust. Because Yahweh is the judge of the universe (Psalm 7:11 "God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day. "), he defines justice. Therefore when he kills it is just. C: a. Because Yahweh is not a person, he cannot murder. b. Because there is no warrant to show murder is morally good, you cannot accept this argument. [10] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [11] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 10- P1: a. No it's not. It took me several times reading through before I understood what this sentence was saying. P2: a. No it's not. The direct object is simply "that sandwich" the descriptive modifier "which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier" is not a reference point. P3: a. Extend across P1 sub point a. There is no understanding thus there is no existence P4: a. Tastiness is a relative concept. b. Because tastiness is a relative concept, it is not conceivable that there would be one sandwich which had a property which made it tastier than all other sandwiches. P5: a. No it isn't. Where this the case, then anything that existed would be tasty. To this effect I ask all readers to taste your computer/cell phone/other electronic device which you are using to read this debate, and show that it isn't tasty. P6: a. When my opponent uses the word "any" he refers to every and all sandwiches which can be perceived. I therefore propose an ice-cube and lava sandwich on white-bread. b. An ice-cube and lava sandwich couldn't be maintained long enough for anyone to know whether or not they like it. c. I dislike white bread, so I would not enjoy this sandwich. Also lava kind of burns. d. Because I would no enjoy this sandwich my opponent's theory is flawed. P7: a. Yes it is. Again, where I to assume that the sandwich my opponent speaks of is the ice cube and lava sandwich, then I wouldn't like it because I dislike white-bread. And the lava thing. C: a. This conclusion isn't even linear in regards to the first seven prongs to my opponent's argument. b. Extend across the Lava and Ice-Cube sandwich on white bread argument.