God is Black*****

----I will begin off-case by making an extensive Topicality argument ("T"), as well as vagueness abuse and time-suck abuse arguments. Definition: Pro begins by offering two definitions for God: "The creator or all things" and/or "The eternal essence of all things," and then adds "or something to that affect [sic]. "Due to the fact that the entire debate rests on whether or not God has a particular trait or quality (Black), it seems to be extremely important that we have a clear definition of God. The fact is that I cannot perform this debate adequately if the definition of God changes every round, but if the definition of God changes in the _same round_ it makes debating near impossible. I cannot effectively argue that God is or isn't Black from the definitions Pro gave, because my arguments would be different: God "The creator of all things", God "The eternal essence of all things", and God "something to that affect. " The first two definitions basically split this debate into two wholly-different debates, meaning that I only have 5,000 words to devote to each debate instead of my original fair 10,000. Furthermore, the "or something to that affect [effect? ]" means that Pro will be able to change the nature of the debate at any point. All of these problems:1) Make this debate entirely unfair, because any argument I make may be turned around on me by Pro's saying: "That's not God! " I can only debate one topic--debating a multiple or infinite number of possible topics or forcing me to read my opponent's mind gives me a huge disadvantage.2) Make this debate entirely pointless. If neither I, nor the reader, knows what this debate is about, then what is the point of it? If I am unable to debate fairly, then neither we nor our readers learn anything. Furthermore, if no one knows what the debate is about, then we all _definitely_ don't learn anything, because it is impossible to figure out who it is who is black or not black? If it is the case that my opponent set up this debate unfairly or in a way that makes the debate pointless, then s/he loses for several reasons. Firstly, a topicality argument (like mine) is considered _before_ the case (a priori) in most debate styles (NPDA, CEDA, NDT, IPDA, NFA-LD, etc). In these styles, if the first team frames the definitions in a way that makes the debate unfair or hurts its education, then s/he loses automatically. This tradition must continue into debate. org for a number of reasons: 1) To make the website more attractive to collegiate and high school debaters and coaches, and thus improve the website's debate quality 2) To discourage pointless/non-educational debates3) To give judges and debaters a more consistent framework so they can learn consistent styles and skills, instead of trying to guess their judges' preferences each time or giving up.4) To discourage tricking people into unfair debates (I assumed that the subject of this debate would be made clear to me by my opponent once it began).5) To discourage being disrespectful. I wanted to debate, but my opponent made that impossible, and is therefore being rude, disrespectful, and unsporting. I'm not saying that any of the definitions are NECESSARILY bad, but we definitely need to choose ONE, or else this debate is complete nonsense. Pro even ADMITS that this analysis is true, that a definition of God is a requirement for the debate: "First we'll need to define "God". " (bold added)Furthermore, due to my opponent's abusive opening, I've had to spend 4,000 characters whining about fairness instead of talking about what I wanted to talk about: Whether God is Black. This waste of space explaining my opponents' vagueness makes it so that I have less room to make my own arguments, which I what my opponent wants. We cannot allow debaters to use abusive definitions as a strategy for cheating by causing their opponent have less characters available at the beginning of the debate. (An aside for those who like Standards: Pro gives me no ground; s/he gives no brightline (I don't know who is supposed to be Black); s/he gives no fairness; s/he gives no expectability (who could have predicted infinite definitions of God? ); A priori issue. All of stamdards feed into voters of Fairness and Education, and also Respect. ) For all these reasons vote Con. ---In the actual case, Pro is even more inconsistent. Instead of staying with the original 3+ definitions, Pro adds another definition, saying that "God is the totality of everything that was, is, and ever will be. " This is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT definition from the other three, and I'd have to debate it completely seperately. Thus, Pro has made what should be one debate into 4+ debates, which I'm somehow supposed to address at all the same time. Cross apply this link to the loss of fairness, loss of education, loss of character space, increase in vagueness, and the resulting importance of voting for Pro. ---Why God can't be black (for every definition Pro gives). Pro's first definition--"The creator of all things"--is meaningless and regressive, because it proposes that God created herself, rather than having always existed, and of course creating oneself is irrational, and also a pointless definition to make. The second definition: "The eternal essence of all things" is very vague. What is an essence? What makes an essence eternal? How does one know an essence exists? Finally, if "God is the totality of everything that was, is, and will ever be," then Pro would have no case. The fact is, if God were the totality of everything, then God would also embody the space between things (for empty space is of course also a thing that is and was). This means that God embodies all wavelengths to an equal extent--from infrared to white. This means that God cannot be characterized as "Black," because much of God is non-black (for example, the places that shine white light). If we think of God pantheistically, then God exists in the place where there is non-blackness, and also has no particular right to be labeled "Black. "Also, for something to be Black it needs space. Although non-existing things don't absorb light, they also aren't black. For one to recognize "black," it must be embodied in a thing that takes up space. Furthermore, according to Google, black is "of the very darkest color owing to the absence of or complete absorption of light; the opposite of white. " God doesn't _absorb_ light under Pro's definition. God IS light. God EMBODIES light. Furthermore, black is also "the opposite of white. " The definition of "white" is "of the color of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of most wavelengths of visible light. " If God were the opposite of white then God would be the opposite "of the color of milk or fresh snow. " Because God is "the totality of all that is," then God is also the snow, and of course the snow's characteristics (including reflecting most wavelengths). Furthermore, if God is the opposite of white, the God is absent in the situation of "the reflection of most wavelengths of visible light. " God is present in those places according to the definition, and not absent; therefore, God must NOT be "the opposite of white" and thus must NOT be Black. -Next, Black and White are both concepts that humans have created in an attempt to processes and organize visual data. If we are talking about a being that does not use visual data, does not use eyes, then there is not point in distinguishing Black from White. All of these color-concepts are meaningless. Therefore, Pro is in a double-bind. If we understand what "Black" is, then it must be something wrapped up in our conceptual framework, and it can't apply to God who, as a "totality" or a "creator," has no use for the linguistic distinction of "Black. " At the same time, if by "Black" we mean something that supersedes/transcends our understanding of color, then we CAN'T know it or understand it, so for all intents and purposes God is _not_ Black in any meaningful or understandable interpretation of the word. ---Does God exist? The next important point is that Pro gives absolutely no reason to think that God exists. I am confident that the universe exists, and the God that Pro describes doesn't seem to contribute meaningfully to the totality of the universe. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to think that the God Pro describes (at least one of them, anyway) exists. God in this case is a meaningless epiphenomenon, an unneccessary complication. Therefore, the more preferable worldview would be to reject the existence of God rather than accept the existence of God, according to Ockham's Razor. Pro also describes God as "creator of all things. " If Pro meant that God is "the creator of the universe," then there are more problems. Whatever/Whoever the "creator"/cause of the universe was, we can be confident it was long ago. We can also be confident that as time passes, that we are moving further away from God or knowledge of God, and therefore God's Blackness or any other characteristic is becoming rapidly less-knowable. ---Because Pro was unable to provide a consistent definition, I will provide my own, in an attempt to make this unfair and non-educational debate at least a little more bearable. I will also use a dictionary in order to make it an ACTUAL "common definition. "God: "the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe. " (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)The spiritual/mental world that Pro describes does not have a physical presence, and therefore neither absorbs nor reflects light. Furthermore, if God created the universe, She must have at one point _sent out_ light, which means S/He isn't Black. Witnessing would have observed white light from God. Also, God not have had the world before She created it, or else it wouldn't have been created.