Ron Paul is a God

I'd love to go down paragraph by paragraph to analyze your response, and I will, but there are five main faults in your entire argument that I must point out first. They are as follows: 1) It is true that I did not define the word "God" in my first round, as you so kindly point out so many times. However, I do stick to your definition after your first definition. It is you who is flopping definitions in and out to help prove your point. Please stick to the definition that seems to be the most central in this debate. 2) Once agreeing upon our central definition of "a supreme being according to some particular conception", we can now see that Ron Paul must be "supreme", in order to be a God. Then looking at all the definitions of "supreme", we then realize that Ron Paul does not fit the criteria on many terms including his chances for becoming elected President of the United States of America. 3) It is true that opinion may add the sum to tip the scale, but what really matters is the base of the grains. By that I mean, if all professional debate were mostly dictated by opinion, then consensus would never be reached, and there would be no point in debating in the first place. Granted, this is not a professional debate, but it still holds true that you must lie on what is given: facts, statistics, evidence, etc. You say this is your first debate so it is decidedly pardonable, but remember this in the future. 4) The term for having many Gods is "polytheism", not "theism". The word "theism" leaves the amount of God(s), ambiguous. To get something so basic in a debate wrong show lack of research on the subject. It is not so that you shouldn't have taken this debate up, but perhaps one should have known what one was talking about. You showed lack of knowledge when it came to the odds Ron Paul, speaking blindly which one should never do, and now again, you get basic vocabulary wrong. This, unlike the above error I pointed out, is not forgivable. You must always know what you are talking about in a debate. Never speak blindly about something you do not know what you're talking about. 5) The title. My intention for this debate was humorously motivated. You know that. I wouldn't have used the 1337 word "pwn" if it weren't. Taking that into consideration, we now see it would have been rather odd for me to use the title, "Ron Paul is God". Would you rather tell your favorite athlete that he/she "is a God", or "is God"? This argument was not thoroughly thought out. I now will seek to analyze your unformatted ramble out. But really, please format your arguments like I do. It leaves a better impression with the audience, and makes it easier for them to read. They already take their time reading it, and yet you won't even give them such a slight courtesy? How rude. First paragraph: This is one of the many times you are changing around the definition of the word "God", while I've stayed true to your original definition. It is quite confusing to read, and to keep track of what different definition you swap in and out. We have come to the sole definition of, "a supreme being according to some particular conception", so please stick with it. Third-Fourth paragraph: So I believe you are know flopping to the Christian God? Okay. Even still, Ron Paul had two mortal parents, not a single godly drop of blood in him. In Jesus' case, he was at least half God, and some would even argue up to full God. I ponder why you would want to flop to the Christian God, even when your point is completely baseless. 0% God, is a lot different from 50+%. Can you show me your math here? Fifth-Sixth paragraph: No, no, no. Jesus was ‘half' mortal. Using Princeton again, we see that there are just two main definitions (and more variations there of). ï¿½ person: a human being ï¿½ subject to death; "mortal beings" Using the first definition, it is obvious that he was only half mortal, and using the second definition, it is obvious that he did die, but that could be explained by his half human side discovered by the first definition. Either way, Jesus was at least half un-mortal, therefore debunking your argument. Seventh-Tenth paragraph: You again seek to swap the definition of the word "God". It is impeccable that we stay with the central definition that we have decided on, and picked by you! I think we've gone over your misuse of tactic here to show your blatant incoherencies. Lets move on. Eleventh paragraph: What l2jperry is doing here is twisting around my words in his favor. This is downright wrong. Consensus has not been reached, and I never said that Ron Paul was supreme. That was part of my whole point! Ron Paul is not a God, because he is not supreme, because the definitions of supreme set up conditions where he would need to be at the highest rank, which he is obviously not, because of my 9% statistic, that my opponent blindly mistook, which he should never do in a debate, leading me on this rampant rant. Phew! Twelfth-Sixteenth paragraph: What my opponent does here, is accomplish three of his repetitive errors all at the same time. Not only does he state the all debate is all opinion, but he also misinterprets the title of this debate, while swapping the definition of the word "God" again! I don't need to go through these repetitive errors again, do I? So that gets me back to be able to have my own arguments. They are summarized as follows: 1) For Ron Paul to be a God, upon our agreed definition, he must be supreme. Looking at the definitions of supreme, Ron Paul must not be supreme. To be supreme he must have be the "top ranked". This is obviously not so. 2) To be a God, he should be able to be on the top of the polls with a finger snap. It is most likely that if he was a God, he would snap his fingers to do so. This only implies that Dr. Ron Paul is not a God. 3) If Ron Paul was a God, he would be "top ranked", and therefore could have easily overturned "Roe vs. Wade". He has not done so either because he is a liar or not a God. I think both l2jperry and I could both agree that he is not a liar. Therefore he must not be a God. This is where the debate has gone so far: ï¿½ My opponent has failed to bring but one argument to the table, clearly defeated by the above. All he has done so far, is just counter my many arguments, which again, by the above, still stand true. ï¿½ I have introduced two more arguments to the table, noting again that my opponent has but one. ï¿½ Both my opponent and I have come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the pwn, which by no means makes him a God.