God is Black*****

Alright, thanks for Pro for their speedy post. Roadmap: Four off-case arguments (one new), and then straight through case. ---Dropped arguments: Pro has dropped virtually all of my most important arguments. I will show you point-by-point, dear reader, how I have clearly already won this debate. Standards (x5)Ground. Brightline. Fairness. Expectability. A priori issue. All linked to Fairness, Education, and Respect. My opponent dropped these arguments. Extend. Links (x5):First, Pro dropped that s/he used 4+ definitions for God in a single round. Extend it through. Next, Pro dropped my argument that having one definition for God in this debate is vital for intelligent arguments. Extend it through. Next, Pro dropped that changing definitions mid-debate gives me a disadvantage. Extend it on through. Next, Pro dropped that having multiple definitions causes me to have only a fraction of my original space. Extend. Next, Pro dropped that "or something to that affect" means s/he can change the definition of God whenever s/he feels like it. Extend. Voters+linksFairness (x3) Pro dropped that s/he made the debate completely unfair. Pro didn't even both denying it, but only chastised me for caring. Pro dropped that I'm having to debate an "infinite number of possible topics. " Pro dropped that I'm being forced to read Pro's mind. Extend, extend, extend. Education (x5): Pro dropped that education is the point of debate. Pro drops that loss of fairness causes loss of education. Pro drops that the definitions' vagueness caused the debate to be uneducational and pointless. Extend extend extend. Extend also that Pro admitted that having to talk about unfairness hurts the education of the debate. Turn: Pro is to blame for this for _being unfair_ (and not even denying it). Pro dropped that a loss of education merits an immediate, a priori loss. Extend. (*Here, Pro literally drops that s/he deserves to lose this debate*). Here, I explain why Pro must lose, but because s/he didn't even answer, dear reader, you get to choose your favorites from five independent uncontested reasons to choose Con:Reason #1 To make the website more attractive to collegiate and high school debaters and coaches, and thus improve the website's debate quality Reason #2) To discourage pointless/non-educational debatesReason #3) 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. Reason #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). Reason #5) To discourage being disrespectful. I wanted to debate, but my opponent made that impossible, and is therefore being rude, disrespectful, and unsporting. Pro is clearly being abusive by ignoring my arugments, but unfortunately that's not how debates work. Pro also drops that I've wasted most of my space in two rounds having to talk about this unfairness, and that Pro must not be allowed to get away with this (Reason #6). Extend. -For all of these reasons, please vote Pro. -Rebuttals:"Your [Con's] confusion results from your failure to pay attention to my exact words. "I actually quoted Pro's exact words. I see no follow up arguments. "You [Con] accepted the challenge to prove me wrong, not to whine about how "unfair" you think my first round was. "Pro basically concedes my argumnet that having to talk about fairness instead of the issues is a bad thing for debate. This links my earlier arguments 100% to case; because Con caused the debate to be unfair, it meant that we had to waste time talking about fairness instead of having an honest debate. "I simply chose those definitions to ground the debate with flexibility, as all debates are subject to many"Pro's response here links perfectly to my arguments. Pro claims that "flexibility" justified his use of 4+ competing definitions, including one that could mean anything at any time in the debate ("or something to that affect"). I argue that this "flexibility" is the problem: It is good for Pro, because I forced to do over 4x the debates (2500 letters each, minus fairness arguments), whereas Pro's "flexibility" allows her/him to show how any ONE of FOUR of his definitions of God is Black. Furthermore, having multiple definitions for such an important word is unusual for most styles of fomal debate. It is certainly not the case that "all debates are subject to many. ""I've already provided you a template through which God can manifest as both creator and creation based on the laws of condensation from magnetism to electricity to light to ether to gas to liquid and to solid. "Pro hasn't shown why any of these propositions are true, but claimed merely that they are, or that the Quran "back up" her/his words (no citations). I have no reason to suspect that God exists, let alone does all the magnificant things Pro claims. "God is both magnetic (absorbent) and electric (reflective)"Magnants aren't always absorbent, and electricity isn't always reflective. I'm so confused. Pro really needs to cite her/his sources. "But God as a SUPREME representation is Black because logically, God must contain ALL that is in creation before it is created. "That metaphore doesn't even work, and it definitely doesn't literally work. Magnetism is different from lightwaves, and furthermore, God also created the space between the objects, so the best literal and figurative depiction of God from Pro's analysis would be everything that exists in the universe as it is arranged--not all of it collapsed together like a tower of cards. "When all electricity (reflective energy) is retracted, everything is absorbed back into God, whom is Black, who contains all things and its potentials"There are honestly so many things wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin critiquing it. I should think it's obvious that every part of this sentence has nothing to do with the other parts. Pro then goes on to talk about the unfathomability of time without the Sun. That's incorrect. Time is actually a measure of causation, not the sun. As long as there is causation (i. e. God creating the world), then there is time. That still doesn't explain how you propose God created herself. -"But if you need documentation, try the Quran (and every ancient text before it). "Challenge accepted. Ancient textsSurat An-N$3;r - سورة النور24:35--"Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. " (. http://quran.com...)1 John was also written around the same time as the Quran: "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. " (1 John 1:5). Just look at the sheer number of references to Allah being light, reflecting light (opposite of black) and removing night in the Quran in this link: . http://www.qtafsir.com...The Quaran literally says that Allah will guide followers away from darkness and into His Light (Sura Al-Hashr, No. 59, verse 23). In the Torah, in Numbers 6:25, God's face is said to reflect light: "The LORD make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you"Thus, in both the Christian Bible, Hebrew Bible, and Quran, God is said to reflect light (opposite of black), embody light (not absorb), and even (in the Quran) appear white (the opposite of black). Pro's only source for his entire debate is the Quran which, as I clearly showed, is in favor of God/Allah's reflecting light, not absorbing it. Although Pro claims to speak backed by the Quran, I have yet to see evidence of that. However, using the main scriptures of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, I have shown that God reflects light, indicating that Pro is wrong about God. -Metphores: About the metaphoric use of the word black to mean the combination of everything: I could literally make a metaphore about anything. I could suggest that an armchair is an enormous blueberry metaphorically; however, that wouldn't make it true in a debate sense. If all that it took to win a debate is metaphores, then we would all be winners. I could say things like: "No, the United States should metaphorically raise taxes. " Like Pro's case, the example is poetic but offers no sort of argumentation at all. I have shown already that the scriptures indicate that a better metaphore is having God be the giver of light, not the absorber. The Quran seems to indicate that Darkness is a better metaphore for evil than God. Furthermore, it seems like a better view of God would be the giver of everything (reflective), rather than the stealer (black). Even if you buy that Pro can win off of a metaphore, I still win, because Pro's mataphore doesn't work. --More Dropped:*That "creater of all things" is an impossible definition. *That "the eternal essence of all things" is completely useless. *That "the totality of. .. be" shows that God is as much Black as she is literally every else, and therefore shouldn't be described as Black. *That Blackness takes up space, which God doesn't. *That God embodying light isn't absorbing it. *God is present in white, black's opposite. *Without visual organs, "black" is meaningless. *That either black is a human concept that can't apply to God, or a Godly concept we can't understand. *That we can't know even the mystery of God, so we can't know if blackness applies. *That Pro gave no reason that God exists. *That the God Pro describes is pointless. *That the simplest and best explanation is that God doesn't exist.