Datasets:
Tasks:
Text Retrieval
Sub-tasks:
document-retrieval
Languages:
English
Multilinguality:
monolingual
Source Datasets:
touche2020
_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
c67482ba-2019-04-18T13:32:05Z-00000-000 | Contraceptive Forms for High School Students | My opponent forfeited every round. None of my arguments were answered. I don’t like the idea of winning by default, but here we are.Tule: it’s good for students to get involved and address big issues like teen pregnancy. You need to be able to answer arguments like mine and not simply prepare for an abstinence-only type of response. You should also be aware that, in the U.S., condoms may be sold to minors in ANY state. A retailer who says it is illegal to sell you them is, frankly, wrong. |
c67482ba-2019-04-18T13:32:05Z-00001-000 | Contraceptive Forms for High School Students | How do you propose the school will fund your program? Condoms cost money and checking an "opt out" list before handing them out takes time away from staff members whenever they could be doing their actual jobs. Your "opt out" option is only be a token to parental authority and would be easily subverted. If everyone in school except a handful of students had access to free condoms, do you not think those students would simply ask their friends to provide them with condoms? |
c67482ba-2019-04-18T13:32:05Z-00002-000 | Contraceptive Forms for High School Students | Schools have no compelling interest in providing contraceptives to students. The purpose of schools is not to provide healthcare nor to provide any other service except insofar as it relates to the furtherance of education [1,2,3], though I do not contest that individual districts ought to have this option if they so choose. As an educator, I do feel that adequate sexual education is a necessary. [1] tinyurl.com/z786mww[2] tinyurl.com/jafrt2n[3] tinyurl.com/zbkwkz6 |
c67482ba-2019-04-18T13:32:05Z-00003-000 | Contraceptive Forms for High School Students | As a senior at my school. My group and I are focusing on teenage pregnancy; we are determined to have high school districts provide contraceptive forms to students to be safe about sex. This focus isn't for us to encourage to have sex, but if teenagers decide to have sex to please be safe about it. In addition. if parents do not agree to this we want to have an opt out form where their child/children will not be receiving this form. |
4d3d4471-2019-04-18T11:45:01Z-00000-000 | Australia should be a more significant country | The resolution used by Pro *assumes* that Australia isn't already a 'significant' country - however, in actual reality, it is. Firstly we should clarify what significance means: 1.a the state or quality of being significant1.b of consequence or importance==================================To respond directly to Pros argument first:he/she asserts that Australia invented 'amazing things' like 'WiFI, Google Maps, Polymer bank notes, Ultrasound scanners, stainless steel braces and many more things'. Now, if these inventions did come from Australia, then, it can be considered a 'significant country' - as a country which is the home of some of the most universally-used inventions in the 21st century. It would seem that Pro was/is trying to argue that Australia simply deserves more recognition, in which case he/she should proposed that instead of stating that it should be more 'significant' - because the examples that Pro themselves has listed, fully go against that. Instead of affirming the resolution, Pro has negated it. After all, insignificant countries do not invent things such as WiFi or Google Maps. One invention listed by Pro that I will take issue with though is the ultrasound, as this was not invented in Australia. Its first use is thought to have been in Austria, which is a country in Europe. Its technology developed from there. 'The use of ultrasound in medicine began during and shortly after the 2nd World War in various centres around the world. The work of Dr. Karl Theodore Dussik in Austria in 1942 on transmission ultrasound investigation of the brain provides the first published work on medical ultrasonics.' 'Although other workers in the USA, Japan and Europe have also been cited as pioneers, the work of Professor Ian Donald and his colleagues in Glasgow, in the mid 1950s, did much to facilitate the development of practical technology and applications.'[1.] https://www.bmus.org... |
4d3d4471-2019-04-18T11:45:01Z-00001-000 | Australia should be a more significant country | First of all we invented amazing things like WiFi, Google Maps, Polymer bank notes (if you are American and do not know what they are, they are plastic WATERPROOF bills), Ultrasound scanners, stainless steel braces and many more things. Why put us into the shadow if we have made such amazing things the whole world uses nowadays! I bet you have used at the very least ONE thing I put up there unless you are on a Ethernet cable still using those old paper maps wherever you go! There is no point in putting such smart people who made these things in the shadow! Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Oi! Oi! Oi! |
4d3d4471-2019-04-18T11:45:01Z-00002-000 | Australia should be a more significant country | I accept. |
4d3d4471-2019-04-18T11:45:01Z-00003-000 | Australia should be a more significant country | Australia has always been put into the shadow behind countries like America, Canada and even England sometimes, I feel Australia should not be put in the darkness and in this debate I will tell you why. |
fbe6ad2-2019-04-18T11:12:36Z-00000-000 | The closet dementia of the superior ego god complex, The bible and why you should not believe in god | Alright then. |
fbe6ad2-2019-04-18T11:12:36Z-00001-000 | The closet dementia of the superior ego god complex, The bible and why you should not believe in god | Why is it that so-called christians, Because there is no such a thing as a christian, Have serious trouble as READING and COMPREHENDING? Its not that difficult, Nor is it that hard. It was stated unto you a very simple "* "You are asking why God would forgive the murderer. " OK we"re done. You paid absolutely no attention whatsoever to the verses presented and instead went off into your own la la land. " But nah, All you did was babble on and on and on. So in this sense, It was YOU that forfeited. Sheesh! Bye. |
fbe6ad2-2019-04-18T11:12:36Z-00002-000 | The closet dementia of the superior ego god complex, The bible and why you should not believe in god | A forfeit? Alright. Unexpected. |
fbe6ad2-2019-04-18T11:12:36Z-00003-000 | The closet dementia of the superior ego god complex, The bible and why you should not believe in god | * Paragraph 1 is simply you writing 67 words in a row and having none of them relate to the current topic of debate. There was no reason to have that paragraph except to make you appear more intelligent. This is meaningless as your further arguments clarify that you are intelligent and I ask you refrain from attempting this in further debates. I feel no further need to address it. * " Its not YOUR religion. You don"t own it. " this is true. I do not own my religion. However, How would you like me to refer to it as? If I always adressed it as: "The religion that I, As a christian, Believe in, " It would lead to run-on sentences and spotty grammar. "My religion" Is much faster, However I will try to refrain from using that term in the future. If you spot it, Please inform me. * "Why try at all? " You are very well educated and I'm confused that with your knowledge of the bible you do not know the answer to this. All Christians have been commissioned to spread our belief's throughout the world, As can be seen throughout the new testament (ex Matthew 28: 1-20). My question is this: why do you try? For what purpose do you waste your time debating on this website, Trying to convince people you know in advance are set on their beliefs? You have nothing to gain. Even if you convince someone, So what? Their just another person across the globe on a debating website who is now a atheist. I can't see how it affects you at all. *"Which first paragraph? " My apologies. I see now my opening argument was poorly labeled. You were correct in assuming I was referring to Leviticus 14:33-57. I will try in the future to better label my arguments *"Sooooo many problems with that one. 1. First you have to demonstrate, Test and thus prove your god exists in which case nobody has ever done in the entire existence of the human race. 2. Which means there"s no such a thing as any miracles 3. Suppose someone does manage to prove your god then you would have to assert this god exists to the rest of the world with over 33, 000 denominations of Christianity alone. Now I don"t mean to sound insulting, But tee hee! So which denomination of YOUR Christianity is correct? . " I will address this point by point. In that argument, I did not have to prove the existence of God. You had made the argument that if God did exist, He would not tell the Israelites such outlandish things. Since you were working on the basis that God existed, My rebuttal to that argument did not need to prove the existence of God. If these were different circumstances, Yes, I would need to prove the existence of God. This also applies to 2, So I will take this time to address something else. All throughout your debate, You use quotation marks instead of apostrophe's (ex there"s). Please refrain from this in the future. In point number 3, You claim there is "33, 000". I have no clue where you got this absurd number from, As you did not provide a source. I can't even find a hundredth of that many denominations, And so I must believe you pulled that number from thin air. You ask which denomination is correct. To which I answer this. I do not know. As I have said multiple times in advance, I do not have all knowledge. I simply try to do the best I can with what little knowledge I have. * "It really p**ses me off that supposed christians like you who are not christians at all, Because there is no such a thing as being a christian, And you just proved it, Because you nor anyone can possibly pay any attention to YOUR god"s laws that are befitting by your god in your lap. No! You and every other supposed christian has to make up their own rules to what suits them, To how they want, To their needs and desires" I could take potshots at this, Pointing out the poor conduct and the run on sentences. However you have addressed in advance you do not care about conduct despite this being a formal debate. Instead, I ask this question of you. If we "make up their own rules to what suits them" why do we follow such restricting rules? Why would we believe that you shouldn't lust, Or lie, When those things could benefit us? If we made the rules, Why would we make the rules so hard to follow? But if a unfathomable God made the rules, It would only make sense that the standard would be harder, As we are not gods. * "Regardless your god MURDERED 2, 821, 364 in YOUR bible, " Again, You pull out a incredibly specific number (2, 821, 364) with no source. I ask you to back up these numbers in the future. Regardless, I do not believe that there is a verse you can pull up that cannot be justified. You have left two of my earlier points un-rebbuted, Instead choosing to simply rage quit. Regardless, I know in advance that the two us will never come to a agreement. I also know that the likelihood of me winning this debate is slim, As even a idiot could see that you are far better educated and experienced. If you do not want to continue this debate, Simply inform me. As always, I look forward to your response. |
fbe6ad2-2019-04-18T11:12:36Z-00004-000 | The closet dementia of the superior ego god complex, The bible and why you should not believe in god | "Here I am again, " Are you sure its you? You know you could be somebody else pretending to be you. Did you pinch yourself to make sure its you and or put a bullet in your kneecaps to make sure its you? Probably not. So then you don"t know if its you in a flabbergassesed reality of your own making then you have no idea as to what is the outcome of your past being part of your present future. Right? Anyway" "Regardless, I would be a disgrace to my religion"" See right there you fumble. Its not YOUR religion. You don"t own it. And you most certainly don"t own your superior ego god complex in which your joke of a bible is entirely about and nothing else, In which you cannot prove its immoral god even exists as the verses stated in RD1 prove. They are completely laughable at best in which no god of sheer stupidity would even dream about composing. But then again, No god of superior ego god complex would ever, Not for any reason, Dream of using text, Namely your bible as a form of communication, Transmission, Correspondence, Conformity, Publication etc pe-ir-od. "if I did not try" Well see, Why try at all? Why try for a completely immoral character that your god unquestionably is and your bible without a doubt proves this? But only if you"ve read and comprehended the damn thing. Did you do this? "If you consider me non-intelligent (which is unfortunately likely), " No. I consider you to be not knowing any better and defending something that you cannot possibly defend. * "Your first paragraph details how you believe that the bible is man made. " Which first paragraph? 2 Timothy 3:16, Proverbs 30:5, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Rules for this debate, The biggest laugh in the bible? Leviticus 14:33-57? Oh I see, Its NOT the first paragraph in the bible, Its Leviticus 14:33-57 in which is wayyyyyyy down the ladder. Nitpicking am I? No because its very hard to follow you. "However, Allow me to explain how your point is flawed. " Actually its not. No "god" would ---ever--- be stupid enough, With a full octane of nothing but drab to invent such bombastic impressioned imperfect silliness. It really is that simple. So since this is ultimately true, And no supposed laughing toodles "god" would horrifically be flat out ignorant enough to invent that law, Then who and or what did? I get it from your standpoint. It must be a blade of grass, Or a playbore bunny, A you know where area itch that won"t go away, A god from the undergrowth from another planet. Hey, You've got trillions of choices. So why not use them? Sheesh! Oh but wait! There yah go inventing excuses as always because YOU DON"T KNOW ANY BETTER! "If God had simply told the Israelites a practical way to cure leprosy (chemically engineer dapsone), Then it would not be a miracle. " Wow. *zzzzz* many sleepless nights with that one buckey. Yeah my patience wears thin. Sooooo many problems with that one. 1. First you have to demonstrate, Test and thus prove your god exists in which case nobody has ever done in the entire existence of the human race. 2. Which means there"s no such a thing as any miracles 3. Suppose someone does manage to prove your god" then you would have to assert this god exists to the rest of the world with over 33, 000 denominations of christianity alone. Now I don"t mean to sound insulting, But tee hee! So which denomination of YOUR christianity is correct? "However, If God chose the most outlandish set of instructions and the lepers were healed, Then Israel could not deny it was a miracle. " That really is one helluva super duper way way gone from this universe truly whacked out invented excuse. You KNOW how much I truly hate them. Any more of them, Bye bye me in having anything to do with you and this debate will be over. It really p**ses me off that supposed christians like you who are not christians at all, Because there is no such a thing as being a christian, And you just proved it, Because you nor anyone can possibly pay any attention to YOUR god"s laws that are befitting by your god in your lap. No! You and every other supposed christian has to make up their own rules to what suits them, To how they want, To their needs and desires. Its truly ridiculous. * "You are asking why God would forgive the murderer. " OK we"re done. You paid absolutely no attention whatsoever to the verses presented and instead went off into your own la la land. Regardless your god MURDERED 2, 821, 364 in YOUR bible in which included babies, Children and pregnant mothers (abortions) in which you christians perfectly justify, That is IF and it is a MUST IF you believe in YOUR god in which committed numerous genocides for absolutely no reason at all. So have fun in believing in your supermassive contradictory hypocritical unproven god. Yeah its perfectly OK for your god to murder, But not man? But wait, Your god orders man to murder for him? Wow. Bye. Do you want some REAL truth? Simply google it. Google something like "bible verses where god kills babies". |
fbe6ad2-2019-04-18T11:12:36Z-00005-000 | The closet dementia of the superior ego god complex, The bible and why you should not believe in god | Here I am again, Knowing full well that it is likely you will best me. Regardless, I would be a disgrace to my religion if I did not try. I will try to rebut your points. I hope that I meet your criteria, But regardless if I do not I will debate to the best of my abilities. If you consider me non-intelligent (which is unfortunately likely), Please tell me upfront so I may leave the debate as respectively as I can. * Your first paragraph details how you believe that the bible is man made. However, Allow me to explain how your point is flawed. The outlandishness of the law is not proof that the bible is man-made, Quite the opposite. If God had simply told the Israelites a practical way to cure leprosy (chemically engineer dapsone), Then it would not be a miracle. However, If God chose the most outlandish set of instructions and the lepers were healed, Then Israel could not deny it was a miracle. This was needed because Israel had the habit of instantaneously following other gods that allowed them to have no rules or restrictions. * You are asking why God would forgive the murderer. As the old proverb goes, "Blood leads to blood. Violence into more violence. Revenge is just another name for Murder". You also forget that the man who was slain gains eternal riches in the next life. If that muderer continues to do evil, He will receive damnation * One: that verse was a parable. Here is a source explaining it https://www. Biblestudytools. Com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-19-12. Html. Two: even if it was not a parable, We are talking a God that created the laws of physics. Nothing is physically impossible * Here is a source explaining that verse: http://apologeticspress. Org/apcontent. Aspx? Category=6&article=301 *"Why was god such an idiot? Why would god have only sent one Jesus? After all this Christ figure was/ is the most fought after figure in the entire history of the human race! But its god loves conflict, War, Death, Hate, Evil, Bloodshed, Murder, Hate. . . And the "human" baggage emotions this god has freely admitted to. " Jesus was not sent to stop physical war on earth. Jesus was sent to stop the spiritual war that had been raging on since satan's fall. Because the 80 years we live on this earth is a pittance compared to the 1000's on 1000's we live afterwards. As for those who started such wars without cause, They will be damned. Conclusion: I will not claim to have all knowledge. I will not claim to be the smartest in my nation or my religion or even of my family. However, Even a fool such as I know this. The bible, A book that is constantly under fire, Has managed to survive and flourish since 4000 b. C. In between then and now it has been threatened by some of the most powerful men in the world (ex. Adolf Hitler who aimed to burn all religious materials) and has survived. It has stood against the harshest critics including scientists, Philosophers, And historians all of whom failed to find deceisive evidence that the bible was false. And that seems like a miracle too me. Regardless, I thank you for your time |
fbe6ad2-2019-04-18T11:12:36Z-00006-000 | The closet dementia of the superior ego god complex, The bible and why you should not believe in god | 2 Tiimothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, And is profitable for doctrine, For reproof, For correction, For instruction in righteousness:" Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. " Welcome welcome welcome to the silliness absurdities in god and the bible and why you should not believe in god for obvious reasons: Rules for this debate: 1. I will not stand for those who are unintelligent nor those who are uneducated and yet you try to pretend that you are. . . 2. Especially if you try to pretend you know what they are squawking about when you really don"t. 3. If #"s1 and 2 occur, I will either ignore you or I will slam you with original insults of mine that will show you to be the reareth endeth that you truly are. 4. Conduct in the voting stage is to be removed and cannot be voted upon. 5. Disqualified from any voting procedure is dsjpk5. Ok ready - set - GO! * This to me is the biggest laugh in the bible. Reading it its truly hilarious. In no way would any supreme deity -ever- concoct this obvious man made, And what MAN would think this trash heap up, Law up, Put it into effect and expect anybody to believe it AND expect everybody to follow it? I really like the use of a bird for solutions. Does anybody buy this dippy cabbage batbrain obnoxious stuff gunk? Well yeah. If you are uneducated and unintelligent and you believe in god. Leviticus 14:33-57 "And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, Saying, 34 When ye be come into the land of Canaan, Which I give to you for a possession, And I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession; 35 And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, Saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house: 36 Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, Before the priest go into it to see the plague, That all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house: 37 And he shall look on the plague, And, Behold, If the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, Greenish or reddish, Which in sight are lower than the wall; 38 Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, And shut up the house seven days: 39And the priest shall come again the seventh day, And shall look: and, Behold, If the plague be spread in the walls of the house; 40 Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, And they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city: 41 And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, And they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place: 42 And they shall take other stones, And put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, And shall plaister the house. 43 And if the plague come again, And break out in the house, After that he hath taken away the stones, And after he hath scraped the house, And after it is plaistered; 44 Then the priest shall come and look, And, Behold, If the plague be spread in the house, It is a fretting leprosy in the house: it is unclean. 45 And he shall break down the house, The stones of it, And the timber thereof, And all the morter of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place. 46 Moreover he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up shall be unclean until the even. 47 And he that lieth in the house shall wash his clothes; and he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes. 48 And if the priest shall come in, And look upon it, And, Behold, The plague hath not spread in the house, After the house was plaistered: then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, Because the plague is healed. 49 And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, And cedar wood, And scarlet, And hyssop: 50 And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water: 51 And he shall take the cedar wood, And the hyssop, And the scarlet, And the living bird, And dip them in the blood of the slain bird, And in the running water, And sprinkle the house seven times: 52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, And with the running water, And with the living bird, And with the cedar wood, And with the hyssop, And with the scarlet: 53 But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, And make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean. 54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, And scall, 55 And for the leprosy of a garment, And of a house, 56 And for a rising, And for a scab, And for a bright spot: 57 To teach when it is unclean, And when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy. " Yep. People"s limbs falling off while they are waiting for a bird to do unto them magical prowess is such a stroke of utter hypnotic comedic failure that is god and the bible. Only a completely insane man or woman could have made that one up. Yes, Without a doubt god and the bible are clearly man made. * This is how the bible and god investigates a murder. Yes with great envy, This is how our court system should absolutely 100% work in this country! Why not? Thankfully we have intelligence, Dignity and integrity, Unlike god and the bible. Great going with all your smarts and brain activity god. Keep it going! This is a true joke unto itself and why god and the bible cannot possibly be taken seriously. . . . Deuteronomy 21: 1-9 "If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, Lying in the field, And it be not known who hath slain him: 2 Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, And they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3 And it shall be, That the city which is next unto the slain man, Even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, Which hath not been wrought with, And which hath not drawn in the yoke; 4 And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, Which is neither eared nor sown, And shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: 5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, And to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: 6 And all the elders of that city, That are next unto the slain man, Shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: 7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, Neither have our eyes seen it. 8 Be merciful, O LORD, Unto thy people Israel, Whom thou hast redeemed, And lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. 9 So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, When thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD. " Indeed so this is how according to the laws of the bible that how to investigate a murder should that place? Well appoint me as a judge so I can insanely let everybody go! * Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, Which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, Which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, Which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, Let him receive it. " Um yeah um OK well that"s physically impossible and could -never- happen. Duh. Regardless, Its a pretty sick verse. But what can one expect emanating from the sickest book ever written? * Judges 1:19 "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, Because they had chariots of iron. " Wow. God must be that weak. Since this mighty god has no power against the weak chariots of iron, One has to wonder if he has the power to defeat a gamma ray burst should one come this way? Clearly a misprint in the bible or god is man made. * Here's a thinking, Rationalizing, Reasoning, Common sense, Logical question(s) (there are too many to count) in which religion, God and the bible has none: Why was god such an idiot? Why would god have only sent one jesus? After all this christ figure was/ is the most fought after figure in the entire history of the human race! But its god loves conflict, War, Death, Hate, Evil, Bloodshed, Murder, Hate. . . And the "human" baggage emotions this god has freely admitted to. . . Evil, Anger, Vengeance, Rage, Fury, Jealousy etc. Clearly more than one jesus was needed, Required and was necessary to have carried out god"s word to have provided peace, Love, Care and kindness. But let"s be honest here, That"s not what god wanted, Otherwise he would have sent more than one jesus. He would have sent hundreds, Thousands, Millions. They could have all spoken in the same tongue that god would have wanted them to have spoken in. OR HERE"S THE KICKER, HE COULD HAVE DONE IT HIMSELF! But its clear that god didn"t want any of this. God instead wants turmoil and hate, Not peace by any means. Its what keeps god in office and gives him a job. After all what happens if the world happens to live in peace? God would have nothing to do. No one to b**ch at. No one to rule. No one to murder. No one to make war with. For all of those who have answered "Only one jesus was needed", Well you"ve just answered your own question with an answer. Your precious jesus, In which there is absolutely no proof for him having ever existed in the first place as well as god, Is why there is so much hatred in this world. * Summary: The bible is littered with rules and regulations that no god/ supreme deity would -ever- put into play and much less expect people to believe, Much less live by them. Yet the bible is supposed to be perfect in every way. So is god. Clearly both are not. Since this is true, God, The bible and christianity should not in any way be worshiped, Idolized, Bowed down to nor yielded to. |
3e59690a-2019-04-18T16:49:22Z-00003-000 | Composition Contest | Aight, les go. Your theme shall be peace. |
3e59690a-2019-04-18T16:49:22Z-00004-000 | Composition Contest | Time for another one of these! Hardly written any music in a long time so this should be fun. Rules are the same as my first composition battle. http://www.debate.org... Each round, each of us gives a theme for the other one to write a piece of music off (this theme must be something sufficiently general to allow lots of interpretations - it's just a simple way of making sure the music is original, and makes it more fun!) The music should be included as a Youtube video in the round. Up to 2000 characters may also be used to describe the music. Remember that this means con will need to start the debate not by posting music, but by posting a theme. If you have questions about the format, ask before accepting. Each track should be approximately 3 minutes and can be in any style. Remember that you only get 72 hours to compose an original song each round! Voters should assign points based on whose music they thought was better. Good luck to my opponent, and may the best composer win! |
3e59690a-2019-04-18T16:49:22Z-00000-000 | Composition Contest | That was disappointing. Oh well. Vote for me for not forfeiting. :) |
3e59690a-2019-04-18T16:49:22Z-00001-000 | Composition Contest | Not only has my opponent failed to post a round, but he has also failed to give me a new theme. Therefore I cannot post something, sorry. However, because I'm a nice guy, I'll give my opponent one more chance with a 3 day extension. If he could just post his Grand Canyon song in the next round I'll be satisfied. Also, I will need a theme for round 4. Yay for that song above becoming the most liked track on my soundcloud page! :) I hope my opponent will be able to continue the contest. |
3e59690a-2019-04-18T16:49:22Z-00002-000 | Composition Contest | http://www.youtube.com... Thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate and for a fun theme. My opponent's theme is "The Grand Canyon" |
c3e9c4a6-2019-04-18T14:36:11Z-00000-000 | Debates are harder when you are the first one to come up with points | Thanks to PRO for his/her response and for returning to the debate. I will be taking PRO's arguments in the final round into consideration seeing that he has been subject to unfair circumstances. I will start off by addressing PRO's rebuttals against my case and then proceed to argue against his substantives.Defences against PRO's rebuttals D1) Rebuttal 1PRO concedes to the fact that this "might be true", then makes an attempt to rebuke this by saying that he personally finds this very difficult. This is by no means adequate justification that Person A is on the back foot from the very start of a debate. What is difficult for PRO might be easy for another debater due to disparities in knowledge of the topic, debating proficiency and other factors. PRO needs to bring to the table factual and concrete analysis of the nature and roles of Person A and B that is consistent for all debaters, which he has not done so, to prove that Person A does indeed have a more difficult job to fulfill.D2) Rebuttal 2PRO's response to this point does not yield any strength for his stance. He relates the purpose of debate which to convince the opponent with the emphasis that DDO's voting mechanism places on arguments. My point about Person A slacking off was to prove the proportionate nature of difficulty between the two sides of the house, not to disprove the inherent attributes of a debate. Besides, both Person A and B are judged based off of the same voting criteria, thus this does not clash with my case which argues for the conditional equilibrium between the two sides of the house.D3) Rebuttal 3APRO seeks to rebut this by citing his personal experience in flame wars, which manufactures two mistakes. Firstly, this is an anecdotal fallacy [1], in no way is PRO's experience an accurate representation of the reality of flame wars on YouTube. Even if we disregard this, PRO has not proved how flame wars can be classified as a form of debate, as he/she personally admits, hence this argument is not relevant to the motion.D4) Rebuttal 3BPRO states that both sides of the house don't have equal facilities, but leaves this point hanging and does not further this with any reasoning, thus this point is negligible. He/she has also stated that "people rebut original points only" and don't take the initiative to conjure up points of their own. In reference to my previous argument, the specifications for winning a debate do not concern the originality of the arguments. Furthermore, doesn't selectively rebutting points grant a free win for whoever is coming up with said 'original arguments'? How does this correlate with PRO's stance that it is actually harder for the person who has to come up with original arguments (assuming that originality even matters anyway)?D5) Rebuttal 4PRO responds to this by saying that Person A gets less opportunities to rebut and present arguments, and clarifies that this debate actually encompasses Internet debates and that my arguments are less effective under this premise. Under the framework of DDO debate, Person A and B both get the same amount of chances to rebut and present arguments, it is simply a matter of who gets the last say. This is also the case with other styles of debate such as World Schools Style and British Parliamentary. I personally would like to decline PRO's modification of the term 'debate' from formal and structured discussions like DDO to ones found on YouTube. Those are aptly named flame wars and not debates for a reason. As such, I do not wish to see my arguments invalidated just because PRO failed to fulfill his/her burden of clarifying what 'debate' means in the acceptance round.D6) Rebuttal 5BThese points do not contradict each other if you have factored in another portion of my argument, which states that Person A has the advantage of sculpting the debate (i.e. the definitions, scope of debate, additional rules) which compensates for the fact Person A does not have the last say in a debate. Even if we discount this, PRO still has to prove that in ALL cases of a debate, the person who is the first to deliver an argument is NEVER the last one to speak in order to uphold this point, which is not true. In World Schools Style for example, the Proposition/Government (equivalent to PRO on DDO) starts off the debate with their first speaker, but is also the side that concludes the debate with their reply speaker [2].Rebuttals against PRO's substantivesR1) Point 1This argument does not stand for two reasons:1. PRO's argument is entirely based off of the functionings of DDO debate, but forgets that this motion does not only concern DDO debates but 'debates' as a whole. Debates can occur in real life, and one is not given the option of cherrypicking which debates to participate in in real life debates. Once again, I am aware that PRO wishes to amend the purview of the term 'debate' to mean online debates, but I do not approve of this amendment as aforementioned as defining terms should only be conducted in the first round.2. PRO acknowledges that there are cases where Person B cannot preselect which debates to take part in based on the content that Person A has posted in the first round by raising the example of Person A using the first round as an acceptance round. Bear in mind that the motion states that "Debates are harder when you are the first one to come up with points", which, unless per specific explication by PRO, means that PRO will have to justify that debates are ALWAYS more difficult for Person A. By providing the example of the acceptance round scenario, PRO has essentially disproved this him/herself.Even if both of these counterarguments do not stand, PRO's argument is still insufficient in justifying his stance for the reason that Person A is given the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate his/her decision to instigate a debate in much the same way that Person B is given the opportunity to consider accepting a debate or not. More importantly, Person A is entitled to choosing what topic to debate on based on his/her strengths and weaknesses as well as preferences in the same way that Person B can choose which debates to engage in according to their proficiency of the matters discussed in the motion. Furthermore, both sides of the house are unaware of the ability of their opponents to-be as they most likely do not know their opponent in person given that the opponent's profile information is true in the first place. Thus, all factors accounted for, it is not more difficult for Person A simply because Person B is able to decide which debates to participate in.ConclusionTo conclude, I have rebutted all of PRO's points and defended against all of PRO's offenses against my case. I have argued that the conditions are the same as well as the burdens for both sides of the house and justified any inconsistencies between Person A and Person B, thus I have effectively proved that both sides are inherently equal to one another in terms of difficulty, and any further dissimilarities in difficulty can be traced back to the varying competencies between the two debaters.Thank you to PRO for such an interesting debate and all audience members and potential voters for your attention. Vote CON!Sources used[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org... |
c3e9c4a6-2019-04-18T14:36:11Z-00001-000 | Debates are harder when you are the first one to come up with points | Words to Begin the Debate with First off, I apologize for forfeiting the round. I have had some issues with logging in that is now fortunately resolved[1]. I will have to point out that I am only at Grade 8, and have never encountered debates this formal. However, I will try my best to defend my point. Also, my points were targeted to the general internet, not specifically debate.org despite what I said. Sorry for the confusion. Rebuttals Rebuttal 1 “…no evidence that this makes the debate difficult for Person A.” While this might be true, I personally find it very difficult. This might be a personal thing though, and everyone has their opinions, especially over the internet, where lots of people, and naturally, lots of kinds of people are in. Rebuttal 2 “If you are Person A and you wish to slack off and make things easy for yourself and you don't put effort into constructing your case, then you are simultaneously making things equally easy for Person B in terms of fulfilling their role of rebutting your points.” Again, while this might be true, isn’t debates all about convincing people to support either side? More points makes your arguments more convincing, and more valid rebuttals are also more convincing. According to debate.org’s 7 Point System (Source: http://www.debate.org...) “Who made more convincing arguments?” Is Worth the most marks (3). Therefore, even debate.org agrees that making arguments is important. While this might do nothing to support my point, I’d like to point that out. Rebuttal 3a “Firstly, this is a bare assertion fallacy. No evidence has been provided in support of this claim, nor has the argument been extended in the form of any analysis.” I have participated in LOTS of flame wars on YouTube, and other sites. Almost None of them provide original points, or maybe just points that are overused, even insults. As a matter of fact, insults make up the most. (Example: http://bit.ly... (While this might be a bad one, It’s just an example.)) There ARE differences between flame wars and proper debates, however, not everyone is as professional as you. Like me. Some debate like normal flame wars. Again, some. Not many, not all. Rebuttal 3b “Both sides of the house can access the Internet and have the equal facilities and conditions to reference or plagiarize points off of various sites, thus this argument bears no relevance to the motion.” While that is true, I don’t think that they have completely equal facilities. However, this doesn’t matter. I have also pointed out that most people rebut original points only and doesn’t come up with any on the internet. Plus, they never cite any. Rebuttal 4 “Both sides of the house are delegated the same burdens, and are granted the same conditions to fulfill said burden within.” Please Refer to Rebuttal 3b. Plus, Person A gets one less chance to rebut to prove their point, especially since internet debates go on for infinite lengths, like 200 comments. (Example: http://bit.ly... (While this might be a bad one, It’s just an example.)) Again, I apologize for the confusion, but my points were targeted to the general internet, which makes your points less effective. Rebuttal 5 “To counteract this, Person B is granted the privilege of having the 'last say', or in other words, gets the opportunity to definitively conclude the debate in the final round.” While this is very true in Debate.org, it’s not in the internet. Please do not let this point affect your rating towards Con though, It was my fault. Rebuttal 5b (1) “This ensures that whatever analysis or rebuttals they make in the final round will go unanswered and its legitimacy will be entirely in the hands of the voters and/or judges with no influence from Person A.” (2) “A debate, by nature, is therefore fair to both Person A and Person B.” I personally think Point (1) and Point (2) Conflict. I think that the fact that you can’t rebut someone is very unfair, which adds to the unfairness of Person A. Person A loses 2 chances to rebut their Opponent, while Person B loses none. While I do understand that this is a counterargument, I have made more convincing ones in Middle School, that shows that the Counterarguments actually is a benefit, or is worth losing for. This is a debate on debates so I’d like to point that out. Arguments Point 0: Read me first If CON wants to, he can ignore the arguments, and pretend that I haven’t made any new arguments. As I had some account issues, I forfeited against my will, therefore I think it’s unfair to not let me make additional arguments. If CON disagrees however, he can ignore all my points. Point 0b: All my points I made in my Rebuttals Point 1: Everyone can see your arguments, and if they don’t know how to rebut them, they’ll skip While this might be untrue for those who uses Round 1 as an acceptance round, I personally don’t do so. I think it’s a waste rounds which is already not enough, especially since there is no time limit, or a time limit short enough to bother. If one is not confident on what they see on what Person A says, they’ll skip, and think their points thoroughly before coming back and accepting the challenge. If they fail todo so, they’ll simply ignore. If Person B’s arguments is so good they didn’t know what to say, they can’t withdraw, and will have to forfeit their rounds, which makes Person A seem bad, which ADDS to the unfairness. While the same might apply to Person B too, it does less. Plus, Person A doesn’t have an opportunity to pass, while Person B does. Conclusion While I might have not rebutted all points made by Con, I have rebutted most of them. A debate has many unfair places, especially for Person A. Points are shown to everybody before they accept them, Person B gets the final say. I’d like to apologize again for my misleading points. This time, My point targets specifically debate.org. However, that might have a chance to get ignored. -- NOTES -- [1] I do not have proof, so you'll have to trust what I say. No matter on what device, even after entering my correct password, it forwards me to tell me to sign up with google, which I don't need to because I already have an account. Clearing the cookies resolved my issue, but I didn't know how to do so in firefox, until recently. Plus, I didn't even know doing so will resolve my issue, because I seldomly touch them. |
c3e9c4a6-2019-04-18T14:36:11Z-00002-000 | Debates are harder when you are the first one to come up with points | It is a shame that my opponent has forfeited, I hope that all is well for him of late. As such, I will not be posting new arguments in this round and will extend my previous arguments. Please may I remind PRO that no new arguments will be presented in the next round by either side of the house as it is the final round of the debate. On a different note, I forgot to post the link of the webpage I referenced the definition of 'hard' from. Here it is:http://dictionary.reference.com...Thank you. |
c3e9c4a6-2019-04-18T14:36:11Z-00003-000 | Debates are harder when you are the first one to come up with points | May the best debater win! In addition to the content posted in Round 1, PRO also wishes to deliver this argument that he forgot to post in Round 1:All your points are concentrated into one postIn real life, you have limited time on what you can say. However, here you have 10000 characters. I'd say that's enough to squeeze in 10 points. .. Imagine saying 10 points in 3 minutes. That'd be impossible. DEFINITIONSHard: Difficult to do or accomplish; fatiguing; troublesome [1]. BURDEN OF PROOFPRO must prove that debates are harder for those who are the first to deliver their arguments. CON must prove either that debates are easier for those who are the first to deliver their arguments or that debates are equally difficult/easy for both sides of the house. Note: For the sake of efficiency, I will be referring to the person who delivers their arguments first as 'Person A' and his opposition as 'Person B'. REBUTTALSR1) "The one accepting the challenge can just read it and pick out the points you thought and debate on them. .. "There is no evidence that this makes the debate difficult for Person A. How easy it is for the opposition to pick out flaws in your argument is proportionate to how well you fabricate your arguments. So to speak, if you are Person A and you wish to slack off and make things easy for yourself and you don't put effort into constructing your case, then you are simultaneously making things equally easy for Person B in terms of fulfilling their role of rebutting your points. Furthermore, what PRO has not talked about is that picking on the opposition's points and "thinking hard for points to support your view" is a shared burden for both sides of the house. Person B who "can just read it and pick out the points" is also obliged to come up with substantives to uphold his stance, and Person A in turn has the responsibility to rebut those points and establish new arguments, and this continues until the last round. As one can see, both sides of the house have the same onus and hence no side is harder than another in this respect. R2) ". .. people usually don't use original points beyond the opening statement, at least in the Internet. "Firstly, this is a bare assertion fallacy. No evidence has been provided in support of this claim, nor has the argument been extended in the form of any analysis. Thus, we can only go as far as saying that this is an opinionated statement by PRO. Even if we assume this to be true, we don't see how this creates a disparity between Person A and Person B. Both sides of the house can access the Internet and have the equal facilities and conditions to reference or plagiarise points off of various sites, thus this argument bears no relevance to the motion. R3) *please refer to PRO's additional argument at the top*I don't really know what to make of this argument. PRO compares debating on DDO with debating in real life through talking about word limits and time constraints, but does not proceed to make the connection between such a comparison and the difficulty discrepancy between Person A and Person B. As far as DDO is concerned (assuming that this debate is oriented around online debates seeing that PRO talks about the Internet and 'accepting challenges'), both sides of the house are subjected to the same time constraints and word limits, thus this argument is hollow in the scope of this debate. SUBSTANTIVESP1) Same burdens, same conditionsBoth sides of the house are delegated the same burdens, and are granted the same conditions to fulfill said burden within. In the most generic sense, each side of the house must successfully uphold their stance and rebut their opponent's points/rebuttals against their points to win the debate. The specifications for victory are the same, and hence it is not intrinsically more difficult for one side of the house to take the debate. There are, however, some slight differences in terms of what Person A and Person B are required to do in order to meet these specifications. Person A, for instance, has to characterise the problem and justify that it is indeed an issue in the status quo. Some may argue that this gives Person A an advantage because they may shape the debate to be in their favour. To counteract this, Person B is granted the privilege of having the 'last say', or in other words, gets the opportunity to definitively conclude the debate in the final round. This ensures that whatever analysis or rebuttals they make in the final round will go unanswered and its legitimacy will be entirely in the hands of the voters and/or judges with no influence from Person A. CONCLUSIONTo conclude, I have rebutted all of PRO's points thus far and have demonstrated to you that a debate is structured in such a way that it allots the same context for each side of the house to debate within, and assigns the same goals for both sides to accomplish. A debate, by nature, is therefore fair to both Person A and Person B. Thank you and I await PRO's response. |
c3e9c4a6-2019-04-18T14:36:11Z-00004-000 | Debates are harder when you are the first one to come up with points | You have to be originalImagine you debating. You are thinking hard for points to support your view. Well guess what? The one accepting the challenge can just read it and pick out the points you thought and debate on them. Then you debate their debate. Then it goes down that way. As we all know, people usually don't use original points beyond the opening statement, at least in the Internet. |
f25e63e3-2019-04-18T13:24:15Z-00000-000 | Gaming PC's are better then Consoles. | Cheers babe. |
f25e63e3-2019-04-18T13:24:15Z-00001-000 | Gaming PC's are better then Consoles. | Here comes Version 2: http://www.youtube.com... |
f25e63e3-2019-04-18T13:24:15Z-00002-000 | Gaming PC's are better then Consoles. | I accept and shall be letting a semi-famous YouTube Rapper do the arguing on my behalf http://www.youtube.com... |
f25e63e3-2019-04-18T13:24:15Z-00003-000 | Gaming PC's are better then Consoles. | Many say the gaming console is becoming obsolete. That, why game on something that is easily outmatched by a powerful, number crushing machine like a PC? All of this banter is just coming from an angry, blind PC follower, who doesn't seem to realize what has made video games fun in the first place, and that the amount of PC players is dwindling, as opposed to the attractive simplicity of a console. Those who play on a PC can go on for hours about frame rate, pixels, and the raw power of their lovingly-crafted gaming machine that costed around $1500 to purchase. Even though the price is over four times the amount of a gaming console, it's easily worth it due to the beautiful picture being projected from an ACER monitor. And that's great for the ones who are able to throw money around like it grows on a tree, but if you're like me, and enjoy playing online, then maybe a few more problems will arise. With so much customization inside the PC world, there is a lot of variation on the opponents whom you will face inside an online match. Lets say that Player 1 has an incredible gaming system that pushes 128 FPS, and other numbers one couldn't imagine, and they're paired with someone gaming on a $100 chromebook. At this point, it would almost be impossible to find someone else who has a similar PC so the playing field is even. With these differences in gaming machines, lag, and frame drops are inescapable. With a gaming console, you are give the luxury of knowing that whoever is on the other team has the exact same carbon copy machine that you do. And this doesn;t even take into account just how many more people are playing on a console as apposed to a PC. To the average consumer, a console is far more appealing then a gaming PC that requires a larger sum of money. While the people may not be 'hardcore' gamers, they increase populations by a considerable amount. Consoles still rule the living room. Although they'll never admit it, PC gamers secretly loathe the lush community provided by gaming consoles. |
d6517702-2019-04-18T12:36:24Z-00000-000 | Science is the best! | Science is aright I guess, but Physical Education (P.E) is better. Think about it, you could sit in a classroom for and hour learning about molecular reconfiguration, or you could play football with your mates. Why would you want to learn about molecular reconfiguration anyway? I think the argument here would be based on, healthy mind or healthy body. With science being the healthy mind and P.E being the healthy body. To work this one out all you got to do is ask Steven Hawkins. Only 500 words |
d6517702-2019-04-18T12:36:24Z-00001-000 | Science is the best! | Science is the best! |
ede05d3d-2019-04-18T15:09:31Z-00000-000 | is homosexuality actually a sin | Since my opponent has not posted any rebuttal whatsoever, I am thus running unopposed. In addition, @FreedomEagle you do not have the right to shoot whoever you please, also due to the mentality you have shown yourself to possess, you should not be owning an assault rifle. Due to the lack of opposition in this debate, I will restate that as a heterosexual non-denominational Christian I do not reprimand or admonish homosexuality for I do not believe it is a sin. |
ede05d3d-2019-04-18T15:09:31Z-00001-000 | is homosexuality actually a sin | Thank you for concurring with me on this. However, this is not really a debate if both sides are in agreement. |
ede05d3d-2019-04-18T15:09:31Z-00002-000 | is homosexuality actually a sin | Murica, The 2nd amendment states the right to bear arms, and homosexuals have arms therefore homosexuality is not a sin as god gives me the divine right to shoot people who come on my lawn and the divine right to carry my M4 assault rifle. therefore homosexuality is not a sin. In conclusion Merica, Guns, 2nd Amendment,mcdonalds and freedum, i rest my cass, Amen. Unless you are are gay, then it is a sin. ~~FreedomEagle |
ede05d3d-2019-04-18T15:09:31Z-00003-000 | is homosexuality actually a sin | The bible was written long ago when there was not a such a copious amount of scientific research, and as such the people then believed that homosexuality was a choice because there was nothing to prove otherwise. You must know that the holy bible was also written in societal morals, not only religious morals. For example, people back then deemed it permissible to stone a woman who had lost her virginity before marriage. |
9bb25fb0-2019-04-18T16:45:11Z-00000-000 | My Proposal for the Eradication of Extreme Poverty | "You appear to be halfway insulting me and halfway arguing your case." Yeah I have a really, really bad habit of doing that in debates and ive been trying to kick it for a while now.... Unfortunately ive only made minor progress. |
9bb25fb0-2019-04-18T16:45:11Z-00001-000 | My Proposal for the Eradication of Extreme Poverty | You appear to be halfway insulting me and halfway arguing your case. However, your points are all valid. Therefore, I concede victory to you. |
9bb25fb0-2019-04-18T16:45:11Z-00002-000 | My Proposal for the Eradication of Extreme Poverty | 1) Too little time"It can be done one country at a time, over a period of 100 or 200 years."Theres too many countries for that to be an option though.... Over half the countries in the world have to deal with extreme poverty, and if the US and wealthy nations were to focus one country at a time for 20 years like your original plan suggests, then it would only be able to help 5-10 countries. That still leaves a large chunk of the world without any form of aid while still financially criplling the wealthy nations2) The US and other countries don't have enough money:"If done over a long period of time the money needed shouldn't overwhelm the nations doing the giving."Thats EXACTLY what will happen dingus... Youre proposing that wealthy nations dump hundreds of billions of dollars into poor countries every year for 100-200 years, its a fact that such a policy would financially cripple even the wealthiest of nations such as the US3) Dumping Billions into a country doesnt work"We didn't hire the Iraqis and Afghans to rebuild their infrastructure. Not as far as I know, anyway."Yeah we did, thats the only thing we've been doing in both of those countries for the last 8 years. http://www.defense.gov...http://www.nytimes.com...4) The US and wealthy nations cant just overtake poor countries and rebuild them"So a nation doesn't have a right to help another nation on its feet?"Thats not what im saying idiot.... The argument was that the US and other nations cant actually control the money they are giving to the poor nation and that they have to simply trust it to the local government that runs the poor nation.... And that time and time again that has shown to be problematic since poor countries tend to have horrendously inefficient and corrupted governments that would completely screw up handling hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid a year.....5) Many Poor Countries Don't Have a Lot of Farmland:"With today's technology, including fertilizers and stuff like that, I'm sure we could make that land arable."Dude you cant turn a desert into farmland, and even if you could Africa doesnt exactly have a bountiful supply of water to maintain such a farmhttp://thewaterproject.org...6) The Program Relies on Idiotic Assumptions:" I think the program would work, if done properly."But it WONT be done properly because it never HAS been done properly..... Dumping trillions into a country to improve it has shown to not work at all, and youre ignoring that simply because you 'think' that this time it will be different. |
9bb25fb0-2019-04-18T16:45:11Z-00003-000 | My Proposal for the Eradication of Extreme Poverty | 1. Too many countries: It can be done one country at a time, over a period of 100 or 200 years. 2. The US and other countries don't have enough money: If done over a long period of time the money needed shouldn't overwhelm the nations doing the giving. 3. The US already tried that: What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was send soldiers. We didn't hire the Iraqis and Afghans to rebuild their infrastructure. Not as far as I know, anyway. 4. We Have No Right To Do That: So a nation doesn't have a right to help another nation on its feet? 5. Many Poor Countries Don't Have a Lot of Farmland: With today's technology, including fertilizers and stuff like that, I'm sure we could make that land arable. 6. The Program Relies on Idiotic Assumptions: It seems like if they have their own businesses, and if opportunity abounds, the people will indeed learn to support themselves. And we wouldn't simply be giving them aid. We would have them build their own infrastructure, and we'd be paying them. They'd eventually learn to help themselves, even after the US lets go of the strings. Summary: I think the program would work, if done properly. |
9bb25fb0-2019-04-18T16:45:11Z-00004-000 | My Proposal for the Eradication of Extreme Poverty | Reasons why this program wouldnt work in a million years:1) There are simply too many poor countries in the world to dump billions into. Pro's program focuses entirely on Haiti at first, which has less than 0.15% of the global population, and then claims that if it will work in Haiti then it can work in the rest of the world.... The problem is though that the world consists of downtrodden countries that are WAAAAAAAAAY bigger and more populated than Haiti, and improving the wealth of those nations will dwarf the cost it takes to fix up a country as small as Haiti....... Countries like Zimbabwe, India, Somalia, Nigeria, Egypt, etc are all countries of much larger size and much bigger populations that any effort to eliminate extreme poverty in those nations would require trillions to fix over a couple of years.......2) The US and other wealthy nations arent that wealthyThe US isnt this vast source of wealth where it can dump trillions of dollars down the drain in trying to help every dirt poor country in the world become slightly less broke. The US already owes more money than any other nation in the world, and other nations in Europe arent much better off in terms of their debt either.... A proposal like this that calls for all the wealthiest nations to pour trillions into half of the nations in the world that struggle with extreme poverty would simply drive the wealthy nations that much further into debt, perhaps into outright bankruptcy, because those coutnries dont have that much money to burn on other nations. 3) It probably wouldnt even workIn the past ten years alone, the US has poured hundreds of billions, maybe even a couple trillion, dollars into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan in an effort to build up those countries and also to fight the war on terror...... Despite these TRILLION dollar interventions over the course of over a decade now, Iraq and Afghanistan are still two of the most failed nations in the world, and Pakistan is still towards the bottom of the list as well: http://en.wikipedia.org...Dumping trillions of dollars into a country that only averages a couple billion in GDP each year simply doesnt lead to explosive or even modest improvement over the years like your program suggests it would..... In fact the only reason why Iraq and Afghanistan have jumped a few spots is because other nations have gotten even poorer, not because theyve necessarily improved. If pouring TRILLIONS into Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years didnt fix the poverty in those countries, then what in the hell makes you think that pouring billions into other countries for 20 years would have a better effect?4) The US and wealthy nations cant just walk around wherever they want and nation build as they please Despite nations like Haiti and Iraq being poor as hell, they still have governments which have sovereignty in trying to fix their nations. Any donation by the US and wealthy countries to fix up a country therefore goes to the governments that are already there trying to fix the problem, and if I know governments of crappy countries like I think I know them, then chances are they are going to completely blow that money on something else. Nations gripped with poverty correlate very well with nations that have super corrupted governments (Nigeria and North Korea for example). If you are going to dump billions into a country, then what you actually are doing is giving it to the governments in those nations and hoping that they dont misuse it, or even use it inefficiently..... And 10 out of 10 times they WILL screw something up and the money wont go where it is supposed to go. 5) A lot of poor countries dont have arable land. Youre entire program focuses on first setting up infrastructure and building farms..... Well thats a problem for countries that are almost entirely desert and dont have many areas to even build farms in the first place.... Libya, Chad, Algeria, Niger, Somalia, and Mali are all countries where only small percentages of land can be farmed at all. Mali is only listed at 5% of percentage of land that can be farmed, and many other countries arent much better offhttp://www.tradingeconomics.com...Your program focuses heavily on farming to build up the country, but in countries that dont have any land that can be farmed, this program is completely useless and doomed to fail. 6) The program operates on a lot of idiotic assumptions"the people will learn to support themselves without foreign aid. The people will believe in their own ability for the first time in a long time"There literally is no evidence suggesting this will happen at all..... This is just wishful thinking. If the only reason a country is growing is because of stupendous foreign aid, then everyone there will believe that they can only improve their country if they have lots of foreign aid coming in, which is the exact opposite of what you claim they will do. In addition to that, corrupted government officials will also look at foreign aid as the only way they can keep get massive sums of money for their country, which could easily cause them to drag their feet or delay efforts to improve the country just so that they can prolong how much money foreign nations keep giving them. ==================================================================================In summary: The program wont work, similar programs havent worked in the past, wealthy nations arent that wealthy, there are way too many poor nations in thw rodl to dump billions or trillions of dollars into, a lot of poor nations dont have that much arable land, and this is a really dumb program to advocate for....... |
9bb25fb0-2019-04-18T16:45:11Z-00005-000 | My Proposal for the Eradication of Extreme Poverty | The United States turns its attention to a poor nation like Haiti. Then.. The United States spends billions of dollars repairing their infrastructure and setting up useful farms. Here's the catch: they hire the locals to do all this work, on the payroll of the US Government. The workers would be paid in either food, money, or both. Farms will provide food for the nation, and the people will learn to support themselves without foreign aid. The people will believe in their own ability for the first time in a long time. After everyone has food to eat, other professions will be explored, such as office jobs. After twenty years or so the country will be much better off, and then the US can end its program and perhaps do the same thing in another country. I am well aware that this would probably not benefit the United States in any way, but it would be done in the name of eradication of poverty. If all the wealthier nations funded these programs, extreme poverty would be nearly extinct within 100 years. I await a response, from someone who's willing to debate this topic with me. |
f4a9d491-2019-04-18T18:51:26Z-00000-000 | Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound | (See explanation in comments before reading.) Your argument in all of its forms is a proof by contradiction. First, I will address the original. I will only present the relevant lines in order to make it more readable: A - It is possible that a maximally great being exists, so it exists in some possible world. B - If it existed in only some possible worlds, it would not be maximally great, as it would be even greater to exist in ALL possible worlds. C - Therefore, it must exist in all possible worlds. What definition of great must we use to allow us to assert that it would be "greater" to exist in all possible worlds? Throughout the debate, I have proposed two: 1 - "Powerful; posessing the ability to accomplish." 2 - “Of major significance or importance." You presented a third: 3 - "having unusual merit, very admirable." As you can see, the definition we use is crucial in determining the conclusion of your argument, or whether it even flows. If we use the first definition, your maximally great being is not a god, which was the conclusion of your argument, as indicated at the end of the first round. You did not object to this; you merely stated that my definition was inadequate. It is also quite obvious that if we use the second or third definition, statement B is false, as existing in all possible worlds does not make a being greater under those terms. In rounds 2 and 3, you avoid this by stating that you have provided properties that a maximally great being would have. This is entirely meaningless unless we define how we measure greatness. For example, under definition 3, a maximally great being need not have these qualities; it can be admirable AND useless. In round 5, you indicate that great can simulateously mean all of its definitions. For example, it can mean a combination of the above 3. This simply cannot be, for those definitions can interfere. Again, I propose that under definition 2, I am the greatest being. Under definition 1, obviously an omnipotent being would be maximally great. If I were omnipotent, this would be even greater than either of the other two, and thus an omnipotent me would be the maximally great being. If we prove the existence of a maximally great being using those 2 joint definitions, we have just proved the existence of an omnipotent me! This is why we must stick to one definition of the word per argument and/or prioritize them. You attempt to face my request for a definition of "great" for the first time in rounds 3 and 4 by posting a different version of the argument in which you avoid using that word: A - It is possible that a being which is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and necissarily-existing exists, so it exists in some possible world. B - If it exists in some possible worlds, it exists in ALL possible worlds. C - Therefore, it must exist in all possible worlds. I will restate this point: "Any form of argument in which the conclusion may be false given true premises is invalid." Here are your objections to the gods I presented, which you list in round 5: "...Maximal Horribleness does not, in itself, warrant the application of omnipotence and omniscience." If we define "Horrible" as, "Causing fear or dread or terror," a being which is omnipotent would certainly cause more fear than a limited being. You suggest that it would not need to be able to create a universe, but how horrible could it be if it were not able to create things which it could terrify and maim? Omniscience would also enhance the horribleness of the being. Thus, both of these qualities are musts for a maximally horrible being. You do make the claim that maximal horribleness contradicts omnipotence, but you do not back this up. Anticipating spectators' feelings toward this claim, note that this is only true in the case that maximal horribleness implies that some things are not logically possible, such as saving a kitten from a tree. The fact that the maximally horrible being is unwilling to help a kitten from a tree does not mean that it, in principle could not help a kitten from a tree. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that a being which could help the kitten and instead chooses not to is more horrible than a being which simply could not. "There cannot be a MG irritating or competitive being because such a being would necessarily have to rely on things to irritate and things to compete with (as you demonstrate)." I can easily conceive of necessarily-existent beings possessing these qualities. There need not exist things which the maximally irritating being can annoy. There also need not exist a being with which the maximally competitive being can compete. It would be within the power of each of these beings under their omnipotence to create things to irritate with which to compete. Similarly, as per your definition of a maximally great being, such a being would be omnibenevolent. There need not exist a field in which this being can do good works; it can create a field within which it can do good works Unless you want to concede that your argument structure is invalid, you must accept the existence of these beings. Fortunately, no one need accept their existence as the argument structure is demonstrably invalid via the use of another god. I conceived of this god in a rather absurd dream last night: the maximally detectable being. The maximally detectable being would have to be omnipotent to ensure circumstances under which it would be detected. The maximally detectable being would have to be omniscient to ensure it has knowledge of all states of the universe with which it manipulates circumstances via its omnipotence to maximize its detectability. The maximally detectable being is necessarily existing. And finally, the maximally detectable being ensures that the minds it creates would be aware of the presence of the maximally detectable being with 100% certainty. Assume your argument structure is valid. It is possible that a maximally detectable being exists. If your argument structure is valid, the maximally detectable being can be proven to exist using that structure. Therefore, the maximally detectable being must exist. If the maximally detectable being exists, you and I would detect it with 100% certainty. Neither you nor I have detected this being, therefore it does not exist. This proves either that one of your premises is false or that your argument structure is invalid. Some minor points from round 5: [1]: I need not give an argument for a claim I did not make. If you read what I wrote, I said nothing of brains. If an entity does not have a mind, it is not logically possible for it to do things which require a mind. You have not shown it to be the case that mindlessness contradicts omnipotence, because all of the things you claim are logically possible without a brain, which I do not deny, DO require a MIND. Again... the non-conscious entity's omnipotence remains intact. [2]: Note that my statement was in response to another claim you made in round 4: "Sure, an omnipotent thing need not do anything if IT CHOOSES NOT TO. But that entails its ability to choose." The rock is not thinking "I'm not going to do anything today." The rock is simply not choosing to do anything as it cannot choose. The non-conscious entity is not thinking "I'm not going to exercise my limitless power." It is simply not exercising its limitless power because it does not have the ability to do so. If it had that ability, it would contradict its mindlessness, which you never successfully proved to be impossible. [3]: I did concede the existence of a "maximally great being." However, the existence of an utterly useless thing was not your conclusion. Although I conceded the existence of something with the same name as what you arguing for the existence of, it is not the same thing; I have not conceded the debate. |
f4a9d491-2019-04-18T18:51:26Z-00001-000 | Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound | This is a terrible parody. The reason why a MGB under the definition I presented applies to all possible worlds is because a property of a MGB as defined is that the explanation for its existence, if it actually exists, is necessary rather than contingent existence. If you define a MGB as one that is most "tolerable" of spicy food then the premises would not follow from this definition. So by using this example, which is fallacious, and comparing it to the definition I gave, which does lead into the conclusion, you have proven that the definition to which I have appealed is sound. Necessary existence is existence in every logically possible world. Necessity is a property, existence is not. Then, FINALLY, you attempt to deny a premise of the actual argument. The arguments without the word "great" in them are NOT different arguments. They are the same exact arguments I gave in the first post. What you have not refuted is that the word "great" is meaningless since the argument functions by replacing it with "God" and O^3NE the same exact way. Thus, definitions like the ones you gave do not matter when determining the soundess of the argument. "I am currently thinking of a world in which necessary existence is not a property and which is inaccessible via other possible worlds" This shows your ignorance of the modal realm. In no possible world can necessity not be a property. This is true because anything that exists has an explanation of its existence. These explanations are of two sorts: (1) they exist by a necessity of their own nature or (2) they exist by an external cause (contingency). The property of necessity exists in every possible world. These are the two explanations of being. I will address your parodies by addressing the first. My objections will apply to all of them: On Maximal Horribleness: This is bad. "Maximally Horrible Being" just is to say that there exists a being that is omnimalevolent (this is what it means to be maximally horrible). But, Maximal Horribleness does not, in itself, warrant the application of omnipotence and omniscience. Thus, it is impossible for this being to have these properties as well as necessity since "Maximal Horribleness" only entails one of the properties you described: omnimalevolence. On the contrary, a MGB as defined as a "being than which none greater can be conceived (I stated this in round two)" necessarily must have omnipotence etc. since if it did not, one could conceive of a greater being. But a "maximally horrible being" does not have the same application since I can conceive of a Maximally Horrible Being not being omnipotent; that is, I can conceive of a being that is about to inflict horror, but this does not mean that it must have the ability to do all of that which is logically possible (omnipotence). In order to be a Maximally Horrible Being it does not need to be able to create the universe for example. So the argument fails because it actually contradicts omnipotence. Let me just say a word about irritating and competitive: these things are illogical. There cannot be a MG irritating or competitive being because such a being would necessarily have to rely on things to irritate and things to compete with (as you demonstrate). This, it is CONTINGENT on the existence of other things. Hence not necessary. Hence not applicable. So you have not given a successful parody. You then ask to defined Maximal Excellence in the Stanford definition. Ironically, they did that for you, once again. Maximal excellence is an entity which possesses: "omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect." What makes it MG is that it is necessary. "An omnibenevolent being would be just as benevolent if restricted to one possible world." But it could not be restricted to one possible world. It is a contradiction to say a necessary being (exists in all possible worlds) is "restricted to one possible world." "There is no way, at least that you have presented, to get from mindlessness + omnipotence to a contradiction, therefore implying mindedness. The non-conscious entity's omnipotence remains intact." This is hopelessly fallacious. You claim that minds cannot exist without brains. You have made an assertion, you have not given an argument. So I will attempt to anticipate since this is my last chance: all arguments for substance materialism are that we know of no minds that do not depend on the brain. Notice how this is specific to our experience and to homo sapiens. There are no logical inferences that allow one to say that because humans don't have embodied minds, that therefore they are impossible. You have to show that the concept is like a round square, and clearly it is not. Additionally, you are ONCE AGAIN, equivocating on omnipotence: Your claim is that an omnipotent being exists but it cannot be called God since it is not conscious. This is a contradiction. By definition omnipotence is a being's ability to do all things that are logically possible. But we know that consciousness is logically possible. Which means your being is not omnipotent since it does not have consciousness. Which means omnipotence is reliant on consciousness. An unconscious all powerful things cannot have consciousness hence not making it all powerful. You lose here. "A rock need not do anything if it chooses not to." This is just ABSURD. You beg the question here. "A rock need not do anything if it chooses not to." A rock cannot choose! Thus my argument still stands: an omnipotent being must be conscious since by definition it must be able to choose but choice is only possible with consciousness. REASONS TO VOTE FOR ME: 1.Definitions DO NOT matter in terms of taking one word out of MGB an defining it. Remember that I defined such a being as being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent in every possible world AND as "a being than which none greater can be conceived." My opponent has tried to refute it by saying "great" can mean different things. This does not matter since the argument proves the definition I gave as a collective thing: MGB. Moreover, the word "great" is not needed in the argument: 1. It is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and necessarily-existent (O^3NE) being exists. 2. If its possible that an O^3NE being exists, then an O^3NE exists in some possible world 3. If an O^3NE exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world 4. If an O^3NE exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world 5. If an O^3NE exists in the actual world, then it exists 6. Therefore, an O^3NE exists in the actual world 7. Therefore, an O^3NE exists This is the same exact argument as I originally offered. It proves the existence of the same exact being. The argument stands. 2.I proved that the use of individual definitions, which is what he is doing, is fallacious. He has yet to respond to this: "A definition of "GREAT" is "having unusual merit, very admirable." "Of noble character" Well, one of the dozens of definitions of this word encompasses the above. So if individual definitions matter, I guess being all-good is a part of "merit," "admiration" and "nobility." So in order for you to dispute this, you would have to attack even more words. This shows the absurdity in your tactics." 3.My opponent CONCEDED that a MGB exists. He just said it is not "conscious," but that it is omnipotent. This is the reason you should vote for me: he concedes an omnipotent being exists, but an omnipotent being MUST BE CONCIOUSS because if it is not then that necessarily means it cannot do something that can logically be done: perceive, think, choose etc. So my opponent tacitly concedes the entire debate. |
f4a9d491-2019-04-18T18:51:26Z-00002-000 | Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound | Thank you for finally expressing your position on the use of the word "great." I do find it saddening that you have waited until round 4 to do so, but I hope that my points will become clear now that you have done this. You suggest that the argument proves the definition to which you appealed. This is true if and only if your definition allows your argument to be valid. For example, if I define a maximally great being as a being with the highest tolerance for spicy food, it does not logically follow that its existence in a possible world implies its existence in all possible worlds. Until you define the word "great," it is unclear if your argument follows logically. You then present, again, another form of the argument which does not use the word "great." I should first note that this is not the same argument that you were arguing for the validity of. Reminding the voters to keep this in mind, I shall do the extra work of dismantling it anyway: I am currently thinking of a world in which necessary existence is not a property and which is inaccessible via other possible worlds. This is a possible world under your definition. Under your "new" definition of a maximally great being, premise 3 has thus been falsified. Furthermore, in philosophy, validity is determined by truth tables. Any form of argument in which the conclusion may be false given true premises is invalid. I shall now define a few other gods: A maximally horrible being is a being which is omnipotent, omniscient, necessarily-existent, and omnimalevolent A maximally irritating being is a being which is omnipotent, omniscient, necessarily-existent, regularly intervenes in the universe to play practical jokes on people and confuse them, and has an inexplicable love of Miley Cyrus music. A maximally competitive being is a being which is omnipotent, omniscient, necessarily-existent being and which has only one goal: to undo everything the maximally great being does. If the ontological argument were valid to prove the existence of any being you define, it is also valid to prove the existence of any being I define. Unless you concede the existence of those beings which I have defined, the argument structure is invalid. Fortunately, the existence of all of these things is negated by the falsity of premise 3 under their definitions. In response to extension 2, this is what I was countering when I first said that I conceded the existence of a maximally great being if and only if it allowed for the validity of the argument. Any maximally great being which would fit would not be considered God. If you propose to use the definition of a maximally great being that the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses, I then ask you to define "excellence" just as I asked you to define "greatness," and for the same reason. I also bring forth the possible world which is inaccessible via other possible worlds and in which necessary existence is not a property. Thank you for providing a definition of the word "great" which allows your being to be omnibenevolent. Unfortunately, if this is what is meant by "great," premise 3 of your argument is false. An omnibenevolent being would be just as benevolent if restricted to one possible world. Your flaw resides in attempting to combine all definitions of the word "great." This is the nature of the equivocation fallacy. A problem arises when we decide which definition will take priority. For example, if great means "Powerful. Possessing the ability to accomplish," and "of major significance or importance," one of two things is called into question: whether this maximally great being should be considered a god, or the validity of the argument. If the former takes priority, then the same problems I have presented before arise. If the latter takes priority, then I declare that I am greater than God. On the necessity of consciousness, note that I was careful in my wording. I suggested that a disembodied mind may not be logically possible. However, this appears to be distracting you from the main issue. My statement was that a maximally great being need not be conscious, depending on the definition of great. If this being does not have a mind, then it cannot think, reason, etc. However these are things which are logically impossible to do without a mind. There is no way, at least that you have presented, to get from mindlessness + omnipotence to a contradiction, therefore implying mindedness. The non-conscious entity's omnipotence remains intact. Extension 3 is but a reiteration of this point. I have already addressed this. "Sure, an omnipotent thing need not do anything if IT CHOOSES NOT TO. But that entails its ability to choose." This does not follow. A rock need not do anything if it chooses not to. This does not entail an ability to choose. It is possible that the thing simply cannot choose due to a logical impossibility to do so. Remember that omnipotence is not necessarily useful. In response to your final statements, if the word "great" was not required in the beginning, then you should not have used it in your definition. This was a flaw in your own planning. Definitions are best kept specific and exclusive. Your original definition was neither. I will, for the last time, suggest that you present a definition of the word "great" so that your original argument can be valid and your maximally great being will retain the status of "god." You may want to present another argument, but this is not relevant to the validity of your original argument, which you were arguing for. Furthermore, based on my past experience, your original argument is the one which will be the easiest to defend due to its vagueness. It is my recommendation that you focus your next round on it instead. I await your decision. |
f4a9d491-2019-04-18T18:51:26Z-00003-000 | Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound | I am sorry. You are not answering the argument. The argument does not rely on the individual definition of its parts. The definition of a MGB as defined by Alvin Plantinga, who developed this argument, is as was defined by me in round one. You are quibbling about nothing Extension One: Everyone can extend the argument I made in the first rebuttal about how his definitions game was irrelevant. The argument does not rely on the definition of particular words. Rather, the argument proves the definition to which I appealed. I demonstrated this in the following way, an argument to which he did not respond: 1. It is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and necessarily-existent (O^3NE) being exists. 2. If its possible that an O^3NE being exists, then an O^3NE exists in some possible world 3. If an O^3NE exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world 4. If an O^3NE exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world 5. If an O^3NE exists in the actual world, then it exists 6. Therefore, an O^3NE exists in the actual world 7. Therefore, an O^3NE exists See, using "MGB" is not needed; its just three words used to defined a being with the properties mentioned above. The argument functions the same and proves that a being with O^3NE exists. The conclusion follows unless he attacks one of the premises, which he has yet to do. Extension Two: I also proved the above argument by showing that using specifically "MGB" is necessary if I simply replace it with "GOD." God is defined as an omnipotent, all knowing all good and necessary being. Now, working under this definition, the argument still works into the conclusion, PROVING THAT INDIVIDUAL DEFINITIONS ARE IRRELEVANT: 1. It is possible that God (as defined) exists 2. If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world 3. If God exists in some possible world, then He exists in every possible world ....The rest follows. Moreover, the use of individual definitions, I argued, is misleading. There are dozens of definitions of the word "great." None of the encompass the philosophy of religion since, a common dictionary is not a good reference when having discussions like these. First I will offer a collective definition of a MGB from an authority (since I seem to be inadequate) and then use individual definitions to do the exact same ridiculous things hes doing to undermine his positions: From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The "victorious" modal ontological argument of Plantinga (1974) goes roughly as follows: Say that an entity possesses "maximal excellence" if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Say, further, that an entity possesses "maximal greatness" if and only if it possesses maximal excellence in every possible world—that is, if and only if it is necessarily existent and necessarily maximally excellent." It matters not individual definitions, but the collective definition since no matter what you call it, the argument proves that an All knowing, all good, all powerful and necessary being exists. Call it a MGB or not. Call it a sandwich (this would be equivocating but if you define "sandwich" as having these properties, then the argument STILL works and it proves a God in whom you do not believe) But now I will employ reductio ad absurdum to show how your use of definitions is pointless. OMNIBENEVOLENCE: A definition of "GREAT" is "having unusual merit, very admirable." "Of noble character" Well, one of the dozens of definitions of this word encompasses the above. So if individual definitions matter, I guess being all-good is a part of "merit," "admiration" and "nobility." So in order for you to dispute this, you would have to attack even more words. This shows the absurdity in your tactics. You make an unwarranted assertion and finally attack the idea of being all-knowing as "may not be logically possible." That's nice, can you provide an argument? There is no explicit logical incoherence of an unembodied mind; there is therefore a possible world in which these things could exist. They are metaphysically possible. I do not even need to defend dualism-interactionism because you make a devastating concession. Namely, you concede that a MGB exists, but it only has the property of omnipotence. Extension 3: This is devastating. You have not responded to the fact that you are equivocating. Omnipotence means, for the third time, the ability to do all things that are logically possible. If this being is omnipotent and does not have the property of consciousness, and by extension, the ability to think, feel, act in purpose etc., then there are logically possible things it cannot do. Hence, not omnipotent. But you conceded it was omnipotent. Therefore, it follows necessarily that it does have a mind not bound by physicality. You object: You accuse me of improperly using the word "omnipotent." I should point out that existence need not do anything in order to be able to do everything. Taking advantage of omnipotence is not required under the terms of omnipotence. This is demonstrably fallacious: Sure, an omnipotent thing need not do anything if IT CHOOSES NOT TO. But that entails its ability to choose. Sure God does not need to do something, but in order for Him to be omnipotent, He must have the ability to do all of that which is logically possible. If something cannot think, reason, etc. the fact that it does not do this is irrelevant insofar as it cannot do these things, hence it not being omnipotent. Again, equivocation. For the sake of everybody else, I cannot stress how irrelevant his points are to the truth of the argument. You may disagree with the argument, but we can all agree, through the laws of logic and deduction, that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. And he has yet to respond to a single premise. Once again, his entire argument rests on the word "great," having one of many definitions. I will repost: 1. It is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and necessarily-existent (O^3NE) being exists. 2. If its possible that an O^3NE being exists, then an O^3NE exists in some possible world 3. If an O^3NE exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world 4. If an O^3NE exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world 5. If an O^3NE exists in the actual world, then it exists 6. Therefore, an O^3NE exists in the actual world 7. Therefore, an O^3NE exists Notice here how "great" or MGB is nowhere in the argument. Why? Because it is NOT needed, "great" and "MGB" are not necessary for the argument. |
f4a9d491-2019-04-18T18:51:26Z-00004-000 | Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound | Thank you for attempting to clarify this for me. I have indeed understood the argument, and I have spent the past two rounds explaining to you how crucial it is that you define the term "great." Unfortunately, you have still neglected to establish a definition. This is of prime importance in determining either the truth of your premises or the validity of your argument. Please choose a definition for great which can be used to describe God in the way that you desire and also allows your argument to retain its validity. Your other option is to be guilty of an equivocation fallacy. I requested in round 1 that you do this in round 2. I am now asking that you do this in round 4. You have indeed defined a maximally great being... however, you have done so quite poorly. To provide this definition, you have used a word which does not have a certain definition. If we don't know what "great" means, how are we supposed to know if a maximally "great" being is comparable to God? Again, I provide the example in which "great" means “of major significance or importance." In this case, I am greater than God, as I am much more important to myself as I do not believe in God. Am I God? Of course not. I implore you; for the sake of the validity of your argument, provide a definition for the word "great." It's quite impossible for me to continue until you provide me with a sufficient definition. I have already shown your definition of a maximally great being to be faulty under my definition of "great," and you have not contested it under this definition. Extend all arguments until pro provides a valid definition. As for your refutation of my claims about existence... I should warn you not to become too distracted with this. This was after all only a suggestion as to what this maximally great being could be; it is not necessary for me to provide this in order to show your claim for the existence of God to be false. All the same, as I have about 6000 characters left, I shall defend it. At no point did I suggest that existence is a property. I am well aware of the proof of which you speak; however, I suggested existence as an entity, not a property. Existence may not be a predicate, but it certainly can be a subject. Furthermore, in the case of existence itself, a consciousness may not be logically possible as there would be no physical thing to be responsible for this consciousness. Thus, its omnipotence remains intact. You accuse me of imporperly using the word "omnipotent." I should point out that existence need not do anything in order to be able to do everything. Taking advantage of omnipotence is not required under the terms of omnipotence. |
f4a9d491-2019-04-18T18:51:26Z-00005-000 | Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound | I think you are not understanding the argument: I claimed that the definition, on which the Ontological argument relies, of a Maximally Great Being is a being who has the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and existence in every possible world. Now, based on that definition of a MGB, the argument in terms of the syllogism proves that such a being exists. 1. It is possible that a MGB exists (MGB is the definition I gave) If this premise is true, then the rest follows. The argument proves the definition I gave, so in order for you to deny the existence of such a being, you have got to refute one of the premises. Insofar as you have yet to refute any of them, the conclusion follows with necessity. Your use of definitions is dubious and irrelevant. Even if I grant that your definitions of individual words is applicable, all I have to do is change the phrase "MGB" to God. Then the argument still follows so the semantics game is irrelevant: God is the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being He would be omnipotent, omniscient and necessary in every possible world. 1. It is possible that God exists 2. If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world 3. If God exists in some possible world, then He exists in every possible world ... and the rest follows. So your quibbling about the semantics of the individual words of MGB is irrelevant since the conclusion still follows. The entire argument can be extended because the argument, regardless of your definitions, proves that a being that I HAVE DEFINED exists. So in order to win, you have got to reject a specific premise otherwise there is an indictment to which you may have to be subjected: irrationality. The conclusion follows with necessity if the premises are true, and you have yet to refute one of them. is sorry, you are incorrect. The conclusion of the syllogism, which is the argument, is "Therefore, a MGB (as in, a being that is all powerful, all knowing, all good in every possible world) exists." Like I said, MGB in the syllogism is the same as saying "It is possible that an all knowing, all good, all powerful, and necessary being exists in every possible world." MGB is simply to name a being who has all of those properties. I am not equivocating since I established a definition of an entire concept: maximal greatness. The argument functions under the definition I gave in argument one which you have yet to respond. You cannot simply define a word within a concept. The concept is defined as a whole. Remember, the argument functions independent of individual definitions, the argument (as in the syllogism) proves the MGB that I defined, so your quibbling is irrelevant. My argument is NOT based on a disagreement of the definitions you offered. I am sure that generically, that is what those words mean. But I have defined the concept of a maximally great being as a being than which no greater being can be conceived; the greatest conceivable being. The argument, which you have yet to respond, proves THIS definition, which means your arguments are irrelevant. I cannot stress this enough because the argument functions on the definition I provided. This is common knowledge if you look up the literature on the modal ontological argument. My argument from omniscience goes unrefuted. The fact is you CONCEDED omnipotence as a property of a MGB. You contradict yourself completely by saying that a MGB does not have the properties of knowledge, reason, all-knowingness etc. because that means there are things which a MGB cannot do/experience which contradicts omnipotence. Implication: you are equivocating in terms of omnipotence since this means to have the ability to do all of that which is logically possible, which includes being all-knowing. On omnibenvolence: look, even if such a being does not have to be benevolent, this is absolutely irrelevant. The reason is because the argument proves that a being with this property actually exists. Even if it does not have to have this property, so what? The argument proves that it does with the conclusion. "Therefore, a MGB (as I have defined it) exists." On existence: it is paradoxical that you should make this argument. The obsolete version of the Ontological Argument developed by Anselm of Cantebury in 1033 A.D. made the same mistake by considering existence to be a property. Immanuel Kant did away with this argument by proving that existence is not a predicate or a property. This is absurd. Look it up, this has been sufficiently refuted. Moreover, your claim that existence alone is omnipotent is false and is equivocation. Omnipotent, again, means the ability to do that which is logically possible. But an abstract concept that you offer does not have the ability to think, experience personhood, etc. So you are not using the word properly. I think it is clear that the argument stands. To get away from the definition debate, here is why I win: 1. It is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and necessarily-existent (O^3NE) being exists. 2. If its possible that an O^3NE being exists, then an O^3NE exists in some possible world 3. If an O^3NE exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world 4. If an O^3NE exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world 5. If an O^3NE exists in the actual world, then it exists 6. Therefore, an O^3NE exists in the actual world 7. Therefore, an O^3NE exists You have already conceded that the logic with which the argument functions is sound. So the conclusion follows from the premises and I have successfully circumvented your use of individual definitions to prove that a being, as I have defined it, actually exists. Hence, the Ontological Argument is sound As Bertrand Russell remarked "Great God in boots! The Ontological Argument is sound!" |
f4a9d491-2019-04-18T18:51:26Z-00006-000 | Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound | “Right from the start I can make the clear extension of the Ontological Argument I offered. The reason is that even if everything you said is correct, the argument is still true, which means its conclusion is also true.” Unfortunately, your conclusion was not “There is a maximally great being,” but “There is a God,” which you indicate in the final line of the first round. There is indeed a maximally great being; you have no disagreement from me on that count. My disagreement is in that this maximally great being is God or even A god. This statement also encompasses the claim you make in your final paragraph of round 2. “Your use of definitions for specific words are fallacious. My a MGB, supporters of the Ontological Argument do not mean Great to be "powerful" and greatness to be "measure of ability to accomplish."” Unfortunately, without establishing a definition of the word “great,” you are potentially guilty of an equivocation fallacy. Allow me to explain: If we take the word “great” to mean “of major significance or importance,” then your maximally great being is not omnipotent, omniscience, or omnibenevolent. In fact, I declare that a maximally great being would instead be myself. I am much more important to me than an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, because I do not believe such a being exists. Therefore, I can think of a “greater” being than the greatest conceivable being. It is clear you do not accept the definition of “great” to be “Powerful; possessing the ability to accomplish.” I suggest you attempt to establish an alternative definition in the next round to avoid the aforementioned fallacy. You suggest that “[your] definition” is superior at the end of the paragraph I have just referenced. I ask: did you mean the definition of a maximally great being? If this is the case, then I will simply state that your definition can be less restrictive and accomplish the same goal, and is thus, inferior. Indeed, one component is potentially contradictory (provided that you do not sufficiently defend it), which, if shown to be the case, would entirely nullify the usefulness of your definition. Did you mean the definition of “great,” and “greatness”? If this is the case, then I again suggest you attempt to establish these definitions in the next round. I will extend my argument against omniscience as your rebuttal is based upon a disagreement on the meaning of the word “great.” Until you establish an alternative definition, the argument stands. “An omnibenevolent being is also a property of maximal greatness because to not be the greatest possible authority on morality would be inferior to what it means to be maximally great, that is, the greatest conceivable being.” A being need not be benevolent to establish a moral law, should one exist. In fact, an omnipotent, omnimalevolent being would have to establish a moral law in order to defy it. You claim that to be good is greater than to be partially good or all-evil. Indeed, we may prefer a being which is all-good, but if the definition of “greatness” is not established to have a meaning that encompasses morality, this claim holds no weight. Therefore, I again claim that a neutral being would be greater than either as it would have no restriction upon its actions. “Then you claim that existence itself is omnipotent. You have committed the fallacy of equivocation in terms of the word omnipotent. Omnipotent means a things ability to do all logically possible things.” Indeed, existence is responsible for all logically possible things. If existence did not itself exist, then there would not exist anything, including the concepts of those things which are logically possible. By itself existing, existence has put into place all that exists, and an alteration in existence itself could put into existence anything which could possibly exist. “But an abstract concept of a thing that is, on your equivocated definition of omnipotence, void of any ability to perceive or reason or invoke purpose or experience love or experience person hood etc. is by definition not omnipotence.” Again, this disagreement takes place based on your disagreement with my definition of “great.” I will take this opportunity to put further weight on the irrelevance of omniscience until an alternative definition is given. |
f4a9d491-2019-04-18T18:51:26Z-00007-000 | Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound | Thank you for the debate. Right from the start I can make the clear extension of the Ontological Argument I offered. The reason is that even if everything you said is correct, the argument is still true, which means its conclusion is also true. Notice how the definition I offered of a MGB is not part of the argument in terms of the deductive syllogism. This is because the syllogism, if the premises are true, prove the definition of a MGB to which I appealed. That is, if the argument is true then the definition of a MGB I offered is exemplified in a being that actually exists. If you accept that "it is possible that a MGB exists" as in MGB that I defined, then everything follows. So you have not shown how my definition is incoherent. But, naturally, your arguments are vacuous. Your use of definitions for specific words are fallacious. My a MGB, supporters of the Ontological Argument do not mean Great to be "powerful" and greatness to be "measure of ability to accomplish." As I said, taken together, a MGB is a being "than which no greater being can be conceived." If you can think of a greater being, then that would be the MGB. Thus, if the properties of this being to which I have appealed are properties that a MGB should have as a being than which none greater can be conceived, then it follows that my definition is superior. Omniscience: Your argument is demonstrably fallacious. You say: "A maximally great being which can accomplish the same tasks without a consciousness would be just as great as a maximally great being with a consciousness would be." This is false. You already concede that a MGB would have omnipotence. But if a MGB has omnipotence, then it would have to have consciousness. For if it could not experience the ability to perceive and reason and think, then it not only is not a MGB but it is also not omnipotent because there is something that is logically possible that it cannot do; namely, the property of having consciousness. Moreover, if it does not have the ability to be all-knowing then it is not truly a MGB since we can plausibly conceive of a being that is greater; one who does have the property of maximal intelligence and knowledge. So your claim that a MGB is fallacious because by definition, the most perfect conceivable being would have the properties of knowing and reason and consciousness. These things are better to have than not to have, otherwise it is blind about without purpose. An omnibenevolent being is also a property of maximal greatness because to not be the greatest possible authority on morality would be inferior to what it means to be maximally great, that is, the greatest conceivable being. By the very nature of maximal greatness, the nature of such a being would entail the property of being all-good, for to be all good is greater than to be partially good or all-evil. Then you claim that existence itself is omnipotent. You have committed the fallacy of equivocation in terms of the word omnipotent. Omnipotent means a things ability to do all logically possible things. But an abstract concept of a thing that is, on your equivocated definition of omnipotence, void of any ability to perceive or reason or invoke purpose or experience love or experience person hood etc. is by definition not omnipotence. Your view renders this abstraction as a thing that cannot do a multiplicity of things that we would consider a MGB to be able to do. Thus, you completely undermine the definition of omnipotence because your view means there are plausibly things that cannot be done by this being. It is important to note, however, that I win even if everything above is false. You have simply pointed out that a MGB does not have to have certain properties. But you did not show that having those properties is logically incoherent. Since you did not prove that it is logically incoherent, then that means the argument's conclusion follows and therefore a MGB under my definition exists. Since the argument is based on the definition I gave, and the definition I gave is logically possible, then the conclusion is inescapable based on the laws of deduction. Since it is possible that a MGB as defined by me in post 1 is possibly exemplified in a world, then it follows that such a being does exist, even if you are correct and a MGB does not have to have those properties. My argument shows that it does. By the way, references include Alvin Plantinga who developed this modal form. |
f4a9d491-2019-04-18T18:51:26Z-00008-000 | Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound | As a disclaimer, I agree that the ontological argument is a sound argument for a maximally great being. What I will be showing to be faulty is your definition of a maximally great being, and therefore your suggestion that this maximally great being is God. This will become clear in a moment. For the purpose of this argument, I put forth the following as suggestions for definitions of “great” and “greatness”: Great – Powerful; possessing the ability to accomplish. Greatness – A measure of a thing’s ability to accomplish. For this round, I will be operating under these definitions. If you do not agree with these or wish to put forth alternative definitions, please do so in the next round. It is your assertion that a maximally great being would be omniscient. I claim that omniscience is irrelevant to a being’s greatness. Indeed, it is my claim that consciousness is not a quality required of a maximally great being. A maximally great being which can accomplish the same tasks without a consciousness would be just as great as a maximally great being with a consciousness would be. Our human perception suggests that having a mind makes things “better,” but this does not make something more able to accomplish. If a maximally great being were instead a pre-planned set of events dependent upon circumstances, it would not change that being’s ability to set those events into motion. It is also your assertion that a maximally great being would be omnibenevolent. Even if we establish that such a being had a consciousness, it is not required that it do good works. Again, certainly we humans would prefer that it were benevolent. However, an omnibenevolent being is in fact limited in that it cannot perform evil tasks. I propose that a neutral being is in fact greater than either an omnibenevolent or omnimalevolent being as it can freely perform either good or evil tasks, if we were to even establish that such things existed. What we are left with is a being which is omnipotent (that is, it can accomplish anything), and exists in every logically possible world. Existence itself is omnipotent (If it exists in a possible world, then it has been accomplished under the power of existence itself. Not even God is claimed to be able to make logically incoherent things exist.) and must exist in every logically possible world, as for it to be otherwise is a contradiction. Existence itself is a maximally great being. If you wish to worship a non-conscious entity which would as soon destroy you as create you, you are free to do so. However, it is my contention that this is no God at all, but merely a feature of reality. |
f4a9d491-2019-04-18T18:51:26Z-00009-000 | Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound | Framework: In order to show that the Ontological Argument is not sound, the CON must show that one of the premises of the argument is untrue. If all of the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion follows with necessity as it is a deductive argument. Observation One: 'Possible Worlds' are descriptions of reality. They are ways the world could have been but is not actually. For example, fairies do not actually exist, but there is some possible world in which fairies do exist. If something is possible, then it exists in some possible world. Observation Two: A Maximally Great Being (MGB) is a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and that exists in every logically possible world (necessary existence). Since an MGB is a being "than which no greater being can be concieved," it must have the property of necessity since to exist in only some possible worlds would not be maximally great, that is, one can conceive of a greater being; namely one that exists in every world. Observation Three: To say something is possible, that is, something that is logically coherent, is the same as saying that there is some possible world in which this thing does exist. To say that a thing exists in every possible world is to say that that thing exists in the actual world, since out world is a possible world. To say that something, of which the property of necessity is exemplified, exists in some possible world, is the same as saying that it exists in every possible world because to necessarily exist means to exist in every possible world. The Argument: Premise (1): It is possible that a MGB exists Premise (2): If it is possible that a MGB exists, then a MGB exists in some possible world Premise (3): If a MGB exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world Premise (4): If a MGB exists in every possible world, it exists in the actual world Premise (5): If a MGB exists in the actual world, then a MGB exists Conclusion (6): Therefore, a MGB exists in the actual world Conclusion (7): Therefore, a MGB exists Premises 2-7 are uncontroversial. The modal logic with which the argument functions is very well established and both atheistic and theistic philosophers would agree. Thus, the whole argument rests on whether or not the existence of a MGB is possible. Justification for Premise 1: There are two types of possibilities: Metaphysical Possibility and Epistemic Possibility. The former represents things that are actually possible because their properties are not logically incoherent, or there are no logical contradictions. For example, a round square is metaphysically impossible because it is logically incoherent. Having a coin in your pocket is metaphysically possible since there is no logical incoherence about that event. Epistemic possibility is "for all we know, X is true." It is the same as being presented with a difficult math equation and seeing the solution. For all you know it may be true or false. An example would be the coin: For all I know you could have a coin in your pocket. Metaphysical possibility deals with actual possibility, those things which could actually exist because their properties are not logically incoherent. Therefore, if something is logically coherent, then it is metaphysically possible. So, is the concept of a MGB coherent? Well, there seems to be no contradiction within the definition I gave; no incoherence. It seems perfectly plausible that the properties within the definition are logically consistent. Thus, if the definition on which the argument relies is coherent, then it follows that Premise 1 is true and therefore the argument is true. In order for the CON to disprove 1, the concept of a MGB needs to be proven incoherent; like a round square. No such contradiction seems to be evident. Thus, if you think God's existence is even possible, then it follows that God exists. And we therefore have a priori proof for the existence of a MGB, AKA God. |
806480f-2019-04-18T20:02:33Z-00001-000 | We should a limited number of voters or limeted time on www.debate.org | Thanks for your attemopt and yeah you have a good point but i can deal with. I thought of this idea because of the nature of the debate or vote. When you have a debate with someone and there is no time limit for the voting period, it does not make sense because in that case there will not be a clear winner and and you will have to check all the time and at the end, you just give up. your point about the number limit of voters, i just believe if we can just say that the debate will be decided by the forst 20 or 30 numbers of voters or even ten but the problem with that sometimes is if you dont have that number of people voting,you can then decide on who has most people in the voting period. when you say that you have for instance 10 liberal coming first and vote and conservative sometimes coming late, the decision will not be fair. I believe that people should not vote based on their own feelings or opinions. the vote should be based on the arguments made by the debaters and who has better ones. that is how i vote and i believe that is how a debate should be decided. If it is already possible to forfeit a round because somebody could not make it in a frame of time, why not limit the voting period too or numbers of voters. this can be decided by the debaters before starting a debate. You should also know that no all people will vote for each debate. people usually read debate they are interested in and then vote. so even if there is no time limit, lots of people still might not vote. Thanks and have a nice day |
806480f-2019-04-18T20:02:33Z-00002-000 | We should a limited number of voters or limeted time on www.debate.org | I will make an attempt to win this although it is set up extremely lopsided, towards the Pro. Because the website updates the statistics on your w/l record, it is not necessary for them to stop the voting at a certain time, so as to tally the results. By limiting the number of voters, you limit the selection of voters, so, if 10 liberals get to a conservative topic before the conservatives, and there are only 10 votes allowed, it would be unfair to the conservative debater. Also, because there are so few members on the site, and so few actively voting, by limiting the voting time, you limit the number of votes, which I have already stated is not a good thing, some people aren't on here 24/7 but may still want to vote, but if the voting period is up before they get to the topic they can't. |
806480f-2019-04-18T20:02:33Z-00003-000 | We should a limited number of voters or limeted time on www.debate.org | I know most people here including myself are here to learn and dont really mind losing or winning a debate. Instead I wanna learn from others. I just think that during the voting period, we should have a limited numbers of voters or days to decide the winner and the loser. This will make the whole debating thing exciting... because right now it is not limited and you must keep checking all the time to know if there is any change. Thanks |
806480f-2019-04-18T20:02:33Z-00000-000 | We should a limited number of voters or limeted time on www.debate.org | Since you have mainly based your argument on the fact that you want to see who wins or loses, I will go over that first. First of all, the w/l record is constantly updated, so you don't have to go back and look to see if you won or lost constantly, secondly it is not that hard to go to your profile, and look through each of your debates and look at the two numbers above the names. If you are willing to put forth the effort to debate a topic, you should be able to click a few times and read some numbers. You also haven't taken into consideration all the people who cannot be on the website everyday, and will miss out on voting, and each debate needs as many votes as possible, to keep any biases from affecting it, it is just like when the media takes a poll, if they don't poll a wide variety of people, they often end up wrong, for example, the Chicago Tribune stating that Dewey beat Truman in the presidential election... if we only allow a small amount of voters, we may end up with biased votes, especially in very controversial topic such as religion. Also, since the site is still growing, by limiting the time for which a debate can be voted on, we disallow future members from voting on certain topics, and as I have stated, you need a wide variety, and large amount of voters to be accurate. I believe that it is more important for the debate voting to be accurate, than for the debaters to be able to check the win or loss easily, and that there are better options for checking the win loss, if it is in fact really necessary. |
bd7e783e-2019-04-18T16:33:01Z-00007-000 | Cloning | Wouldn"t you feel better about yourself if you knew you could help thousands of people? I hope so. Now there"s cloning going on. I know some of you guys are thinking "Like in books and movies?!" My answer to that is no. You know what cloning is. And if you don"t cloning is when a cell, cell product, or organism is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived. Cloning is important because if you"re in a accident and you lose one of your limbs or organs or a body part, with therapeutic cloning you may be able to get it back. If you"re a victim of heart attack, cloning can help by cloning healthy heart cells and putting it in damaged areas of the heart. Infertile couples can now have kids with cloning. Cloning can help people with disabilities. I strongly believe that cloning should not be banned. |
bd7e783e-2019-04-18T16:33:01Z-00000-000 | Cloning | There aren"t many cons to cloning? How about premature death, high rate of miscarriage, moral issues, very low success rate, and loss of individuality? It seems to me that there are quite a few. I can"t see how you think cloning is a solution for infertile couples. The only couples that would be able to afford it would be the rich and famous. Even if a couple did find enough money, the success rate is simply not high enough to guarantee they leave with a child. "For a recent paper on cloning in Science, Peter Mombaerts Peter Mombaerts , a scientist at Rockefeller University in New York City who clones mice, ran through 4,000 mouse oocytes"he estimates that might be $2,000 worth of mice. Doing the same work in humans, he estimates, could cost $2 million. Scientists will almost certainly use fewer eggs if therapeutic cloning is used on people. But even if it required a mere 100 eggs, taken from ten donors, the cost of simply paying the donors could easily reach $50,000. On top of that, there would be medical costs involved in procuring the egg. Mombaerts believes it could cost more than $1,000 per egg when all is said and done. That means costs to treat one patient could conceivably soar above $100,000." This is according to "Cloning's High Cost." Forbes. Forbes Magazine. Web. 09 Mar. 2014. How many average American citizens do you think actually have the money to pay for something like that? The median income was $51,017 a year, says Hargreaves, Steve. "Poverty Rate 15%, Median Income $51,017." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 09 Mar. 2014. That is barely over half the cost of therapeutic cloning. The way I see it, cloning is highly impractical. Seeing as the cost is high, and the success rate low, very few can afford it. Along with reducing the value of life, cloning shortens the lifespan of the cloned organism. On top of all that, by continuing with cloning we are one step closer to a dystopian-like society where non-clones are frowned upon, and individuality is a crime. I believe cloning will do more harm than good, and this is why I have, and always will, support the con side. |
bd7e783e-2019-04-18T16:33:01Z-00001-000 | Cloning | This is our last time to argue. I hope you think that cloning is good now. There aren"t many cons on cloning. All you can really do with the cons are write more details about them in depth. But for pros there are many. I will happily list some of them." Cloning might produce a greater understanding of the cause of miscarriages, which might lead to a treatment to prevent spontaneous abortions. This would help women who can't bring a fetus to term. It might lead to an understanding of the way a morula (mass of cells developed from a blastula) attaches itself to the uterine wall. This might generate new and successful contraceptives." I got that quote from "The Cloning Debate: Pro Views." ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014." What this quote says is that cloning can help woman who can"t produce a child. Here is another quote. "Easy replacement of internal organs and tissues for patients in need of transplants instead of waiting for suitable organ donors, alive or dead. Since the transplanted organ contains most of the recipient"s genes, there is a lesser chance for rejection as well. Cloning can be a solution to the infertility issue among couples. Theoretically speaking, parents can choose the desirable qualities in their genes to be passed on to their children. Genetic research can immensely benefit from cloning especially in combating the wide range of genetic diseases." This information was from "Surfcrs. "Organ Cloning." Organ Cloning RSS. Organ Cloning, 19 Jan. 2011. Web. 08 Mar. 2014." This quote has 3 pros. 1.There is easy replacement of organs. 2.Cloning is a solution to infertile couples. 3. Research with cloning can help understand diseases. I keep saying this in my paragraphs but cloning can help people with disabilities or people with diseases. If someone in your family had cancer and they thought that with cloning they might discover a cure. Wouldn't"t you be all for it? Cloning is such a useful thing for so many people. I still stand for Pro on cloning. Thank you for reading this. |
bd7e783e-2019-04-18T16:33:01Z-00002-000 | Cloning | In my opinion, the cons of cloning outweigh the pros. So many things can go wrong, and so many eggs are needed to produce a clone, that you have to ask yourself: Is it really worth it? Personally, I would not want therapeutic cloning. I wouldn't want a woman to have to give up her eggs for my needs. Donating eggs for cloning of any type, therapeutic or not, could turn into a negative thing. Women, similar to being used for prostitution, could be forced to sell their eggs for money. There could be a black market for human egg cells. Would you really feel comfortable using a unwillingly given egg? If cloning was done with, this would never have a need to happen. Along with selling human egg cells, the percentage of miscarriages is undeniably high. 90% of all animal cloning pregnancies result in miscarriage. Most of these miscarriages happen later on in the pregnancy, according to The British Fertility Society. To me, never having a baby at all is better than conceiving one, and losing it. Besides, there are hundreds of thousands of children available for adoption in the U.S. alone. |
bd7e783e-2019-04-18T16:33:01Z-00003-000 | Cloning | Cloning is only bad if you make it bad. You see, Cloning can help million and thousands of people. People with disabilities can be helped. I myself do not agree with making a race of perfect individuals. I feel like that is wrong. You are only looking at the negatives of cloning. I only wrote negatives in that paragraph to show others what the negatives can be. So if they later on they found out, they wouldn't"t blame me for not telling them in my paragraph. If people use cloning in such a way, I will strongly disagree with their wrong-doings. Some woman don"t feel like cloning is good because they need to donate one egg cell. The thing is, Us women have a lot of egg cells to spare. Will it really hurt us if we donate one egg cell? And for your comment of "They think that when using an unfertilized egg for any type of cloning you are killing a possible human, a possible child. " Wouldn't"t you think it better for a person to not have lived in the first place, or be killed later on? what if you got an a accident and lost the power to move your leg? And the doctors say " There is a possibility to gain power of your foot once more. But you would need therapeutic cloning." Would your answer be no? Would you really believe so strongly that cloning is that bad that you wouldn't"t try to save yourself in any way? |
bd7e783e-2019-04-18T16:33:01Z-00004-000 | Cloning | If you think cloning should be legal, then why are you contradicting yourself? You are saying that most think it is immoral, and that it goes against religious beliefs. This doesn"t sound like a "pro" side argument to me. Since I am strongly believe that cloning is wrong, a huge issue that I have with it is that it could minimize the value of human life, and we wouldn't be individuals. Human life could be looked upon as something you can perfectly create, and that if your child doesn"t satisfy your needs, you can go out and get another one made, tailored to your specific wants. Also, a caste-like system could re-emerge, putting perfect clones on the top. They would be the "genetically perfected". Smart, and attractive. They would also most likely be rich, since cloning is highly expensive and time consuming. How does that sound to you? A race of beautiful, genius people that are treated better than the average. I can tell you one thing, you wouldn"t like it at all. Naturally made humans may be treated differently than the clones. They are average. You wouldn"t be considered smart, or pretty unless you were a clone. This is one of the possible negative consequences of cloning. Ethics are highly controversial in the case of cloning. Many thing is is wrong for scientists to "play God". Most traditional Christians refer to an embryo as a human being that has a soul. They think it is immoral for scientists to clone to create or destroy embryos, even in the case of research. Around 78.4 percent of America is Christian, according to "Summary of Key Findings." Statistics on Religion in America Report. Web. 03 Mar. 2014. If cloning was legal, nearly 78.4 percent of the U.S.A. would disagree with it. They think that when using an unfertilized egg for any type of cloning you are killing a possible human, a possible child. This doesn"t seem at all moral, to me. |
bd7e783e-2019-04-18T16:33:01Z-00005-000 | Cloning | The risks/cons for cloning are that there is a possibility of faster aging. This is because you are using an older cell to clone. Another risk is that it may reduce the overall value of human life. If you didn"t like your first child, you can try to make the perfect child with cloning. Another con is that there is a reduced sense of individuality. Cloning makes us seem all the same. I got this information from "Pros and Cons of Human Cloning." HealthRF. Health Research Funding.Org, 6 Dec. 2013. Web. 25 Feb. 2014." I posted benefits of cloning in my introduction. I got that information from "Smith, Simon. "The Benefits of Human Cloning." The Benefits of Human Cloning. Human Cloning Foundation, 26 Feb. 1998. Web. 24 Feb. 2014." Ethical issues with cloning are that "religious organizations. They all strongly oppose cloning as according to the religious belief life begins at conception and that life cannot be created artificially but from the unity of a man and female. At the same time, the church together with the other religious organizations argue against therapeutic cloning as well because, as mentioned above, they are guided by the idea that life starts at the conception and once the embryo exists it must be treated as a person, and thus destroying embryos and using them only for the purpose of research is not consistent with the religious view on the issue." That was a quote from "Cloning- Ethical Issues." Ethical Issues Of Cloning. Bioarts.Com. Web. 24 Feb. 2014." People think that life begins at the stage of an egg cell. Because of this , they think that by using an egg cell that we are killing a human being. |
bd7e783e-2019-04-18T16:33:01Z-00006-000 | Cloning | Wouldn"t you feel bad about wasting the possibility of life with an unsuccessful cloning experiment? With the use of embryonic cells, we've been successfully cloning mammals since the mid-1980's, but the possibility of actually creating a clone goes from 0.1% to 3%. This means that for every 1000 attempts, 1 to 30 clones are produced. That is up to 70 eggs wasted. With reproductive cloning, those eggs could have possibly been babies. Do you feel comfortable allowing scientists to take away the possibility of life from an egg? I should hope not. In addition, cloning could take away a sense of individuality, since a clone is the genetically identical twin to the person who provided the genetic material, no matter the age of either person. In my opinion, cloning should not be allowed because it strips a human of individuality, and has a very low success rate. |
a60d2aa5-2019-04-18T17:14:53Z-00000-000 | Russell Hantz Should Have Won Survivor: Samoa | I completely agree, IN A COURT OF LAW, the jury is suppossed to be an unbiased judge of a case. This is why random people are selected to for the jury. But in survivor you have played the whole game with the people that are then voting on your fate. FOr them to be impartial is impossible, and wy would you want them to be. Getting to the end and having the jury want to vote for you is one of the most challenging things in the game of survivor, making it tougher than almost any other reality TV show. So, if the jury deemed that they didn't want Russel to win, then he shouldnt have won. |
a60d2aa5-2019-04-18T17:14:53Z-00001-000 | Russell Hantz Should Have Won Survivor: Samoa | 1. Initially, your argument that Russell lost because of the jury's decision makes some sense. However, we need to consider what a jury is. A jury is supposed to be an unbiased group of people making a decision about another person's fate. The jury should have objectively made a decision as to who played the best game of Survivor. Instead, the jury allowed their personal vendettas against Russell, as he caused many of them to leave the show to come into play. The jury was, thus, bitter, and not awarding based on gameplay. If it did look only at who played the best game, it would have chosen Russell over Natalie (and Mick Trimming, who came in third place). Russell led the alliance back from the 8-4 deficit. Natalie and Mick did not have to do any of the strategizing, instead riding Russell's coattails to the end. They did none of the necessary work, but reaped all of the benefits of Russell's strategy. How is that fair? Also, Russell won more challenges (5) than either Natalie or Mick, both of whom won 3. To sum it up, the point of a jury is to be objective and unbiased, which it was not by voting for Natalie to win.2. Yes, it is possible that the producers made the hidden immunity idols intentionally easy to find. However, that does not mean that Russell had any advantage over the rest of the field in finding them. Everyone else had an equal opportunity to find the hidden immunity idols, but only Russell was able to. When combined with the other ways in which he controlled the game (challenges, leading the alliance, etc.), Russell should have won Survivor: Samoa.3. His early-game sabotage is irrelevant. The fact that he burned socks and emptied water bottles has little to do with the game he played and should not be taken into account by an unbiased jury. Also, other factors, such as the fact that he was already a millionaire are also irrelevant.Russell Hantz should have won Survivor: Samoa. |
a60d2aa5-2019-04-18T17:14:53Z-00002-000 | Russell Hantz Should Have Won Survivor: Samoa | I am not going to deny the Russell Hantz played a good game of Survivor, in fact, it most probably the most manipulative game that the series has ever seen. I also won't argue the point the Russell Hantz 'outwitted and outlasted' his opponents, as this is clearly evident by the fact that he made it to the final three against a huge numbers disadvantage. However the main reason why Russell shouldn't have won Survivor is that he didn't. While this statement may, at first glance, appear to be tautological allow me to explain: There are ultimately two components involved in winning the game of Survivor. The first is to make it to the final three (or two), where the jury votes for the winner, and the second is to be able to win Jury votes once you are there. This aspect of Survivor is what makes it such an intriguing show. The winner is not necessarily the person who has played the best game from an outlasting point of view, but the person who the jury deems is the most deserving recipient of the title of Sole Survivor. The way in which Russell lied, backstabbed sabotaged and manipulated his way into the final 3 fulfilled the first requirement, but made the members of the jury so resentful towards him, that there was no way they would ever vote for him. Ultimately it comes down to the judgement and very often emotions, of these 9 people, and if they do not vote for you, it clearly illustrates that, out of the 3 members remaining, you are not who they believe should win and making the jury believe you should win is what Survivor, in essence, boils down to.Sure he may have found the hidden immunity idols .They weren't really that well hidden, and anyone with the time could have found them. Plus you must not forget that this is a TV show that can be influenced by the producers to enhance ratings. His sabotage of his own tribes campsite at the start of the game illustrates just how conniving he really was, and he certainly won't be the last to lose at the end in this way. |
a60d2aa5-2019-04-18T17:14:53Z-00003-000 | Russell Hantz Should Have Won Survivor: Samoa | I also want to point out that, as Russell Hantz made the Final Tribal Council, this debate solely is about the jury's decision. Yes, the Galu tribe would have been wise to vote Russell out at the merge, when it had a 8-4 numbers advantage. However, Russell was able to turn the tribe against each other, find hidden immunity idols without clues, and convince Shannon "Shambo" Walters to work with his tribe. Also, it is important to note that Survivor is a reality competition show. It is a game that features castaways trying to "outwit, outplay, [and] outlast" each other (the show's slogan). That encourages players to fight at all costs to survive and eliminate their competition. As Russell was on a tribe that lost almost every challenge before the merge, his tribe was at a significant disadvantage going into the merge. However, Russell was a brilliant game player and had a strategy to overcome a numbers disadvantage. On Day 1, he made alliances with several members of his tribe, including eventual winner Natalie White. From there, he would vote off anyone who threatened his game. By the merge, all that remained of his tribe was a close-knit group called the "Foa Foa Four". He then led Survivor's biggest post-merge comeback ever. Even after Galu voted off Erik Cardona, a member many people did not trust, Foa Foa had a 7-4 disadvantage. So, he convinced Shambo to join his alliance and found a hidden immunity idol WITHOUT A CLUE. He then played it at tribal council, negating the 7 votes cast against him (Shambo was trying to feign loyalty to Galu) and sending Kelly Sharbaugh home. Suddenly, a 8-4 disadvantage had turned to a 5-5 split. Russell then convinced John Fincher, fearing the Purple Rock tiebreaker that could eliminate anyone, to vote with Foa Foa and blindside Laura Morett. Now, Foa Foa had a numbers advantage it would take to the end. |
a60d2aa5-2019-04-18T17:14:53Z-00004-000 | Russell Hantz Should Have Won Survivor: Samoa | Bring It OnI would like to point out that since Pro is arguing against the status quo, burden of proof is on them. |
ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00000-000 | Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame | Inducting these below average players would not be representative of one of the most profitable, successful, and enjoyable eras in all of baseball. Yes, in hindsight, it was an unfair advantage, but virtually everyone was doing it. To leave out Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens, and Pettite would be leaving out four of the best players of all time (just to name a few). And most doctors have agreed with the point that PED's have a rather low plateau in terms of improving overall game, and that they act more as a longevity helper. Skill is there, PED help keep it going longer. You can't leave out an entire era of baseball, just because the players did what was inherent of the time; take PED's. |
ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00001-000 | Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame | I am not saying all average players should make it but what about above average players who werent as good as the ones that used steriods? They won't make it because these people used steriods and got a chance at getting ahead of them. How would the players know if steriods didn't effect the quality of their game, theres no evidence to support that claim. You think there going to tell you, yeah it helped my game out a lot, they wouldn't say that. They are lying you, they make a false claim with no evidence to support that claim. They have no evidence it didn't effect their game. Why do you think they call it performance enhancing drugs, key words performance enhancing. Do you understand what performance enhancing means? It means that it improves your game, so them saying it didn't is lies. If steriods didn't enhance each players game play why would they ban it? If it didn't effect their quality of play why would the MLB ban it? |
ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00002-000 | Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame | The Hall of Fame is merely glorifying the biggest money makers/employees of the league. Sure, you can romanticize baseball, but when it comes down to it, it is simply a business. If you let in the all the average players from the 25 year span of steroid prevalence, you are downgrading the overall quality of the Hall. You call it cheating, but there wasn't rules of regulations put in place at the time. It was stupid not to use steroids during this time. Most players will admit that steroids didn't effect the quality of their game, but rather just helped to extend their career. This may create artificially inflated records, but it's not like Clemens, Pettite, Bonds, A-Rod, Conseco, and Martinez wouldn't have been great players without them. Cheating comes from breaking the rules. No rules = no cheating. Hindsight is 20/20 but you can't penalize people for doing what everyone else was doing. So, should we induct Darrell Strawberry into the hall for being average? No. |
ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00003-000 | Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame | No, they cheated therefore they shouldn't make the hall of fame. It doesn't matter if a lot of players did it. They cheated therefore they should be penalized. The people who make the Hall of Fame should be in there because of their honor to the game, not for cheating and deceiving people so they can have a physical advantage. You said that there are many "incredible players" in the Mitchell Report. Don't you think maybe they were so incredible because they used steriods and performance enhancing drugs? If they didn't use them they wouldn't be as good as the stats show. I understand players are out there to get theirs and get as much money as they can, but what about the true players of the game who aren't using these performing enhancing drugs. They did the right thing and won't make the hall of fame because they might have decent numbers over their career but the ones who used performance enhancing drugs had better stats than them because they cheated. |
ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00004-000 | Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame | Well, we meet again. If we were to prevent MLB players from entering the Hall of Fame because they used steroids; nearly every All-Star from 1980 to early 2000's would be ineligible. Take a look at the Mitchell Report, and you will find a list of incredible players which is far too long to list on here, who would all be banned from baseball's greatest honor. Steroids were just as part of the game during the 80's and 90's as Peanuts and Cracker Jacks. It was an era of steroids. If you weren't using them, then you were considered abnormal. You cannot fault an entire generation of players for just being a product of the times. I agree that records, such as the HR record broken by Bonds, should have an asterisk with them, but this should not be the case with the Hall of Fame. If we were to do what you propose, then from 1980 to 2000 there would be about 5 people in the Hall. |
ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00005-000 | Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame | Any athlete who uses performance enhancing drugs and has a good career should not be able to make the hall of fame. This includes Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, and all the other players that used them. I believe that if you use these you are getting an advantage that everyone else isn't. They didn't hit all these home runs off of there pure talent and skills, they needed a booster to get where they are and they cheated. They should never be able to be among the Hall of Fame electors like Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron who did it with out performance enhancing drugs. |
7eec18b5-2019-04-18T17:32:15Z-00000-000 | Islam is a religion of peace | lol well I addressed 1 yes but I think these points can also be applied to 2 and 3., let's see. For 2, Religious minorities have not "flourished" under Islam. In fact, they have dwindled to mere shadows after centuries of persecution and discrimination. Some were converted from their native religion by brute force, others under the agonizing strain of dhimmitude. What Muslims call "tolerance," others correctly identify as institutionalized discrimination. The consignment of Jews and Christians to dhimmis under Islamic rule means that they are not allowed the same religious rights and freedoms as Muslims. They cannot share their faith, for example, or build houses of worship without permission. Historically, dhimmis have often had to wear distinguishing clothing or cut their hair in a particular manner that indicates their position of inferiority and humiliation. They do not share the same legal rights as Muslims, and must even pay a poll tax (the jizya). They are to be killed or have their children taken from them if they cannot satisfy the tax collector"s requirements. For hundreds of years, the Christian population in occupied Europe had their sons taken away and forcibly converted into Muslim warriors (known as Jannisaries) by the Ottoman Turks. It is under this burden of discrimination and third-class status that so many religious minorities converted to Islam over the centuries. Those who didn"t often faced economic and social hardships that persist to this day and are appalling by Western standards of true religious tolerance and pluralism. For those who are not "the People of the Book," such as Hindus and atheists, there is very little tolerance to be found once Islam establishes political superiority. The Quran tells Muslims to "fight in the way of Allah" until "religion is only for Allah." The conquered populations face death if they do not establish regular prayer and charity in the Islamic tradition (ie. the pillars of Islam). Tamerlane and other Muslim warriors slaughtered tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists, and displaced or forcibly converted millions more over the last thousand years. Islamists in Somalia behead Christians. In Iran, they are jailed. One of the great ironies of Islam is that non-Muslims are to be treated according to the very standards by which Muslims themselves would claim the right to violent self-defense were the shoe on the other foot. Islam is its own justification. Most Muslims therefore feel no need to explain the ingrained arrogance and double standard. There are about 500 verses in the Quran that speak of Allah"s hatred for non-Muslims and the punishment that he has prepared for their unbelief. There is also a tiny handful that say otherwise, but these are mostly earlier verses that many scholars consider to be abrogated by the later, more violent ones. As for Sura 109, any true Quran scholar will point out that the purpose of the verse was to distinguish Islam from the gods of the Quraysh (one of which was named "Allah") rather than to advocate religious tolerance for non-Muslims. At the time that he narrated this very early verse, Muhammad did not have any power, and thus no choice but to be "tolerant" of others. By contrast, there was no true tolerance shown when he returned to Mecca with power many years later and demanded the eviction or death of anyone who would not convert to Islam. In fact, he physically destroyed the cherished idols of the people to whom he had previously addressed in Sura 109. If tolerance simply means discouraging the mass slaughter of those of a different faith, then today's Islam generally meets this standard more often than not. But, if tolerance means allowing people of other faiths the same religious liberties that Muslims enjoy, then Islam is fundamentally the most intolerant religion under the sun. For 3, There is not the least bit of intolerance for slavery anywhere in the Quran. In fact, the "holy" book of Islam explicitly gives slave-owners the freedom to sexually exploit their slaves " not just in one place, but in at least four separate Suras. Islamic law is littered with rules concerning the treatment of slaves, some of which are relatively humane, but none that prohibit the actual practice by any stretch. Vote for me!!! |
7eec18b5-2019-04-18T17:32:15Z-00001-000 | Islam is a religion of peace | There are some facts to what you said but most is speculation. However, you failed to address my other two points, and so the debate is won by default. 2. Religious minorities have flourished under Islam. Muslims are commanded to protect Jews and Christians (the People of the Book) and do them no harm. The Quran says in Sura 109, "To you, your religion. To me, mine." 3. Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist. |
7eec18b5-2019-04-18T17:32:15Z-00002-000 | Islam is a religion of peace | There shouldn't be any argument over who the "true Muslim" is because the Quran clearly distinguishes the true Muslim from the pretender in Sura 9 and elsewhere. According to this - one of the last chapters of the Quran - the true believer "strives and fights with their wealth and persons" while the hypocrites are those who "sit at home," refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands. In truth, Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not yet part of his growing empire. After Muhammad"s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way. Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim. Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence. The prophet of Islam's most faithful followers and even his own family soon turned on each other as well. There were four caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years, each of which was a trusted companion of his. Three of these four were murdered. The third caliph was murdered by those allied with the son of the first caliph. The fourth caliph was murdered in the midst of a conflict with the fifth caliph, who began a 100-year dynasty of excess and debauchery that was brought to an end in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad"s uncle (who was not even a Muslim). Muhammad"s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated by Muslim rivals. Their son (Muhammad"s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today"s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam expanded. Muslim apologists, who like to say that is impossible for today's terrorists to be Muslim when they kill fellow Muslims, would have a very tough time explaining the war between Fatima's followers and Aisha to a knowledgeable audience. Muhammad explicitly held up both his favorite daughter and his favorite wife as model Muslim women, yet they were invoked respectively by each side in the violent civil war that followed his death. Which one was the prophet of God so horribly wrong about? Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword. Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death - pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists. By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by sword, from Syria to Spain, and across North Africa. Millions of Christians were enslaved by Muslims, and tens of millions of Africans. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory). To this day, the Muslim world has never apologized for the victims of Jihad and slavery. There is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of God as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Quran most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad"s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit. In the absence of true infidels, they will even turn on each other. The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith, as well as the aforementioned "hypocrites" (Muslims who don't act like Muslims). In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates, the Quran travels the exact opposite path (violence is first forbidden, then permitted, then mandatory). The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Quranic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation. From the history of the faith to its most sacred writings, those who want to believe in "peaceful Islam" have a lot more to ignore than do the terrorists. By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known. In Islam there is no peace unless Muslims have power - and even then... |
7eec18b5-2019-04-18T17:32:15Z-00003-000 | Islam is a religion of peace | 1. Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense, and only when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively. 2. Religious minorities have flourished under Islam. Muslims are commanded to protect Jews and Christians (the People of the Book) and do them no harm. The Quran says in Sura 109, "To you, your religion. To me, mine." 3. Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist. |
780578ff-2019-04-18T13:30:33Z-00001-000 | The Universe Was Created By God | *Round 3 Rebuttals*Pro goes KCA:"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."My response:First off, that's a bare assertion, and quantum mechanics would disagree.https://profmattstrassler.com...Now, my favorite argument for god is in fact this one, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, because it was an attempt to take the infinite regress problem of "everything that exists has a cause" and change it so that god is exempt from the "if it exists, it has a cause" rule; this is a form of special pleading.http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...Before the Kalam argument, was the original cosmological argument that asserted that "everything that exists has a cause." This turns into an infinite regress, because if god exists, according to the assertion, then god must have a cause, and god's cause must have a cause, and god's cause's causes's cause must have a cause etc...So, the Kalam takes an infinitive verb phrase "to begin to exist," applies it to "everything that exists has a cause," and changes the assertion to "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause," which exempts god from being caused, because, thanks to special pleading, he's always existed and never BEGINS TO exist.This argument is two-fold fallacious.A. It uses circular reasoning, or it begs the question.B. It special pleads god's exemption.A. By saying that things "begin to exist," you automatically create a set of "things that don't begin to exist" and a set of "things that do begin to exist." The problem is that the set of "things that don't begin to exist" ends up only having one thing in it, god, which makes separating "begin to exist things" and "not beginning to exist things" a way to smuggle in god's presumed exemption in the conclusion.The assertion that a thing, god, didn't begin to exist in the premise is simply repeated by saying that god is the only member of the "didn't begin to exist" set in the conclusion, which is begging the question or circular reasoning.http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...B. By asserting that everything began to exist, except for god, you are special pleading god's exemption to the assumed rule. Without an explanation of how god should be considered exempt from the category, exempting him is special pleading, thus it is flawed logic and we can reject the conclusions from such.Pro, other than bare assertions, like "god is uncaused," how is god exempt from the beginning to exist rule that you openly endorse?Pro, could you explain the mechanism by which god accomplishes this exemption?If you can't, then how do you know that this exemption has occurred?Pro continues:"The beginning of time/space began to exist or be put into motion, thus there must be a cause."My response:Much like the process of creation, causation is also temporal.This means that time could not have been caused, because causation itself requires time.It's like saying, "time began to exist as the result of a time event that occurred BEFORE the existence of time."The temporal contradictions of creation and causation at [+0,-0] have not been addressed by Pro.Pro baldly asserts again:"God is a self existing being who was not caused, thus needs no answer for a cause because He is uncaused."My response:Aside from this egregious tautology, Pro simply asserts that god was uncaused and provides no explanation as to how this is the case.I could just as easily assert that flagoiganberries are self existing beings, uncaused, and need no answer, and I would have accomplished the same level of demonstration that Pro has with his asserted god.Pro tried to draw a similarity between designed-by-human computers and the universe.I pointed out that if Pro is going to say that the universe was designed, which I also reject, like computers, then the universe, like computers, was designed by a natural, not supernatural, intelligence.Pro responds:"To be clear, this is a synonymous way of saying "humans created every computer we know of, not God."My response:No, it's another way of pointing out that your "universe is like a computer" analogy doesn't support a supernatural entity like your proposed god.Instead, your analogy shows that natural designs come from natural agents, so if the natural universe was designed, your analogy would indicate that a natural entity was responsible; this is not indicative of a supernatural designer, the type of designer Pro is attempting to affirm.Pro continues:"Computer codes and mediums do not just magically pop into existance."My response:Yeah, natural entities are responsible for these computer codes, hence why computer codes are not "magical."Pro furthers:"[Something magically popping into existence is] synonymous with saying Call of Duty 4 and its Construct randomly happened."My response:Well, again, all of the examples EVER of video games have been shown to be designed by a natural entity, but we only have one example of the universe, and it has not been shown to be designed...the absurdity of the random video game manifestation contradicts the many examples of designed video games and is therefore nontransferable to the universe which has no standard examples with which to compare.Pro retorts:"Con has...declared that there once was no time...time "became" at some point...since Con states there was no time to have a creation event, he is ceding that there could be no start event in the first place, which is illogical, seeing that we do exist."My response:Ah, Pro addressed it finally.Creation and origin are not the same thing.creation - the process of bringing something into existence.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...origin - the point where something begins.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Time therefore had an origin, a POINT called the big bang, yet it did not experience a PROCESS of being created; that process must occur over time and at [+0,-0] there was no stative time or the passage thereof.So, it's NOT illogical to concede an origin, but not a creation.Creation is a series of events and an origin is a point; the terms are different.Pro stays adamant:"Time and space placed in motion in the first place had a cause."My response:Again, this is like saying, "Time was placed in motion in the first place by a time-based action."How can a cause, a thing occurring over time, happen without time?Pro adds:"Without God, time and space never roll into motion...it would take a tremendous amount of energy to put time and space into motion. Where did the energy come from?"My response:I guess Pro ignored all of my round 2...oh well, here it is in a different way.Quantum fluctuations are what nothing is, and this nothing is unstable; nothing cannot remain, so something, energy, is guaranteed.At [+0,-0], spacetime fluctuated in and out of existence with the other fluctuating variables in quantum fluctuations, but once matter became stative [+1,-1], so did space.At this point [+1,-1], space was as small as a virtual sub nuclear particle, so the proportion of stative energy from QF to such small space was massive...so massive that it drove the inflation of space.http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...Pro reasons:"If we are to believe an energy force put it all into motion, without time, how could this be? Con himself has stated that no creation event could happen without static time. The same applies to whatever his theoretical cause is."My response:Did you look at my 2nd round, Pro?All of the answers are there and sourced.But to save you the scroll...Right, at [+0,-0], unstable quantum fluctuations have space, time, matter, and energy fluctuating in and out of existence such that there is no stative time or the passage thereof, thus no temporal concepts like creation/causation occur.But at [+0,-0], once a virtual sub nuclear particle avoids annihilation from its antiparticle, which is the inherent instability of QF, matter, energy, space and time are then stative [+1,-1] and this is the origin of the universe; it's an origin, not a creation.Stative space at this point is so small that any stative energy is proportionally quite powerful-->inflation.Pro ignores my round 2 some more:"Con must rebuttle by claiming some sort of cause that put time and space into motion in the first place. No matter what that answer is it is unknowable even from the atheistic viewpoint."My response:Though it's not a cause, time and space in the first place is not only knowable, it's been demonstrated by the WMAP from NASA.[+0,-0] Quantum Fluctuations-->[+1,-1] Big Bang.Here's the model again: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...Pro gets bold:"If Con gives a theoretical cause of time and space going into motion, he needs evidence of this cause, otherwise it is a faith based assertion, and is no better an answer than a creator god or at best equal to the assertion of a creator in validity."My response:Pro, read my round 2 thoroughly...and check NASA's Big Bang Model that I've provided twice now.Pro finishes:"If time was stationary or "not" at all, this gives a lot of room to the notion of a creator that is timeless."My response:Let me translate."This gives a lot of room to the notion of a user of time-based actions that is timeless."Pro, do you see the contradiction in your assertions?If the creator is timeless, then why is he defined as a user of time i.e. a creator? |
780578ff-2019-04-18T13:30:33Z-00002-000 | The Universe Was Created By God | Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The beginning of time/space began to exist or be put into motion, thus there must be a cause. God is a self existing being who was not caused, thus needs no answer for a cause because He is uncaused. Con stated: "...every example of a computer we've ever known is designed by a natural, not supernatural, entity." To be clear, this is a synonymous way of saying "humans created every computer we know of, not God." And humans are intelligent agents who designed these computers. * Con Stated: "...simply because some codes resemble human-created codes doesn't mean that these codes were designed or indicate a designer, unless Pro is claiming that Microsoft and Google created the universe." Microsoft and Google were created by humans, which are intelligent agents who created such software. Computer codes and mediums do not just magically pop into existance. It's synonymous with saying Call of Duty 4 and its Construct randomly happened. We know this is impossible without an intelligent designer. And our reality is much more complex than Call of Duty 4. We are talking about Grand Theft Auto on super steroids in our case of reality. I assume Con does not believe in magic, nor do I. * Con said: "How can this "medium" be created when this "medium" is the origin of time? How can you call it creation, when there was no time for the process of creation to occur without the "medium" itself?" Con has with this statement declared that there once was no time. Time "became" at some point. This would indicate that time being put into motion in the first place was caused. He says that without time there "could be no creation", yet must cede that there was a "creation", whether by God or by something else all together, otherwise we wouldn't exist. There was a beginning event that propelled the start of our reality of space and time. Since Con states there was no time to have a creation event, he is ceding that there could be no start event in the first place, which is illogical, seeing that we do exist. We need an agent to start the process that is beyond time, seeing that without time we can have no creation event otherwise, according to Con. Time and space placed in motion in the first place had a cause. What is that cause? God? Something else? Without God, time and space never roll into motion. A stationary time and space sounds nice, but potential is not potential at all without a cause. It's like watching a leaf sitting in one spot for an hour. Suddenly it picks up, moves across the yard, and goes into motion. Why? It's motion had a cause. Without the wind or some other external cause, the leaf would not move. Thus, it is the same with time and space. It would take a tremedous amount of energy to put time and space into motion. Where did the energy come from? If we are to believe an energy force put it all into motion, without time, how could this be? Con himself has stated that no creation event could happen without static time. The same applies to whatever his theoretical cause is. * Con must rebuttle by claiming some sort of cause that put time and space into motion in the first place. No matter what that answer is it is unknowable even from the atheistic viewpoint. If Con gives a theoretical cause of time and space going into motion, he needs evidence of this cause, otherwise it is a faith based assertion, and is no better an answer than a creator god or at best equal to the assertion of a creator in validity. * If time was stationary or "not" at all, this gives a lot of room to the notion of a creator that is timeless. So what do we know in accordance with Con's assertion of stationary or nonexistant time. 1)Time did not exist/was not in motion, and yet we exist. 2)Whatever the cause is of the creation or putting into motion of time, is timeless and not affected by time, otherwise nothing would have happened, thus we would not exist. 3)If causes can be non-effected by time and be causes in the first place, then whatever is the construct of that system allows for a timeless creator. Something must be beyond time if Con's assertion is 100% true. He must show evidence of a cause that is beyond time and space. |
780578ff-2019-04-18T13:30:33Z-00003-000 | The Universe Was Created By God | Thanks Pro for your response. I maintain that the universe was not created, because of the temporal problems of such a claim. Without a universe at [+0,-0], there is no stative time in order to correctly declare that a temporal process, creation, occurred; no time, no creation, no creator. But Pro doesn't seem to see it that way... *Round 1 Rebuttal* Pro asserts: "Without God we get a regress in infinite causality. Meaning, we must accept infinite history, which is synonymous with the logic of saying everyone has a mother, but there is no first mother. We have history, but no first history. We have events, but no first event." My response: Nope. I've explained, that without god, the universe has an origin, and, because there is no stative time in [+0,-0] quantum fluctuations, there is no infinity of time; time began when the universe began, so I guess this is our "first mother." Pro asks: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Ironically, everyone always says the chicken." My response: Well, you didn't ask me before your assertion about everyone. The egg came first, because mutations that lead to speciation occur in the zygote, which is inside the egg. Therefore, the predecessor to the chicken had a mutation occur within the egg that makes that egg a chicken egg, which lead to the first chicken. The egg came first. Pro continues: "Many scientists have stated that if the fundamental physical constants were to vary even so slightly, the establishment of matter, astronomical constructs, elemental diversity, and life, as humans know it would have never happened. Reality is beyond a miracle." My response: No, you're just calling an after-the-fact result a miracle. This doesn't show there must be a creator, it just shows that the low odds of existence happened. Low odds do not necessitate purposiveness. *Round 2 Rebuttal* Pro claims: "There is no empty space. There is a "bubbling soup" of quantum field fluctuations that come and go quickly." My response: I agree, and in this state at [+0,-0], there is no stative time. Instead, time is just another variable that "comes and goes quickly" with the other fluctuating variables. So when there was no universe, [+0,-0], time did not remain; it fluctuated. Pro adds: "In the double slit experiment we see an interesting phenomenon of quantum strangeness. When nonobserved electrons cause patterns of waves. When observed, their behavior and pattern changes based on observation." My response: Yup. I fail to see what this has to do with quantum fluctuations or the creation of the universe/stative time, but the double slit experiment shows that particles can be both a particle and a wavelength. Pro then claims: "SPACE TIME DOES NOT RESTRICT THE LORD" My response: Aside from this being a bare assertion, the lack of spacetime restricts creation, a process that REQUIRES time to have occurred. No time, no creation, no creator, no created universe. Pro attempts to support this assertion with the bible: "In the book of John, Jesus Christ made a statement concerning time and its relation to Him...in our sense of time Christ walked the Earth after Moses and Elijah had been dead and gone a long time." My response: Pro, why should we consider the bible authoritative on matters of time or the universe? So what if the bible says that "Moses face was shining like the sun, and the Children of Israel put a veil over his face?" What does any of this have to do with the creation of the universe? Pro makes another bare assertion: "There is one way known to satisfy the paradox of infinite causes. If you can name another, go ahead." My response: [+0,-0] Quantum Fluctuations --> [+1,-1] Big Bang. Check my round 2 for sources on this. Pro continues: "If you examine a computer and its constructs, you would know an intelligence created it." My response: Yeah, and every example of a computer we've ever known is designed by a natural, not supernatural, entity. So, applying this rule to the universe, you should conclude that something natural, not supernatural like god, was responsible. Also, we have only one example of a universe, unlike our many examples of computers from which we can deduce commonalities; or maybe Pro can find another universe that indicates his claim. Pro piles on: "Our reality is controlled by computer code, and not just any code...it isn"t just random 1"s and 0"s either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software." My response: Despite theawakenment.com's lack of credibility on matters of the universe or existence, simply because some codes resemble human-created codes doesn't mean that these codes were designed or indicate a designer, unless Pro is claiming that Microsoft and Google created the universe. Pro goes on about genetic code: "Genomes use the genetic code to write two completely separate languages. The first explains how proteins are made, and the other commands the cell on how genes will be controlled." My response: Ok, well when you have a debate about the origins of life, then maybe you could bring this up, but in a debate about the universe, this is irrelevant. Pro then provides a clip from the Matrix to explain "What is real?" All the clip shows is that there was a fictional movie made with Keanu Reeves...that's it. Then Pro mentions: "Einstein...demonstrated time as having a point." My response: Yeah, like the Big Bang. Pro adds: "Picture Christ as the point, the singularity if you will." My response: Ok, but this puts Jesus as the result, not the cause. Pro furthers: "In Genesis God spoke reality into existance with a burst of light, similar to the Big Bang model." My response: Nothing about the Big Bang model involves speaking anything...that Genesis mentions light and light is an elementary particle is coincidence and not indicative of Genesis's authoritativeness on matters of the universe. Pro finishes: "This created medium belongs to Him, was created for Him, and is under His authority." My response: How can this "medium" be created when this "medium" is the origin of time? How can you call it creation, when there was no time for the process of creation to occur without the "medium" itself? I'm not attacking god, I'm attacking the TEMPORAL process of creation occurring without time...it's inherently nonsensical. Pro should attempt to address the temporal problems of calling the origin of time "creation." How do you discern creator from created without time? I reject this resolution, because, without stative time, temporal processes cannot occur. |
780578ff-2019-04-18T13:30:33Z-00004-000 | The Universe Was Created By God | There is no empty space. There is a "bubbling soup" of quantum field fluctuations that come and go quickly. ttp://youtu.be... http://www.dailygalaxy.com... http://scienceblogs.com... * In the double slit experiment we see an interesting phenomenon of quantum strangeness. When nonobserved electrons cause patterns of waves. When observed, their behavior and pattern changes based on observation. http://youtu.be... * "I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb. Before you were born I set you apart." (Jeremiah 1:5) * SPACE TIME DOES NOT RESTRICT THE LORD. In the book of John, Jesus Christ made a statement concerning time and its relation to Him. "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I AM." (John 8:58) Notice He didn't say "I WAS." He said "I AM." In Exodus, before Jesus was a man within our sense of time, the Lord talks with Moses, but Moses cannot look upon the Lord's face condensed by fire and blinding light. "The Lord said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:14) In (1 Kings) Elijah went to where Moses had seen and talked to the Lord prior at Mount Horeb. He is surrounded by mighty winds that destroy boulders, the Earth quakes, and then he sees a flaming fire consumed with the Lord's voice, which is described as gentle and quiet. He begins speaking to the Lord. (1 Kings19:8) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... In our sense of time Christ walked the Earth after Moses and Elijah had been dead and gone a long time. In the New Testament Christ had a perplexing event where His disciples were terrified at what was happening and could not understand it. "Moses and Elijah appeared before them, talking with Jesus." (Matthew 17:3) When whatever was happening initially stopped, Jesus turned towards them and... "There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light." (Matthew 17:2) When Moses prior, in Exodus, finished speaking to the Lord... In Exodus 34:35, Moses face was shining like the sun, and the Children of Israel put a veil over his face. * Perhaps a video showing how that might work would be beneficial for visual conceptualisation. Intersteller- "The Library" http://youtu.be... * "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalms 19:1) There is one way known to satisfy the paradox of infinite causes. If you can name another, go ahead. The construct of this method is indisputably designed. If you examine a computer and its constructs, you would know an intelligence created it. How can our reality have no first event, be infinite, and yet still be? Well, let's see what the Science Advisor to the President of the United States of America says. -James Gates, Physicist and Science Advisor to Barack Obama. James Gates and his researchers discovered something very intriguing buried within the mathematical equations of super symmetry. What did they find? They found computer code. Our reality is controlled by computer code, and not just any code. This is a specific type of code referred to as "self correcting code". Richard Hamming established this coding system building on the concepts of Claude Shannon. Thus it is sometimes called "Hamming Code". And it isn’t just random 1’s and 0’s either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software. http://theawakenment.com... James Gates himself- http://youtu.be... * Genomes use the genetic code to write two completely separate languages. The first explains how proteins are made, and the other commands the cell on how genes will be controlled. One language is written on top of the other. Isn't it interesting that so much of our reality is codes and languages? www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code * From DNA and RNA, to codons, the mathematically programmed construct of reality, everything shouts from the rooftops,"Intelligent design!" * What is reality? Let's check it out. "What is real"? http://youtu.be... *In reality we do not need an answer for the answer if the answer is from beyond our reality. If the answer is from this reality, it demands an answer for the cause of every caused thing in an infinite regress. We must have a singularity somewhere. This singularity must come from outside, or beyond our reality. Once we establish it as the answer, we do not need an answer for the answer. When the answer comes from beyond our reality, it becomes a futile thing to attempt to define the construct of anything from beyond our reality. But, you know me. I'll give it a go.Einstein referred to time interms of upper dimensions. He demonstrated time as having a point. From the point time could go in any direction as if in upper dimensional space, similar to how we move on a complex highway system, forward, to the left, up, then back down, and all around. Picture Christ as the point, the singularity if you will. From that point of "time and space" He can go to "the beginning". He can go to "the end". He exists as born, a man, creator, and finisher. He Himself said in the book of Revelation, "I am the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end." In 1 John he is referred to in the status of that all things that exist exist only from Him. In Genesis God spoke reality into existance with a burst of light, similar to the Big Bang model. In Revelation, God has come finishing it all. Via prophecy, God declared the beginning from the end. If He truely knows the end, He exists in the future, in the past, and in the present. He is omnipresent. This created medium belongs to Him, was created for Him, and is under His authority. He is timeless, immaterial, yet material all at once. He is the singularity. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient as a programmer can be all of those things over the worlds he creates, thus it is with God, yet with more complexity than man can comprehend. The Alpha is the cause of the beginning. The Omega is cause of the end. |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
README.md exists but content is empty.
Use the Edit dataset card button to edit it.
- Downloads last month
- 498