Datasets:

mteb

/

touche2020

like 0

57e8998-2019-04-18T15:33:57Z-00003-000

Politicians should match every campaign dollar to a charity

Your welcome, yet my argument awaits a rebuttal.

57e8998-2019-04-18T15:33:57Z-00004-000

Politicians should match every campaign dollar to a charity

Hello, thanks for starting this debate!

57e8998-2019-04-18T15:33:57Z-00005-000

Politicians should match every campaign dollar to a charity

Billions of dollars were spent in the last presidential election for nothing more than promotion, think of all the good that could be done if that amount of money was matched to better causes.

2efd6a7e-2019-04-18T12:55:07Z-00000-000

There is not enough evidence for the existence of God

First of all, we know dark matter and energy exists because we have seen the effects of dark matter and traced these effects back to a cause we have named dark matter and energy. I am not suggesting matter could come from dark matter or energy, I am suggesting matter could come from nothing, and you first paragraph also proves my point that we do not know what nothing behaves like. Therefore, your previous rephrasing of the law of conservation of mass cannot be used as objective evidence. Secondly, the zero net energy 'and' matter universe's cause is that there is no cause. That is the whole point of that argument, it gives the universe no reason to exist. If you want it to be explained in more detail I suggest you read the link below: 1. http://bigthink.com... Lastly, I would like to emphasize on subjective and objective evidence, or more specifically, the fact that to prove or validate the existence of something, we need objective evidence that cannot be rebutted in anyway. Your arguments have only given statements and suggestions, which I have proven to be rebutted. When talking about solid evidence for God, what we need is objective evidence that we can prove to be valid through observations. Your 'matter cannot be created from nothing' statement is not evidence because it is an incorrect rephrasing. Your arguments for round 3 tackle my suggestions and gives the overall sense of 'God could possibly exist'. While I do agree, that is not evidence. On a final note, it seems that your argument is a variation of the God of the gaps argument, that derives from 'we do not know how it happened, therefore God', which I should mention follows the argument from ignorance and the hasty generalization fallacies, and is again, are just statements and not objective evidence.

2efd6a7e-2019-04-18T12:55:07Z-00001-000

There is not enough evidence for the existence of God

Addressed to your first paragraph, we has observed nothing, as in a space with all matter removed, but we haven't discovered the un-removable stuff, such as dark matter/ energy. We do not know what that behaves like, but you are suggesting that matter could come from dark matter/energy, but we have not discovered anything of that yet so we cannot say who is correct or incorrect here, until we find out more about what is in "nothing" Your second paragraph just demonstrated quite a few interesting prospects of how the world started, but I'm afraid that you have too little evidence to prove any of it, as string theory is quite a new prospect and once again, has little proof but is a very interesting concept. However, once again, I believe something must have created the strings and branes in string theory, and even if the collision of branes did create our universe, something must have created those. Your multiple theories are quite interesting to research, but by using them, you are taking the subject further than the topic, and almost creating a paradox of creation. If you would like to discuss alternative theories of the creation of the universe perhaps you would like to make a separate debate to discuss those? I would imagine that I would find that greatly interesting. The Zero-energy universe explains the energy in the universe, but you failed to explain how it would it be created, even though it has no matter and energy, there still has got to be a way for it to be there. I like the concept of it though, but there isn't much proof of it and it is merely still a hypothesis The concept of god follows occam's razor just as well as your theories, unless we find some massive discovery about the dark stuff. The idea of god is just as possible as everything you have said. It is actually almost impossible to completely disprove god.

2efd6a7e-2019-04-18T12:55:07Z-00002-000

There is not enough evidence for the existence of God

The law you refer to when you say 'You cannot make matter out of nothing', is an incorrect rephrasing of the law of conservation of mass, in which it is stated that matter cannot either be created or destroyed, and this was derived from observations we have made. The reason I see your statement as being incorrect is simply due to the fact that there has not been an observable 'nothing' in physics so far, thus meaning that we do not know what a 'nothing' behaves like, while your statement suggests we do know what a nothing behaves like. Therefore, while not ruling out the possibility of a god, your statement is invalidated as evidence for a god. For the question of what created the Big Bang, 'string theory' tackles that question by introducing a multiverse of universes, which is a part of string theory, meaning that there is a possibility that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes. This is the big splat theory (side note: which I should mention seems to further prove physicists are using onomatopoeia as a basis for the naming of theories). There is also the possibility that our universe sprouted from a parent universe which could follow the big crunch theory, or simply our universe popped into existence. To emphasize more on our universe coming from nothing, apart from conveniently following occam's razor, it can be explained from the fact that matter has positive energy and gravity has negative energy. This, in conclusion leads to a universe with zero/close to zero net matter and energy when we realize that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy. These are other possibilities apart from god which follow occam's razor better than the god, my rebuttal to your whole previous argument is simply contained in the first paragraph on this argument.

2efd6a7e-2019-04-18T12:55:07Z-00003-000

There is not enough evidence for the existence of God

I was born into a catholic family, but I was raised very interested in science, and so I became agnostic I believe that we have plenty of scientific evidence to prove that there could be a god. It's just that we will probably never know who or what and where he is. You say "we simply do not know the answer to 'where did everything including the universe come from?" Yes we do not, but there has got to be an answer to the question. In my argument I will be considering the big bang as the start of the universe, as it is by far the most likely. In the Big Bang, there was a massive ball of matter and antimatter, in something that we call a singularity. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes. Anyway, when the big bang expanded, time started, physics started, everything that exists today all started. As it expanded, the majority of the matter and anti-matter destroyed each other, but at the end a little bit of the matter survived, which became the universe as it is today, So, what created the matter and anti-matter in the big bang? A definite law in physics is that "You cannot make matter out of nothing" Of course quantum fluctuations could be an exception to this rule, but they are created in pairs of particle/antiparticle, which cancel each other out, and since there was matter that was left after the big bang (the matter we have today) quantum fluctuations could not have been the full picture. Therefore, something must have created perhaps the entire big bang or added on to the possibility of a massive quantum fluctuation. That 'something' could be considered a 'god', a creator. To add on, what created physics? What created time? What made the four fundamental interactions that exist today? They too were created in the Big Bang, and these could not have been made by quantum fluctuations, because they aren't made out of matter. Of course we may discovers more truths about this, perhaps with a deeper understanding about dark energy or dark matter. In conclusion, I am proposing that the fact of 'you cannot create matter out of nothing' is evidence that there could be a god. Even so if the 'god' that I speak of is not the kind of god we expect today, along as it created the universe, shouldn't it still be considered the 'god'?

2efd6a7e-2019-04-18T12:55:07Z-00004-000

There is not enough evidence for the existence of God

Round 1: My opponent is welcome to either make opening statements or present your arguments in a detailed fashion. For round 1 I shall be making my opening statement and my opponent is welcome to rebut. From the time that I was a Christian, I always had doubts about the reality of the situation concerning the existence of a god, and I have looked into the subject thoroughly with my current standing as an atheist, and from my research, I have yet to come across enough evidence, or arguments which could not be rebutted for the existence of a god, any god. Due to the technological advancements and the insertion of logical and rational thinking humanity has done, my conclusion is that there is no god, and we simply do not know the answer to 'where did everything including the universe come from?'. My opponent can either make their opening statement or argue against mine.

1e7134cb-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00000-000

Evolution

How can you say I did not argue your points? Frankly, science is NOTHING if a supreme being made it all up or we screwed up at the beginning of time. DNA may be made up. I am sorry if i was not clear on that point. My point by the myths was simple: Evolution may be a myth in the future. Later on, the future generations will know we are all being controlled by unicorns or some other crazy idea. Evolution is actually a theory, not a LAW. That shows that even some scientists have doubts about evolution. And I wish to let you know that my argument was hampered by the fact I had the flu and was vomiting every 30 minutes. Thank you for this wonderful debate!

1e7134cb-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00001-000

Evolution

Thanks for posting your argument my opponent. Wrap up: You don't argue any of my points except the fact hat we are being controlled by zombies. I am 100% sure we are Not being controlled by zombies. Beachside the definition of zombie is: Noun: A fictional monster that is dead but alive. It survives on eating the brains of humans. It can not do most humanly functions like walking up step things. For example stairs, hill or ladders. The only way to kill a zombie is by destroying its brain or heart much lik a human. Usage: the group of young teens were running away from the living dead called zombies. By that or any other definition zombies are not capable of controlling use if the can't even walk up hill. Therefore it goes without saying we are not controlled by zombies. The other, and only valid point you made is God planted them there. Why would God plant evidence against his own existence? Would you do that? What about DNA evidence? How do you explain that or any other point I made. For your information Greeks made up gods and goddesses as a religion. So that is like saying Christians made up god and we will call them crazy in one thousand years. Secondly if you are referring to the myths they made up, it was because the needed an explanation towards why things were the way they were. In some way they were the first prow to make theories. Which is a big deal. In conclusion my opponent didn't argue any if my points and didn't raise many of their own without going it to much detail. This is much a case of faith versus science. So it doesn't matter who had the Better argument anyways. It is just what you believe. I hope I made a few people in this religion dominated world to rethink their belief system. As always please vote and comment. I wish to thank my opponent for this intriguing debate. Bye for now.

1e7134cb-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00002-000

Evolution

Who said evolution is real? What if the whole concept is made up by a whimisical Creator who has fun making us seem like we are evolving? What if science is all wrong? Maybe, the TRUE path is different. Maybe we took the wrong steps in science with Newton. Evolution is 1 theory of how we, as humans were made. You know how we laugh at the greeks for creating a fanasty world of gods and goddesses to explain how the human race started? well, another 1,000 years from now, humans will LAUGH at the idea of evolution and wonder what the F--- we were thinking when we dreamed up evolution. I will keep this short, even though i could go on, for the sake of readers. :) MAYBE THE ZOMBIES ARE CONTROLLING US! Thank You! Your turn!

1e7134cb-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00003-000

Evolution

Thanks for accepting I will be arguing that evolution is legit ament. My points are not to offend any religious persons. I acknowledge that this debate is a touchy topic but that doesn't mean it has to be avoided. My arguments are state below. 1: There is evidence of evolution, physical bones, tools ,and believe it or not remains of waste of our ancestors like homo habilus , homo erectus, and so many more. As you most likely know there is no physical evidence of God. You might say the Bible or other books of prayer, but I u have done any religious studies you would know that those are all words people claimed God told them. 2: Evolution explains the way we work today. Where as in the bible Adam and Eve were exactly like the modern humans. Don't you agree we should have evolved in the past 2000 plus years. Evolution says we have;there is only one advancement of evolution since the invention of writing which separates prehistory from history.That advancement is homo sapien sapiens. Which is a more advance human the Homo sapiens. Some of he changes are brain size, some people being born with out tonsils,wisdom teeth and appendixes. Because we don't need them anymore our bodies are slowly but surely getting rid of them. 3: DNA. We were monkeys. It is a simple as that. Our DNA says so. How can you deny something that is built in to you since before you were born compared to something you learned through childhood. Faith, that is what they call it. The name suits it you need faith to believe it. As where evolution has evidence ! These are not all my points but , I don't want to bore the voters. So my friend I will pass it onto you now.

1e7134cb-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00004-000

Evolution

I accept, milady! >:^D

1e7134cb-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00005-000

Evolution

This debate will be about evolution real or not ? I am pro evolution but if you are religious you MIGHT not be. This will be a pretty standard three round debate. Round 1: acceptance Round 2: points Round3: wrap up. Good luck to my opponent. My the best argument win.

5fe44795-2019-04-18T13:21:33Z-00000-000

Windows is better than Mac

I agree with you 100% just like Brown vs Board of Education this is "separate but equal".

5fe44795-2019-04-18T13:21:33Z-00001-000

Windows is better than Mac

It would actually be true to say that they are pretty equal. Because mac has good graphics windows is better at gaming.

5fe44795-2019-04-18T13:21:33Z-00002-000

Windows is better than Mac

This is just turning in to a battle of the anecdotes, Mac books come stock with pci-e based nvme drives which are some of the fastest storage systems on the market, that is what I meant when said that they are faster. Because of that speed thy are good for video editing and basic web design, professionals that work on websites like college humor say that they prefer Mac for its simplistic design. Like I said before, each system has its own uses, because of this it is very difficult to argue one side or the other. For the most part it is a good idea to get a windows computer unless you know that you need a Mac for what ever you are doing.

5fe44795-2019-04-18T13:21:33Z-00003-000

Windows is better than Mac

I have a mac myself but it is not faster. The mac book pro is slower than the windows 10. Even brand new windows is faster.

5fe44795-2019-04-18T13:21:33Z-00004-000

Windows is better than Mac

Comparing it on anything other than gaming and heavy rendering would not be fair. They have different tasks meant for them. Also have you ever used a Mac? I use a macbook pro for school and it is fantastic for that, it is small and does everything faster than the other windows laptops.

5fe44795-2019-04-18T13:21:33Z-00005-000

Windows is better than Mac

But yes they can still be compared. And by version,updates,size.and touch screens the windows is better for gaming,videos, and social media.

5fe44795-2019-04-18T13:21:33Z-00006-000

Windows is better than Mac

Mac and windows aren't really meant to be compared like you are doing now, Windows is meant to be a workstation/gaming system while Mac is meant for productivity mainly with video editing and other things like that. So for the most part I agree with you but it is not fair to judge operating systems on what games they can get.

5fe44795-2019-04-18T13:21:33Z-00007-000

Windows is better than Mac

The windows computer can do and download way better games than any mac computer.

68b0f299-2019-04-18T12:31:26Z-00007-000

Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence Definitions: Quran: the Islamic sacred book, believed to be the word of God as dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel and written down in Arabic. Misinterpreted: interpret (something or someone) wrongly. Modern: relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past. Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

68b0f299-2019-04-18T12:31:26Z-00000-000

Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

My opponents defense of Qur'an 9:29 comes from an Islaimic website which has a clear bias and is attempting to rewrite history. Muhammad started every war he fought- those Jews did not betray him, he propagated the lie that they did so he could attack them when they didn't expect it. My oppnent also provides no defense for Qur'an 9:123.

68b0f299-2019-04-18T12:31:26Z-00001-000

Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

"My referance to Qur'an 9:5 came from the Sakir translation" Sakir is not a translation. I am assuming you mean "Shakir". Even so, the Shakir translation does not follow. This is the Shakir translation: "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." And yours... "So when the sacred months have passed away, then kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush." Now the idolaters part refers to the Pagans who were at war with the Muslims. This verse is very reasonable during a time of war. You completely took out 23 words of the whole verse and changed several of them. I don"t think you should be taken as a credible debater if you are doing these things. "Qur'an 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled." The following passage is quoted from theamericanmuslim.org . "The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate aggression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad"s messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut"ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the above fatwa, hostilities between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes: As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed"[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)" Need I say more? Qur'an 9:123 has no context behind it whatsoever, you can read the surrounding verses, there is no context, Sahih International: "O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous." The surrounding verses are in the same category, but do not follow much. Nonetheless, one example does not make the entire book jumbled passages that make no sense. That it simply false. Conclusion: Thank you for the debate. I hope we can do it again sometime. I hope that whoever votes on this debate will not vote with only their personal opinion, but which debater had the best arguments, grammar, skill, etc. Whether that is me or my opponent will be up to the voters. May peace be upon you.

68b0f299-2019-04-18T12:31:26Z-00002-000

Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

My referance to Qur'an 9:5 came from the Sakir translation, and this one is Sahih International, Qur'an 9:29:"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."The context of this verse is that Muhammad ordered that all non-Muslim areas, kingdoms, or cities should pay him dues for not being a part of his insane cult, and a number of them rebelled, so he ordered that they all be killed. Muhammad is a lot like Negan if you think about it, except Negan never advocated for FGM. This verse promotes modern violence as a tenet of Islam is world domination, and no one is likely to pay money to a bunch of savages because their false book says so, and thus they are commanded to be violent against non-muslims. Qur'an 9:123 has no context behind it whatsoever, you can read the surrounding verses, there is no context, Sahih International:"O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous."

68b0f299-2019-04-18T12:31:26Z-00003-000

Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

Thank you for responding. I will make rebuttals to each of your points here. "That the Qur'an promotes violence would be subject to interpretation as one Muslim can point to an irrelevant verse that says "Allah" hates evil, leaving out the fact that Islam does not consider violence to be "evil,"" Before we started this debate I made it very clear. The topic is that the Quran does not promote modern violence, which it does not. I made the definition of violence very clear as well. "whilst another could point out 109 verses which clearly state that Muslims are to slaughter non-Muslims, and the prior would say that it is "out of context" which is of course nonsense as the Qur'an is a collection of random, irrelevant passages that have nothing to do with each other." (I didn"t edit this one from its original form; I just corrected some spelling mistakes) I never stated any of these verses were out of context, just misinterpreted. These verses were written in a time of war when Muhammad (pbuh) needed more Muslims to help in the war. The Quran is not a collection of random irrelevant passages that have nothing to do with each other. Each verse directly follows the one behind it as long as they are in the same surah. This is proven with my rebuttal about the verse you listed. "So how do we know if the Qur'an promotes violence or not? Well, first we have to understand that the Qur'an, like the holy books of every other religion, was written by humans, or human. Thus the Qur'an is the word of Muhammad, and thus the Qur'an being subject to interpretation is irrelevant, because only 1 interpretation matters- and that's Muhammad's. Muhammad committed murders and genocides all over the Middle East, and thus, this is the correct interpretation f his Qur'an." (I didn"t edit this one from its original form; I just corrected some spelling mistakes) Unfortunately Muhammad is not living on Earth anymore. We cannot seek his interpretation, but with historical evidence on their situation, we are using the interpretations that clearly make the most sense. These "murders and genocides" have absolutely no evidence to back them up. Muhammad made murder forbidden in the book he wrote. Your correct interpretation of the Quran does not agree with the thousands of scholars who studied this book cover to cover. "Now let's move on to the Unholy Qur'an, Qur'an 9:5 says: "So when the sacred months have passed away, then kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush." "Lie in wait for them," pretty much demolishes the common (absurd) claim that these violent verses in the Qur'an are referring to self-defense." (I didn"t edit this one from its original form; I just corrected some spelling mistakes) I have absolutely no idea where you found this translation. I looked up multiple English translations of this verse and didn"t find anything close. I didn"t even find it on my own Quran app. I will be taking the following translation to 9:5 from www.quran.com. "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." This verse is written at a time when the Pagans were making hostilities towards the Muslims, and Muhammad needed more Muslims to join the ranks if the Pagans did not cease to attack. It says that if the Pagans repent, pray, and give charity (zakah), to let them go and Allah will forgive them for their hostilities. The following quote is from theamericanmuslim.org which I think is a great point. "This verse is quoted during a battle. ...We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war." Let"s also take a look at the verse following it. 9:6 "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." This verse is a great example of peace even in the time of war. Thank you for the argument. I can"t wait to see yours. May peace be upon you and your family.

68b0f299-2019-04-18T12:31:26Z-00004-000

Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

That the Qur'an promotes violence would be subject to interpretation as one Muslim can point to an irrelevant verse that says "Allah" hates evil, leaving out the fact that Islam does not consider violence to be "evil," whilst another could point out 109 verses which clearly state that Muslims are to slaughter non-muslims, and the prior would say that it is "out of context" which is of course nonsense as the Qur'an is a collection of random, irrelevant passages that have nothing to do with eachother. So how do we know if the Qur'an promotes volence or not? Well, first we have to understand that the Qur'an, like the holy books of every other religion, ws written by humans, or human. Thus the Qur'an is the word of Muhmmad, and thus the Qur'an being subject to interpretation is irrelevant, because only 1 interpretation matters- and that's Muhammad's. Muhammad committed murders and genocides all over the Middle East, and thus, this is the correct interpretation f his Qur'an. Now let's move on to the Unhoy Qur'an, Qur'an 9:5 says:"So when the sacred months have passed away, then kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.""Lie in wait for them," pretty much demolishesthe common (absurd) claim that these violent verses in the Qur'an are refering to self defense.

68b0f299-2019-04-18T12:31:26Z-00005-000

Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

The Quran Promotes Good Over Evil: "Indeed, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency, and manifest evil, and wrongful transgression. He admonished you that you may take heed." (Al Quran 16:91) "The reward of goodness is nothing but goodness." (Al Quran 55:61) "And good and evil are not alike. Repel evil with that which is best. And lo, he between whom and thyself was enmity will become as though he were a warm friend. But none is granted it save those who are steadfast; and none is granted it save those who possess a large share of good." (Al Quran 41:35-36) These are some of the hundreds of verses in the Quran promoting peace and good actions. Many Violent Verses are Misinterpreted: I will be focusing on the most popular misinterpreted verses from the second sura. "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." (Al Quran 2:191) If we take a look at verses 2:190-2:195, we can clearly see the context. In the following the translators have changed the Arabic word Fitna from its false translation. It is translated to disbelievers, but it actually means corruption, persecution, etc. 2:190 Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and Persecution is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] Persecution and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. The verses above were written while the Muslims were under attack but the Makkans. For example, the Makkans crucified a companion of Muhammad (pbuh). 2:191-2:192 is a great place to make example of keeping peace even in a time of war. "2:191 And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and Persecution is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful." 2:191 states that you shall not fight the attackers until they fight you, but if they do you should defend yourself. 2:192 states that God will forgive you for your acts of defense. I would love to see your argument. I hope we can have a fun debate on this. May peace be upon you brother! http://theamericanmuslim.org... http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

68b0f299-2019-04-18T12:31:26Z-00006-000

Topic: The Quran is Misinterpreted and Does Not Promote Modern Violence

Looking for something to do on debte.org, I checked the "challenge period," and lo, I found an educated buffoon starting a debate with the resolution tht the Qur'an doesn't promote violence. What an absurd resolution! Tjis is ike sayiing that the Talmud doesn't promote pedophilia- who could believe such an absurd assertion. Thus, I accepted this debate, as to add another to my won debates. If someone starts a debate claiming that the sky is red, how could he win?

625743c0-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00005-000

The institution of marriage has changed since its birth -> Homosexual marriage is acceptable today.

I have entertained myself by reading some of Bettabreeder's debates on homosexuality. His arguments were in my opinion lurid but his oppponent's weren't exactly strong and detailed. So I decided to challenge him to this debate.Rules:1. For once, Bettabreeder should use proper spelling and grammar.2. All arguments are acceptable, no matter how weak; use what you think is strong.3. Round one for acceptance only.4. List your sources either next to the point/evidence in your argument or at the bottom of your round.

625743c0-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00000-000

The institution of marriage has changed since its birth -> Homosexual marriage is acceptable today.

You have this last round to post your argument. Please.

625743c0-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00001-000

The institution of marriage has changed since its birth -> Homosexual marriage is acceptable today.

Ok. I will give up this round while you make your arguments this round. Then we can continue as normal.

625743c0-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00002-000

The institution of marriage has changed since its birth -> Homosexual marriage is acceptable today.

Can we continue in the next round DDO isn't working that well

625743c0-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00003-000

The institution of marriage has changed since its birth -> Homosexual marriage is acceptable today.

First, I would like to explain what we are arguing. I have to argue that Marriage isn't the same as it was when it started, that these changes were empathetically good, and that this means that the definition of marriage is fluid and can change without moral or social difficulty. Con can either argue that the insitution has been the same since its birth or that even if it has changed, that doesn't mean we should allow homosexual to do it.1. what was marriage? Marriage was a social or ritual construct for the ensurance of survival of the human race via procreation. In cultures even today, you have to be married to unlock the freedom to have sex with that partner. Yet Anglo-saxon and british tribal uses of marriage were to obtain strategic alliances. It was used to either stenghten bonds between families or to establish diplomatic or trade ties usually without the consent of the children of the families being married off. This changed when there was a differentiation of wealth which meant families wanted to marry off their children to those of higher wealth. 2. What did it change to? In the 12th century, catholic theologians claimed that marriage was a sacrament under God and in 1563, marriage was deemed one of the 7 sacraments. On the protestant side of things, Thomas Cranmer wrote the book of common prayer which laid out wedding vows, a practice still carried out today. Before the 19th century, divorce rates were low and before the 17th century it was outright illegal. Yet with King Henry VIII, and the protestant revolution, things changed and divorce was made legal with the establishment of the Anglican church. So marriage has changed from a socio-political agreement to a religious sacrament.3. Polygamy to monogamy. Before modern day, polygamy was comonly preffered. If the bible must be used to prove anything, it proves the social and ritual constructs of the ancient Jews. Jacob son of Isaac had two wives, Leah and Rachel while King Solomon had 1000 wives. It was not until between the 16th and 19th centuries that monogamy was ingrained as the common practice and today it is illegal.4. Misogyny to...not misogyny depending on where and who you look at. Women in marriages were treated as property and were not allowed to inherit property because they were property. If we use the bible again, commandment number 10 is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox, thy neighbours donkey or thy neighbours wife," as you can see the commandment potrays the woman on the same level as the ox and the donkey. Today, western culture generally sees the two genders as equals and in marriages the roles of the wife and husband are not exclusive to themselves unlike victorian times when the wife, if poor did the cooking and cleaning, if rich did sweet FA. Marriage is a mutual agreement of love which leads me to my next point.5. It's all about love! In the victorian era, love became the foundation of the institution of marriage, no longer proceation, sacrament, or socio-political ties. This growing importance of love, especially among the middle-class, made it so that thinking of marriage as "a family-arranged event for exchanging a daughter into a family for gain," was distateful. The bond between Queen Victoria and prince Albert became an icon for love being this foundation. Fun Fact: Victoria wore black from the time of Prince Alberts death to the day of hers, symbolising the fact that she never got over it.6. State-run marriages In 1836, the marriage act meant that non-religious marriages could be held. These 'Civil ceremonies' were in the 300,000s and were more popular than any other form of marriage. Today, in western cultures, marriages come with marriage cirtificates which symbolises the state recognition of marriage. The point is that Marriage is no longer that religiously based.Marriage has changed from a socio-political agreement, preferrably polygamous without the right of divorce originally for the purpose of procreation to the monogymous state recognised egalitarian consenting agreement and bond of love. The question is now, why can't Homosexuals get married?I await your arguments.http://www.bbc.co.uk...http://www.livescience.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...;

625743c0-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00004-000

The institution of marriage has changed since its birth -> Homosexual marriage is acceptable today.

I accept

5653c4c0-2019-04-18T13:46:48Z-00000-000

Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

broken Index Knuckle, http://thesuiteworld.com... This isn't a reliable resource. I am not able to defend my case any beyond the theoretical. Which was conveniently my opponent's strategy also. This image was not certainly a wound from punching someone. IT is ONLY an image of a broke index knuckle. When compared to broken pinky and ring knuckles, it is quite evident exactly how much strong this knuckle is. However, If you punched someone ONLY with the index, having attempting to include the MIddle, then, You are hooking - likely the skull bone - with one knuckle, and can break it. I am quite sure I know street fighters that broke their whole hand. Lots of my friends were gang fighters in school. Either way. My theoretical claim that administering a full blunt force Blow with 1-2 knuckles is more dangerous and risky then using 3-4 knuckles. I like using my Pinky Knuckle. - U just need to warm it up

5653c4c0-2019-04-18T13:46:48Z-00001-000

Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

Thank you GoOrDin, for staying in this debate. Now, how can you break your hand with your two strongest knuckles? If your unlucky and unskilled, yes you probably would like with any other punch. If your going to execute an 4 knuckle punch, you are equaling out the impact around your knuckles, it is still theoretically puting your hand in risk of breaking it. You would also cause more damage only by concertinaing on your two powerful knuckles and for some certain knuckles you can even tear flesh, you can see some in boxing, Boxers tear flesh some times (Especially bare knuckle fights), of course depending on the knuckles. For some knuckles your two strongest are further away from the palm than the ring and pinky knuckles you could naturally cause a 2 knuckle punch without even knowing , look at your knuckles now, see the shape? Of course different people have different knuckles but the majority has that type of structure. So when you try to do an 4 knuckle punch you could just end up doing a 2 knuckle one and whats the difference? Well, you would know if you actually did a 4 knuckle punch, you would feel it, it would hurt a lot.

5653c4c0-2019-04-18T13:46:48Z-00002-000

Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

well. I can't argue with a military man regarding a fist fight. So he earned a valid credit here. But my opponent's reference to a Professional was redundant. I suppose the thing is, that BY administering enough force to break your pinky or Ring fingers in a 4 knuckle blow, would actually indicate that you never used your Index finger at all. Therefor it is an invalid example of the flaw of a 4 knuckle punch. But he did address it as being a risk. Likewise though, in a 2 knuckle punch, You can collide with bone with only your middle or index finger, and a full blow with one knuckle on bone can lead to you breaking your main digits. I would suggest that not throwing a full force blow is logical - to maintain swiftness, dexterity and accuracy. Thus making even a PINKY Punch effective and risk free.

5653c4c0-2019-04-18T13:46:48Z-00003-000

Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

Now, lets say your average street fight, no professional MMA fighters, just your average citizen (Of course it depends on the person if he or she does self defense or any type of Martial arts) I bet that depending how bad or good the fighter is, it will end up either with a broken hand (Or other body parts) Or just slight pain. Now The two strongest knuckles will cause damage and not risk your hand being broken or in pain in any way, than using your 4 knuckles and here's why: Naturally you will aim for the head/face and depending on your knuckles can cause pain if you hit the head/face with all 4 just because the other two (Ring and Pinky) are the weakest bones in your hand so there is no point in risking breaking your hand during a fight because you used all 4 is it not better when you have a near 100% chance that you won't break your hand using only two of your knuckles. But of course you don't know what could happen in the streets. Now lets talk military wise, I have a friend that served in the Irish military for 6 years and he personally told me that using 2 of your knuckles is better than all 4. Now I asked him "Why? " he just said that in war effected countries you just cannot simply risk your hand being broken, just because you really need it and if you do have a broken hand in one of those war effected countries, your basically screwed. Ok, now for professional fighters, they are trained well and also they have gloves (Depending on the Martial arts) they would take less impact while wearing gloves than bear handed. In some situations they can risk breaking a hand in boxing for example. But its better not risk it at all. Your basically giving the same damage with out the risk.

5653c4c0-2019-04-18T13:46:48Z-00004-000

Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

Now, I must admit, I don't punch too many people, or things. BUT, theoretically. The amount of Force emitted form a Punch is so much greater then the strength of your Knuckles, that the Force distribution on impact is more effectively administered if you use the greater number of knuckles. using less increases the amount of stress per knuckle. In addition, I am presenting the claim that we are discussing a competent fighter; and wrist strength, and technique (to ensure that you have accuracy*** a huge thing when landing 4 or 2 knuckles) to make sure that you do not twist your wrist or break a knuckle by only landing 1-3. So. I hope to hear what you have to say.

5653c4c0-2019-04-18T13:46:48Z-00005-000

Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

According to some of my friends, they think punching with all 4 knuckles is better than your 2 strongest knuckles, I just want to say that if you punch with all 4 it is more likely to break or hurt your hand in a fight or just breaking items with a punch in martial arts. I also stop by a website ( http://lifehacker.com... ) and here is a quote from the website. "[It's] known as a Front Punch, or a Front Two Knuckle Punch. It is extremely important that you align the first two knuckles in your hand with the bones in your forearm for maximum structure so you don't hurt yourself. Commonly people will hit with their ring/pinky knuckles and break their hand (known as a boxer's break) and that obviously impedes your ability to fight." This is open to everyone so please comment on your idea on how a punch should be performed in either a fight or just to basic items, like wood for example.

e00ed93c-2019-04-18T12:16:12Z-00000-000

can youtube be helpful for studens

Although YouTube may have helpful videos pertaining to the subject a student is looking for, as my opponent has stated, YouTube also may be considered a distraction to students as many students have favorite channels on YouTube, and they may be quickly sidetracked. I know this because of a distinct increase of 13-18 year-olds watching YouTube.

e00ed93c-2019-04-18T12:16:12Z-00001-000

can youtube be helpful for studens

has helpful vids

a398aaf-2019-04-18T12:33:47Z-00001-000

Should Girls be allowed to play on Boys sports team

Girls Should be allowed to play on Guys sports team because they're just as athletic as us men

a398aaf-2019-04-18T12:33:47Z-00000-000

Should Girls be allowed to play on Boys sports team

Being that there is no other argument apart from the athleticism of men to women, I will dispute that. Though a push for equality is important in American and other western societies, this does not ignore biological differences in men and women. Men physically have a higher capability of forming muscle through testosterone. Testosterone also creates a different bone structure to that of women. This gives men the ability to grow more muscle, and overall have a larger body appearance. Some examples of why men and women are in separate sports are prominent through swimming, running, basketball, and soccer. The first example is in swimming where Katie Ledecky, who has the record by 9 seconds of all women to ever compete in the 400m freestyle, is still 16 seconds behind the men's world record. In running, women's world records closely resemble a division 3 men's division champion team, which is far less than men Olympic runners. Third we have basketball where NCAA Division 1 men's teams average 67 points per game, and women's teams average only 60 points. Lastly in soccer the no. 5 women's soccer team in the world lost 7-0 to a 15u men's soccer team. These show the disparity in men's and women's sports ability, as well as the biological reason as to why these disparities occur. Because of these, women would not be able to prosper on men's teams, and it could result in the belittling of women compared to men. Sources: -http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... -https://www.nih.gov... -https://en.wikipedia.org... -http://www.livestrong.com... -http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

16169c49-2019-04-18T11:08:40Z-00003-000

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

There is no indication of this in the scripture. It says "for all men" in verse 1 and simply chooses an example in verse 2. There is no indication that he was narrowing what "all" meant. Ok, So when context limits something, It should explicitly say, "hey, All here doesn't mean all"? Show what the context means before rebutting someone else's view! Proverbs 16:4You haven't explained what Proverbs 16:4 means. If this verse does not support my view, What does it mean? But that also means that God created certain people who he wouldn't allow to go to heaven no matter what because he won't allow them to choose Jesus, Meaning that he sentences them to hell simply because he created them. You seem to be implying that unbelievers want to come to God naturally, Which is surely false, For Paul says in Romans 3:10-17, " As it is written: “There is no one righteous, Not even one;11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless;there is no one who does good, not even one. ”No offense, But be more clear and try to understand what I'm actually saying, Instead of repeatedly using straw men to debunk me. He doesn't sentence people to hell just because He created them. Obviously! That is not what I believe! Proverbs says he made them for the "day of trouble. " read the verse! He didn't create them to sin, He created them, And they were afterwards affected by it. As for the verse in Romans (no excuse) does this mean people can be saved without hearing the gospel? If you are willing to use Albert Barnes to prove your points, Don't pick and choose what to believe of his and what not to. You'll agree with his interpretation there, But not other verses that he believes show Calvinism! As for 1 Peter, THE WORD YOU IS THE ANTECEDENT! I'm not wrong if you don't understand simple grammar! Peter says that He is patient towards you, not wishing that any (antecedent, Context, Indicate of you) should perish. Peter is writing to believers, So it would make no sense to randomly say all without an antecedent! Yes! Everyone who believes, Won't perish! Logic agrees! It doesn't mean all can believe, It just says all that will believe will not perish! Again, I can't help you with simple grammar. Whoever is gonna believe, Is gonna believe! It might help you to go to Ligonier Ministries and learn what Calvinism actually believes, Instead of me having to constantly disregard straw men. No offense. Why does everyone have to have a choice? Did you get to choose your intelligence, Or your looks, Or your stubborness, Or where you were born, Or how cool you are? Here's an analogy that illustrates my problem with your belief: God is a scientist. He has the cure for sin (salvation). He goes to a graveyard. The people there are dead in their sins. He lays it on a table for them, And says as loudly as He can (to spiritually dead people) COME, TAKE OF MY EVERLASTING LIFE, BELIEVE IN MY SON! No one comes, Because they are spiritually unable to. Hopefully this illustrates a point. You didn't answer my question. Why are people paying for sins in hell that Jesus died for? After all, It says in John 2:2: And He is the propitiation for our sins, And not for ours only, But also for those of the whole world. "What does it mean in 1 Peter when it talks about confirming your election? What does Romans 9 mean when it says, "Esau I hated, But Jacob I loved? We will disregard perserverance of saints for now, These arguments we are going at now are enough. I do agree with Albert Barnes' interpretation, That was a mistake of mine. Over to you.

16169c49-2019-04-18T11:08:40Z-00004-000

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

"But we see that after Paul says that Timothy should pray for “all” people we see in verse 2 that Paul specifies, Limits, Clarifies, Narrows his use of the word 'all, '"There is no indication of this in the scripture. It says "for all men" in verse 1 and simply chooses an example in verse 2. There is no indication that he was narrowing what "all" meant. You kind of argued against yourself in that first paragraph. Verse 6 says "who gave himself a ransom for all, To be testified in due time. " He gave himself for everyone, not just some. "Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, Even the wicked for the day of trouble. "This does not support your position. In the Calvinist view, People will be led to Christ no matter what, So they should be able to do it without the wicked. You're saying that only certain people were "chosen" to accept Jesus, But that also means that God created certain people who he wouldn't allow to go to heaven no matter what because he won't allow them to choose Jesus, Meaning that he sentences them to hell simply because he created them. You also used Romans 9. This, In my opinion, Also does not support your position. If God created people to sin without any choice in the matter, Then he is ultimately responsible for all sin. The only exception would be Christians, Who would be the only ones who could CHOOSE to sin, So all sin falls on Christians and God. However, It is those that don't have a choice in the matter who get eternal torture? However, This is directly contrasted in Romans 120: "For his invisible attributes, Namely, His eternal power and divine nature, Have been clearly perceived, Ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. " They can only be without excuse if they have a CHOICE. The passage of Romans 9 seems to be talking about God's plan for human history. In fact, Genesis 33 suggests that Esau ended right with God, So the example earlier is not consistent with your view. "God doesn't make us believe. In my view, God regenerates (or makes born again) a person, And then they want to believe in Him, Because they have a new nature. They can resist, But ultimately they will come to Christ (John 6:36-37). "Again, You're saying that God condemns certain people to a life of sin that they have no choice in. So by that logic, God is a moral monster who is responsible for the sins of everyone he send to hell for no fault of theirs. That verse simply means that Jesus will not reject anybody who comes to him, And Albert Barnes, A Calvinist, Admitted this: “This expression does not refer to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, But to the fact that Jesus will not reject or refuse any sinner who comes to him” (pp. 246-247). "Barnes, Albert (1954), “Luke — John, ” Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker). "Let's get something straight here. The world all in 1 Peter has an antecedent. He said God is patient towards you, So all here means elect, Or future believers. "First of all, I was referring to 2 Peter 3, Not 1 Peter. Second, Nowhere in 2 Peter 3 does it mention an antecedent, And you did not provide where you got that from. My point still stands. "God has created people to go to hell simply because he can, But that completely goes against the God that the Bible preaches. Explained above. This is not a biblical idea, So I refute the former part of this sentence. "You're right, It isn't biblical, And that is exactly why Calvinism is wrong. If someone isn't given the opportunity to accept Jesus, That means that they are forced to continue in a life of sin beyond their own free will. "The funny thing is, In the Greek text there is no such thing as “whosoever will. ” The Greek phrase πQ18;ς P01; πιστεa3;ων (pas ha pusteuon) literally translates “all the believing” or “everyone believing. ” Bible-believing Christians believe that those who have repented toward God and have put their faith in Christ are saved. All the believing will definitely not perish, But those who do not believe are already condemned (verse 18)! "The greek translation does not help you here, Because if we substitute it back in, It reads like this: For God so loved the world, That everyone believing in him should not perish, But have everlasting life. See? It reads the exact same way, So that translation does not help your point. It's funny that you reference John 3:18, Because it completely goes against your point. If Jesus only died for certain people, That means some people cannot be held accountable for rejecting him because they never got the choice. However, Verse 18 says "he that believeth not is condemned already, Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " Here, They are being held accountable for NOT believing in Jesus, But that makes no sense in the Calvinist view because Jesus never died for them in the first place and therefore they never had the opportunity to make such a decision. "This is easily resolved. God's means of salvation is by people hearing the gospel and believing in it, So there is a point in missionaries. Otherwise, The elect wouldn't hear the gospel! Also, We don't know who the unsaved elect are. "This is incorrect. Again, In Romans 1:20, The Bible says "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, Being understood from what has been made, So that men are without excuse. " This clearly shows that word of mouth is not necessary for God to spread his Word. In Calvinism, You say that the elect will be irresistably attracted to God and will eventually go to him, So this should be true without regard to any missionaries. "There seems to be a misconception here. People consciously make the choice to reject God (Romans 1). The debate here is about whether and who will come. They can't come because of their depraved nature, And this affects their choices. God says whosoever will, Come. He's inviting the people who want to come, To do so! People will only be able to if their spirit is made new, And they are born again. "You say they make the choice to reject God, But then you say that only those that God invites can become a Christian, And they do so irresistibly. If that's true, Then they cannot be responsible for that choice because by what YOU said, They do not have the option to choose Jesus in the first place. "Remember that God saving us at all isn't fair, Because we deserve condemnation! So choosing to save us at all is good enough! "Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. " We only deserve condemnation because of our flawed nature and because of the sin we have done. However, God created us that way! The only thing that justifies this is that he gives everyone an 'escape route' per se in the form of Jesus. However, If he doesn't allow some people to accept Jesus, How can you say that they deserve it? They are simply doing what their nature tells them to do, And they literally have no choice in the matter. All sin is a choice, So that is contradictory. "Since God has set aside the Levitical system of animal sacrifices (v. 9), Those who abandon their confession of trust in Christ have nowhere to turn for forgiveness. Christ says in John that nothing can take away the sheep He has under His wing, Including themselves! "Where does it say that "nothing" includes onself? It says nothing can TAKE us away, But how can we "take" ourselves away? That verb obviously does not include oneself. If we walk away from God, That is not "taking, " because "taking" implies a lack of agreement in the matter. Yes, God set aside animal sacrifices, But Jesus himself is described as the ultimate sacrifice, And he is certianly not an animal. "If we could lose our salvation, You realize that salvation would be works based, Right? "This is not even remotely true. In this case, God is saying that if someone knows of Jesus and God and they continue to sin anyway that they're not deserving of Jesus. That is simply them rejecting Jesus in the form of continuing to sin. "You seem to be ignoring the word predestined, Which was part of my original argument. "I did not, I had a whole paragraph about it. Here it is again:"The Calvinist contends that certain individuals were chosen before the world began and predestined to become believers, But that is simply not what the text says. Paul. . . never says that certain individuals were predestined to believe in Christ. Paul is speaking of what “the faithful in Christ” (vs. 1) have been predestined to become, Not about God preselecting certain individuals before the foundation of the world to be irresistibly transformed into believers. "'Again, The source for this is in my profile comments. "The passage I gave earlier says, "all that the Father gives me, WILL come to me. You are basically affirming universalism then if God gives everyone to Jesus! "I explained this above. "In looking at the context, You disregard what the verse actually says. It is talking about belief, And how the Gentiles who were appointed to eternal life believed! The actual verse's content seemed to be missing from your rebuttal"My point was that this is not proof of an "elect. " God was showing that he could give his grace to more than just Jews because the Jews at the time, Even though they had been in God's presence for a while, Did not accept, While the Gentiles who hadn't dwelled in God for such a long time did. "A question: Why are people in hell paying for their sins? I thought Jesus paid for them? Isn't that double jeopardy? "I don't mean to offend you, But this is just ignorant. Jesus did die and pay for our sins, But we have to accept that in order to get into heaven. God will not allow sinners into his presence, And so a conscious choice must be made.

16169c49-2019-04-18T11:08:40Z-00005-000

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

How could this be true if God selects only certain people to go to heaven? , [1 Timothy 2:4]Well, We see in verse 2 kinds of people (“kings and all who are in high positions”) being mentioned. What Paul was asking Timothy to do is pray for “all” people. How are we to understand the “all” here? Did Paul mean that Timothy should pray for every single person in the world? Surely we don’t think that’s the case, But we see that after Paul says that Timothy should pray for “all” people we see in verse 2 that Paul specifies, Limits, Clarifies, Narrows his use of the word “all, ” by saying that Timothy should pray “for kings and all who are in high position. ” So what Paul is saying to Timothy is this: Timothy, Do not only pray for your brethren, Who are those that are despised in the world, Who are persecuted, Who are hated, But don’t forget Jesus’ commandment to love our enemies. So, Timothy also pray for your persecutors that they may come to the knowledge of God, Who desires to save all kinds of people, So that we may lead a peaceful life. Then it follows logically that if we accept the contextual meaning of “all” to mean “all kinds of” then the “all” in verse 6 also means that Jesus was a ransom for all kinds of people. Revelation 5:9 says that Jesus with His blood has ransomed a people for God from every tribe, Language, People and nation; thus, Jesus has ransomed every kind of people, Kings and servants, Free and slaves, Male and female, Jew and Gentile. Please note in Revelation 5:9, It says that our Glorious Lord ransomed with his blood a people for God from every tribe, Tongue, People and nation, A specific people, Not the tribes, Tongues, Peoples and nations. https://www. Thecalvinist. Net/post/1-Timothy-2:4-Titus-2:11-desires-All-People-To-Be-Saved (for more info and source)Why would he create certain people in the first place if he wasn't going to allow them to enter heaven? Romans 9 and Proverbs 16Romans: 22 What if God, Although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, Bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, Whom he prepared in advance for glory—24 even us, Whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, Even the wicked for the day of trouble. So one has to choose Jesus in order to enter heaven. However, In the Calvinist view, We've already been selected to go to heaven. Why do we have to choose if God's chosen us already? God doesn't make us believe. In my view, God regenerates (or makes born again) a person, And then they want to believe in Him, Because they have a new nature. They can resist, But ultimately they will come to Christ (John 6:36-37). Why would he have to be patient and wait if he had already chosen who goes to heaven and who doesn't? It simply wouldn't matter. In the Calvinist worldview, God has created people to go to hell simply because he can, But that completely goes against the God that the Bible preaches. Let's get something straight here. The world all in 1 Peter has an antecedent. He said God is patient towards you, So all here means elect, Or future believers. Let me remind you, Paul says he suffers all things for the sake of elect. And, This goes along with what I said above. He wants all of his elect to come to repentance, And is patient, Because He allows for resistance. Context matters! God has created people to go to hell simply because he can, But that completely goes against the God that the Bible preaches. Explained above. This is not a biblical idea, So I refute the former part of this sentence. John 3:16, This says that God loves the entire world, And whoever believes in Jesus shall go to heaven and have eternal life, Not only those he supposedly hand-picked. Let's look at the context and meaning of the greek in this verse, Since it's proof-texted all the time. Examine the phrase “whoever believes in him, ” Which is the phrase most emphasized from the verse and also mentioned in verse 15 which I really have no problem with. Since “none seeks after God” (Rom 3:9-12), Unless God draws them (Jn 6:44) and the offer of salvation is universal to every single individual who hears the Gospel (Mt 22:14). The funny thing is, In the Greek text there is no such thing as “whosoever will. ” The Greek phrase πQ18;ς P01; πιστεa3;ων (pas ha pusteuon) literally translates “all the believing” or “everyone believing. ” Bible-believing Christians believe that those who have repented toward God and have put their faith in Christ are saved. All the believing will definitely not perish, But those who do not believe are already condemned (verse 18)! Simply, Whoever is going to believe, Is gonna believe! Also, Another thing to note is the phrase “For God so loved the world. ” This “so” does not indicate the measure of love, But the way, The manner of love, That’s why the alternate reading for the ESV says “This is how God loved the world. "https://www. Thecalvinist. Net/post/John-3:16-God-So-Loved-The-World Besides this, If we were pre-destined, There would be no point in missionaries or spreading the word, Because those who go to heaven will go regardless of whether they hear of Jesus or not and those who will go to hell will go whether they hear of Jesus or not. This is easily resolved. God's means of salvation is by people hearing the gospel and believing in it, So there is a point in missionaries. Otherwise, The elect wouldn't hear the gospel! Also, We don't know who the unsaved elect are. ;)Why would we be called to minister to people who can't actually make a choice themselves? There seems to be a misconception here. People consciously make the choice to reject God (Romans 1). The debate here is about whether and who will come. They can't come because of their depraved nature, And this affects their choices. God says whosoever will, Come. He's inviting the people who want to come, To do so! People will only be able to if their spirit is made new, And they are born again. You have to realize that election is a biblical doctrine, Just read first Peter! Whoever God elected (before the foundation of the world, Need may remind you) he would impart saving grace on and graciously regenerate. He is the creator! For those not elected, He passes over and justly leaves them in their sins (pardition I think is the term). Also, Remember that God saving us at all isn't fair, Because we deserve condemnation! So choosing to save us at all is good enough! HebrewsChristians who claim to be sinless are self-deluded (1 John 1:8), And those who sin should not despair of grace (4:16; 1 John 2:1, 2). The willful sin here is abandoning one’s confession altogether, Trampling the Son underfoot, Treating His sacrificial blood as unclean, And insulting God’s gracious Spirit (6:6 note; 10:29). The seriousness of the charge is indicated by its willfulness (cf. Num. 15:30) and the measure of knowledge or enlightenment it refuses. This passage is not teaching that true Christians can lose their salvation; rather, It is a warning for believers to persevere and for those who profess faith without possessing it to trust in Christ alone (cf. Heb. 6:4–12 and notes; 10:32). No longer remains a sacrifice for sins. Since God has set aside the Levitical system of animal sacrifices (v. 9), Those who abandon their confession of trust in Christ have nowhere to turn for forgiveness. Christ says in John that nothing can take away the sheep He has under His wing, Including themselves! If we could lose our salvation, You realize that salvation would be works based, Right? Ephesians 1:4-5What does it mean when it says "in love, He predestined us to. . . . Adoption. " You seem to be ignoring the word predestined, Which was part of my original argument. How would this tie in to your belief? If they were predestined to be adopted as sons, Then they were predestined to be saved! This logically entails regeneration, Because if everyone was regnerated, Then everyone would come to Him, (John 6)John 6The passage I gave earlier says, "all that the Father gives me, WILL come to me. You are basically affirming universalism then if God gives everyone to Jesus! You used Acts 13:48 a little out of context to explain your point. If you look at the context of that scripture, It is a setting where there are Jewish people, And then there are Gentiles. God is giving his favor to the Gentiles and giving them revelation because they have been humble and received his word. God simply chooses to spread his blessings through Israel. In looking at the context, You disregard what the verse actually says. It is talking about belief, And how the Gentiles who were appointed to eternal life believed! The actual verse's content seemed to be missing from your rebuttal ;) This says that can get forgiveness if we believe, And it says everyone. Yes, We can get forgiveness if we believe. It says Everyone who believes. Everyone who believes is set free from sin, Of course. It doesn't say everyone will get forgiveness. No problem here! Belief is a choice! And along with that Christ is made irresistible! A question: Why are people in hell paying for their sins? I thought Jesus paid for them? Isn't that double jeopardy? I will disregard the 2 Thessalonians passage until later due to limited space to write, I hope you understand. Over to you! :)

16169c49-2019-04-18T11:08:40Z-00006-000

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

1 Timothy 2:4 says: "[God] will have all men to be saved, And to come unto the knowledge of the truth. "How could this be true if God selects only certain people to go to heaven? In fact, Why would he create certain people in the first place if he wasn't going to allow them to enter heaven? It makes no sense. In fact, It would entail controlling their free will:John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "So one has to choose Jesus in order to enter heaven. However, In the Calvinist view, We've already been selected to go to heaven. Why do we have to choose if God's chosen us already? Besides this, You're basically saying that God has condemned people to sin beyond their free will, But God hates sin more than anything else. So you're essentially saying that he created people to do something he hates and they can't control it. 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, As some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, Not wanting anyone to perish, But everyone to come to repentance. "Why would he have to be patient and wait if he had already chosen who goes to heaven and who doesn't? It simply wouldn't matter. In the Calvinist worldview, God has created people to go to hell simply because he can, But that completely goes against the God that the Bible preaches. John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, That whosoever believeth on him should not perish, But have eternal life. "This says that God loves the entire world, And whoever believes in Jesus shall go to heaven and have eternal life, Not only those he supposedly hand-picked. Besides this, If we were pre-destined, There would be no point in missionaries or spreading the word, Because those who go to heaven will go regardless of whether they hear of Jesus or not and those who will go to hell will go whether they hear of Jesus or not. 1 Peter 3:15: "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, Always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, Yet with gentleness and reverence;"Why would we be called to minister to people who can't actually make a choice themselves? Another point is that sin wouldn't matter at all, But look at Hebrews 10:16: "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, There no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, "This shows how we can lose salvation, But that is not true in this Calvinist view. The first scripture you use is Ephesians 1:4-5. However, Your view of it is not true. In 1:13 it specifically says: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, The gospel of your salvation. When you believed, You were marked in him with a seal, The promised Holy Spirit, "They were included in Christ when they believed, Also known as choosing. For more context, 1:1 says "Paul, An apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus"He is talking to Christians here: "The Calvinist contends that certain individuals were chosen before the world began and predestined to become believers, But that is simply not what the text says. Paul teaches that those “in Him” have been predestined to become “holy and blameless” and “to be adopted as sons, ” but he never says that certain individuals were predestined to believe in Christ. Paul is speaking of what “the faithful in Christ” (vs. 1) have been predestined to become, Not about God preselecting certain individuals before the foundation of the world to be irresistibly transformed into believers. "'(Please see my profile comments for the source)"In this context, Jesus is talking about how He is the bread of life. He says above to the pharisees (and the non-believers) that they had seen the miracles that he had performed and yet did not believe in Him. He then says that all the people that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him. Does God give everyone to Jesus? No. Therefore, He only gives some. "You're wrong, God does give everyone to Jesus. In fact, Romans 1:20 says: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, Being understood from what has been made, So that men are without excuse"This means that everyone hears the Word of God, Not only some. You used Acts 13:48 a little out of context to explain your point. If you look at the context of that scripture, It is a setting where there are Jewish people, And then there are Gentiles. God is giving his favor to the Gentiles and giving them revelation because they have been humble and received his word. God simply chooses to spread his blessings through Israel. Acts 13:8: "“Therefore, My friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, A justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. "This says that can get forgiveness if we believe, And it says everyone. You also used 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 to prove your point. However, Context tells us how Gentiles were continually condemned by Jews, And God was saying that Gentiles were included in his plan. Also, He says that he chose them through sanctification and belief of the truth, So if your view was correct, God would be controlling their wills and making them believe in him. However, We know this not to be true. Over to you! :)

16169c49-2019-04-18T11:08:40Z-00007-000

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

1. Paul disagrees. - Ephesians 1:4-5: (KJV) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, That we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, According to the good pleasure of his will. Predetermined pretty much means the same thing as predestined. This verse is saying that God chose us (before the foundation of the world) to be holy and without blame. We could only be without blame if we are saved. He determined our destinies for adoption of children to Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will. This is basically a summary of unconditional election. I fail to see how this could mean anything but what I've explained above. 2. John 6: 36-37 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, And believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. - In this context, Jesus is talking about how He is the bread of life. He says above to the pharisees (and the non-believers) that they had seen the miracles that he had performed and yet did not believe in Him. He then says that all the people that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him. Does God give everyone to Jesus? No. Therefore, He only gives some. 3. Acts 13:4848 And when the Gentiles heard this, They were glad, And glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. This verse blatantly shows that God ordains some to eternal life. The Gentiles who weren't ordained didn't believe. 4. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, Brethren beloved of the Lord, Because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, To the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think this puts the nail in the coffin. God chose (predestined) the believers that Paul was talking to unto salvation! I await your arguments, -Juke

16169c49-2019-04-18T11:08:40Z-00008-000

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

I accept. I will be arguing that those who go to heaven or hell are not predetermined.

16169c49-2019-04-18T11:08:40Z-00009-000

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

My position is that Reformed theology (or calvinism) is a biblical doctrine and is how soteriology and salvation should be understood. This will be a biblical debate and centered around interpreting passages. For sake of the debate, The burden of proof will be on both of us to provide evidence and reasoning along with that.

16169c49-2019-04-18T11:08:40Z-00000-000

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

I'd like to apologize for yelling in the previous round, I got kind of frustrated :/"There is no indication here that the all means every single person who is on the earth without exception. "All: used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing. If it meant every single person without exception, He would then be read as going back and forth between universal and some. It seems kind of eisegetical to read in any as every single person without exception, Randomly in the text. "How is that eisegetical? I could turn it around say it is eisegetical for you to read it as not referring to the whole earth. You have not explained how this doesn't refer to everyone. "Notice Peter says he is long-suffering to US-ward, Not willing that any. . . Limiting any is obvious by the context, And henceforth all. But all of what? Cats? Dogs? Random people debating online? No. All ofthe us Peter was referring to. It is obvious the us limits the any and all, And refers to believers. "Limiting of any is not obvious. For what reason would he do that? You can't simply say it's obvious and not say why. "If you can't explain this verse in another way than I am, I don't see a need to accept your rebuttal, Especially when it doesn't actually deal with the verse itself. "That's not true, If you told me that you saw an alien ship that was zooming through the sky faster than light, I could prove to you that it wasn't what you thought because nothing can go faster than light. Is it then my job to prove what it was? No. "No offense, But this is a seriously ignorant response. He doesn't create them for that, He creates them knowing they will do that. There's a difference. You didn't even acknowledge the Bible verses I provided. I'd rather believe what the Bible says. What does dead in trespasses mean? That they want to come to God? ! I mean, Come on! "I never said that they want to come to God, You said that they can't because he won't allow them to. If they don't want to in the first place, Why does God have to take away the choice? That seems like overkill. If I have two children, And I teach one that 1+2=3, And the other that 1+2=4, And then make them solve the problem, Do I penalize the second one when he/she gets it wrong? How is that even remotely fair? The answer is it isn't. "Again, This doesn't mean He created them for that, He created them knowing they would do that. They cannot come to God naturally. If you think they can, That's dangerously close to Pelagianism. For, "No man can come to me, Except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. " The Bible's word against yours. Your originally conclusion was a straw man, That was what I was meaning. Its this "choice" versus the Bible. If you reference the passage from Joshua, That is referring to serving the Lord, Not salvation. "Here is a nice example of what I believe that verse means:"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me *enables* them, And I will raise up *those who come* at the last day. ”You can be enabled and not actually end up choosing to get saved, Like Judas. My point is that you believe that some people go to hell for sinning, Even though they literally cannot be saved, But the only people who do go to heaven are the ones who consciously sin because they know of Jesus. "No offense, But this is very unbiblical (maybe even heretical). Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. " There is NO POINT to saying this if there is another way to salvation. Jesus is the gospel, The good news! He Himself calls people to repent and BELIEVE! The Bible's word against yours. For, "I am the way, The truth, And the life; NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me. """My bad, I don't think I was being clear. I didn't mean that they can come through a way besides Jesus, I was saying that you don't have to hear of Jesus by word of mouth. For example, God might reveal himself through the awesomeness of nature to someone in a remote jungle somewhere who will never meet a missionary. That's what I meant. Most people do hear of Jesus by word of mouth, But I was just saying that that isn't always the case. "Did you forget that antecedents can refer to pronouns? "You still never said what the antecedent was. "You" is not specific enough to make your point. "A straw man is a false representation of someone's belief. What I wrote is an argument, Not what you believe. (? ) Sin is not the only thing they can do. It's what their nature is inclined to unless God changes it. Again, What does dead in trespasses mean? "So they can choose to come to Christ? But you said that they can only do that if God chooses them. . . Which means that sinning is the only thing they can do. I'm genuinely confused on what you mean here when you say I straw-manned; if you can't choose Jesus, Then the only other option is that you can only sin. "You realize I was representing what you believe here, In a semi-satirical way. (? ) He punishes them for sin. God is the creator, I'm not going to tell Him what to do with His creation, And I'm certainly not warp scripture to make him what i want him to be. "Again, Your model does not line up with the loving God who the Bible describes. Why would a loving God force a certain part of the population to go to hell by nothing that they can control? "Does it say He offers propitiation to the world, Or does it say that He is the propitiation? Blatant eisegesis. You are reading offer into that verse! "This is an obvious straw man. Him being the propitiation is the offer. If I go to pay for your check, But you stop me, That's you refusing my gift. He's saying that anyone who acceps him has his sins paid for. "Nations are made up of people. The words love and hate are still there! "You completely ignored what I said. God was showing how age or nationality or anything else doesn't matter to him because he will offer salvation to any and everyone. The Bible never implies that Esau died in bad standing with God. He was showing how he chose the Israelites to be the line which Jesus comes through, And how much he had done for them, But they continually rejected him, While nations such as Esau's descendants readily came to him. Read this scripture:"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, Wife and children, Brothers and sisters, Yes, And his own life also, He cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:26)"Does that mean that we need to literally hate our family? No, Because we know we are commanded to love everyone. This is Jesus saying we must esteem him more than our loved ones, And God was saying in that scripture that he esteemed Jacob's descendants more than Esau's. Again, I apologize if I got a little bit heated. This was a fun debate, Maybe we can have another one some time soon. :)God bless!

16169c49-2019-04-18T11:08:40Z-00001-000

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

But there is no indication that he is limiting the "all. "9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, Not willing that any should perish, But that all should come to repentance. There is no indication here that the all means every single person who is on the earth without exception. If it meant every single person without exception, He would then be read as going back and forth between universal and some. It seems kind of eisegetical to read in any as every single person without exception, Randomly in the text. Notice Peter says he is long-suffering to US-ward, Not willing that any. . . Limiting any is obvious by the context, And henceforth all. But all of what? Cats? Dogs? Random people debating online? No. All of the us Peter was referring to. It is obvious the us limits the any and all, And refers to believers. It's not my job to explain every verse, All I need to do is rebut your points and back up my own. If you can't explain this verse in another way than I am, I don't see a need to accept your rebuttal, Especially when it doesn't actually deal with the verse itself. So that means that God creates people so that they CANNOT go to God naturally. That's my point. ALL they know is sin. No offense, But this is a seriously ignorant response. He doesn't create them for that, He creates them knowing they will do that. There's a difference. You didn't even acknowledge the Bible verses I provided. I'd rather believe what the Bible says. What does dead in trespasses mean? That they want to come to God? ! I mean, Come on! I was not straw manning. YOU literally just said that THEY CANNOT GO TO GOD NATURALLY. Since God created them and WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO CHOOSE HIM, ALL they can do is SIN. They HAVE NO CHOICE. - Again, This doesn't mean He created them for that, He created them knowing they would do that. They cannot come to God naturally. If you think they can, That's dangerously close to Pelagianism. For, "No man can come to me, Except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. " The Bible's word against yours. Your originally conclusion was a straw man, That was what I was meaning. Its this "choice" versus the Bible. If you reference the passage from Joshua, That is referring to serving the Lord, Not salvation. Yes. No offense, But this is very unbiblical (maybe even heretical). Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. " There is NO POINT to saying this if there is another way to salvation. Jesus is the gospel, The good news! He Himself calls people to repent and BELIEVE! The Bible's word against yours. For, "I am the way, The truth, And the life; NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me. " I was not, I was pointing out that a respected figure of YOUR faith disagrees with what YOU saidI can go along with that. YOU IS A PRONOUN. WHAT PRONOUNS REFER TO ARE ANTECEDENTS. And you say I don't understand simple grammar? Did you forget that antecedents can refer to pronouns? Again, I was talking about SECOND Peter, Not FIRST Peter. Minute detail, Arbitrary. In that scripture, There is NO indication that they are limiting the "you" to any specific group of people. You did not show where you got this supposed antecedent from, But "you" is a pronoun. There is, And I did. Read the verse, And above. This is a straw man. None of those things have to do with a choice. Second of all, If you don't have a choice like YOU just said, The ONLY thing you can do is SIN. But then God is punishing us for the ONLY thing that we can do? A straw man is a false representation of someone's belief. What I wrote is an argument, Not what you believe. (? ) Sin is not the only thing they can do. It's what their nature is inclined to unless God changes it. Again, What does dead in trespasses mean? EXACTLY, THIS PROVES MY POINT. NONE of them can come to him, So he lets SOME. But then he throws the others in hell, Even though they COULDN'T choose him in the first place becaue he NEVER LET THEM. They LITERALLY COULD NOT BUT IN YOUR VIEW HE STILL PUNISHES THEM FOR ITYou realize I was representing what you believe here, In a semi-satirical way. (? ) He punishes them for sin. God is the creator, I'm not going to tell Him what to do with His creation, And I'm certainly not warp scripture to make him what i want him to be. Because they refuse to acknowledge him or to accept his gift. Does it say He offers propitiation to the world, Or does it say that He is the propitiation? Blatant eisegesis. You are reading offer into that verse! - Don't worry about the "elect" in Peter, Not sure where I was going with that. This was referring to the nations of Israel and Edom, Both of those men's descendants. Nations are made up of people. The words love and hate are still there! This has been an interesting debate. Blessings, -Juke

16169c49-2019-04-18T11:08:40Z-00002-000

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

"Ok, So when context limits something, It should explicitly say, "hey, All here doesn't mean all"? Show what the context means before rebutting someone else's view! "I never said that, But there is no indication that he is limiting the "all. " You can't simply assume that he is because it supports your point, You have to back it up. "You haven't explained what Proverbs 16:4 means. If this verse does not support my view, What does it mean? "It's not my job to explain every verse, All I need to do is rebut your points and back up my own. "You seem to be implying that unbelievers want to come to God naturally, Which is surely false"So that means that God creates people so that they CANNOT go to God naturally. That's my point. ALL they know is sin. "No offense, But be more clear and try to understand what I'm actually saying, Instead of repeatedly using straw men to debunk me. He doesn't sentence people to hell just because He created them. Obviously! That is not what I believe! Proverbs says he made them for the "day of trouble. " read the verse! He didn't create them to sin, He created them, And they were afterwards affected by it. "I was not straw manning. YOU literally just said that THEY CANNOT GO TO GOD NATURALLY. Since God created them and WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO CHOOSE HIM, ALL they can do is SIN. They HAVE NO CHOICE. "As for the verse in Romans (no excuse) does this mean people can be saved without hearing the gospel? "Yes. "If you are willing to use Albert Barnes to prove your points, Don't pick and choose what to believe of his and what not to. You'll agree with his interpretation there, But not other verses that he believes show Calvinism! "I was not, I was pointing out that a respected figure of YOUR faith disagrees with what YOU said. "As for 1 Peter, THE WORD YOU IS THE ANTECEDENT! I'm not wrong if you don't understand simple grammar! Peter says that He is patient towards you, not wishing that any (antecedent, Context, Indicate of you) should perish. Peter is writing to believers, So it would make no sense to randomly say all without an antecedent! "YOU IS A PRONOUN. WHAT PRONOUNS REFER TO ARE ANTECEDENTS. And you say I don't understand simple grammar? Again, I was talking about SECOND Peter, Not FIRST Peter. In that scripture, There is NO indication that they are limiting the "you" to any specific group of people. You did not show where you got this supposed antecedent from, But "you" is a pronoun. "Yes! Everyone who believes, Won't perish! Logic agrees! It doesn't mean all can believe, It just says all that will believe will not perish! Again, I can't help you with simple grammar. Whoever is gonna believe, Is gonna believe! "Precisely, So those who God WON'T ALLOW TO CHOOSE JESUS CANNOT GO TO HEAVEN, And they HAVE TO SIN. Christians are the ONLY ones who can CHOOSE to sin by YOUR logic. "Why does everyone have to have a choice? Did you get to choose your intelligence, Or your looks, Or your stubborness, Or where you were born, Or how cool you are? "This is a straw man. None of those things have to do with a choice. Second of all, If you don't have a choice like YOU just said, The ONLY thing you can do is SIN. But then God is punishing us for the ONLY thing that we can do? "Here's an analogy that illustrates my problem with your belief: God is a scientist. He has the cure for sin (salvation). He goes to a graveyard. The people there are dead in their sins. He lays it on a table for them, And says as loudly as He can (to spiritually dead people) COME, TAKE OF MY EVERLASTING LIFE, BELIEVE IN MY SON! No one comes, Because they are spiritually unable to. Hopefully this illustrates a point. "EXACTLY, THIS PROVES MY POINT. NONE of them can come to him, So he lets SOME. But then he throws the others in hell, Even though they COULDN'T choose him in the first place becaue he NEVER LET THEM. They LITERALLY COULD NOT BUT IN YOUR VIEW HE STILL PUNISHES THEM FOR IT. "You didn't answer my question. Why are people paying for sins in hell that Jesus died for? After all, It says in John 2:2: And He is the propitiation for our sins, And not for ours only, But also for those of the whole world. "Because they refuse to acknowledge him or to accept his gift. "What does it mean in 1 Peter when it talks about confirming your election? "I'm not sure what you're asking here. Confirming an "elect" is your point. What does Romans 9 mean when it says, "Esau I hated, But Jacob I loved? "This was referring to the nations of Israel and Edom, Both of those men's descendants. God was showing how, Even though Esau was the first born, He could do whatever he wanted through whomever he wanted, AKA, Using Jacob to eventually birth Jesus. The "elect" were the Jews, The ones chosen to continue the line all the way to Mary, And obviously after that, Jesus. "We will disregard perserverance of saints for now, These arguments we are going at now are enough"Unless you run out of characters, Please respond to everything.

6328f099-2019-04-18T18:46:57Z-00004-000

Islam misunderstood

I'd just like to say sorry for the late response, I had a hard time finding time to write this and despite this late response I agree that we should debate with speedy replies from now on, I'll do my best to post as soon as I can. Let me begin by addressing some of your previous statements before I continue with my argument. I don't disagree with the fact that animals have been going extinct due to natural selection and that some have evolved in order to survive, however there are instincts that are present in all species. Every species has the instinct to reproduce just as every species has a defensive instinct now it's about how effective (or how strong) that instinct is in comparison to its environment that allows natural selection to take its course. So, I don't believe that God isn't needed in natural selection but rather God is doing the "selecting" (*One of God's 99 names is 'Al Bari' which means 'the Evolver' in Arabic). Also, what I meant by "not being spread by the sword" was that they never forced people to convert to Islam as other religions have but rather have fought for their right to spread the message. And as for "faith isn't evidence but the logic behind the faith is" I agree that logic does not always go hand in hand with logic, but you most agree that logic should be an important part of a true religion. As for evidence I'll give you verses from the Quran that will hopefully verify its validity: In the Surah (Chapter) 24 'An Nur' (the light), Verse 45 "And Allah has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things." We believe in evolution we just believe humans are unique from all of the other creations. In Surah 51 'Adh Dhariyat' (The winds that scatter), Verse 47 "And it is We who have constructed the heavens with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." In Islam there are 7 heavens and this universe (on a spiritual plane) is considered the lowest heaven, what God says here is that He ('We' is used here as the royal 'We' referring to Himself) constructed the heavens and it is He who is expanding them, this universe being one of the heavens it is also expanding. It wasn't until the year 1929 that Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe was expanding implying that at one point it must have been much smaller leading to the conclusion of the Big Bang Theory, the most excepted theory on the creation of our universe. The Big Bang theory proposes that the universe emerged from a singularity at time zero and describes everything that has happened since 0.0001 of a second after the moment of creation. In Surah 21 'Al-Anbiya' (The Prophets), Verse 30 "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" In the first sentence "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?..." you can see that there is a clear connection between the big bang theory and God's description of how the physical universe was created. There are many more verses revealing scientific evidence in the Quran which I don't have the time nor the space to write about. Another thing, I want you to keep in mind that all of these verses were revealed to the Quraish people by Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) roughly 1400 years ago, while these discoveries have just recently been made in the last century or so by scientists qualified to come to those conclusions. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was an illiterate man who lived among the Quraish (A primitive Arab people who used to kill their own daughters because of the custom that at a certain age a man's daughter no longer belonged to the family and was believed to be everyone's property.) From among this the Quran is revealed through the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and the Arab world changes forever. There is no way that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) could have come up with this on his own especially not with the circumstances that he was in, this in itself is a miracle. Finally, the Islamic God is everyone's God, the most fundamental thing about Islam is "La ilaha illah" (There is no God but God). The oneness of God and just oneness in general is the key concept of Islam, the Jewish God and the Christian God (As long as they are not talking about Jesus) is the same God as the Islamic God. Same God three revelations of the same message, the differences are man made, however we just believe that our man To conclude this, I agree that in the following rounds we should focus this debate more on the existence of God.

6328f099-2019-04-18T18:46:57Z-00005-000

Islam misunderstood

First off let me say thank you for a speedy reply. I say we should debate this way: you should provide evidence or arguments for Islam and I will provide evidence and arguments against Islam. Since I am taking the atheist stance you must prove that Islam is correct as suggested in your opening statement. I also say that round two should be for stating our claims (and I will refute a few of yours). First off you claim that animals follow god's will because they have had that "programmed" into them. This is false. You are using to god to explain a natural phenomena, evolution. Evolution via natural selection has caused animals to exhibit the characteristics that they do, it has nothing to do with god. The instinct that god "programmed" into them is merely the result natural selection where by the animals that did not have X instinct died out thus the animals with it survived and passed it on. God is not needed. Also, I agree that Islam is massively shown to be an "evil" religion when it really isn't (any more so than any other). But regarding the claim that it was not spread by the sword. This is false. Around the years 622-632, almost all of the Arabian Peninsula was taken over via conquests. Then by 632-661 much of Northern Africa and Southern Europe was taken in the same manner. It is true that these conquests were not as violent as the Christian Crusades but they were still violent thus proving that the Islamic Empire was spread by the sword. One more thing, you claim that "faith isn't evidence but the logic behind the faith is". First off, what is the logic you are referring to and how is logic evidence? If anything it would be the contrary. (allow me to pull in some science) The logical conclusion about elementary particles would be that they are just 0 dimensional points, point particles but there is minimal evidence to back that up. In fact, there is more evidence to back up the illogical deduction that they are actually vibrating strings. In some camps logic may cut it for evidence but in the god debate it sure doesn't. In conclusion: You must prove god is real and the Islamic god is the true one. (During the next round I will post arguments against god) ~~Peter

6328f099-2019-04-18T18:46:57Z-00006-000

Islam misunderstood

To start things off I'll begin with the meaning of Islam, which is "Acquiring peace through submission". Now many people as soon as they hear the word submission assume the worst of it, but we are taught that this is the best thing you can do in this life is to submit your will to the will of God, meaning that we do that which God has asked us to do because we believe that God, the one who created us, also knows what is best for us. A man that works all day to buy the things that he thinks will bring him peace and happiness has also submitted his will, he has submitted his will to his own desires. However, we believe that that peace and happiness will never come from chasing your desires but the opposite, it comes from sustaining from them. It makes sense to me that we were put on this earth as a trial because when you look around you can notice that everything has already submitted to the will of God, animals function off instinct because that's the way God "programmed" them, so in that sense they have submitted their will to god because they have no other choice other than the way God made them. We also have instinct, but we can choose to ignore our instinct and make logical choices, that's why this a test for us because if we have the ability to make a choice we have the responsibility to make the right one. In this sense do I believe that Islam is the truth because although faith isn't evidence the logic behind the faith is. PS. There's plenty of scientific evidence in the quran let me know if you want to dabble into that. Also another thing which I want to get out of the way right now and we'll hopefully not have to come back to is that I know that there are some muslims (muslims by name) who you hear of on the news burning down churches and yelling "War with the West", this is not the muslim way, the only time violence is excepted in Islam is when it's used to protect your home. These people that you see doing these things and chanting these phrases are people born into the faith and inspired by the mob, that is all. Islam does NOT promote violence, there are Christians that have lived in Arabic countries for generations and generations who can testify to that. If Islam was spread by sword these people would've long been Muslims by now, but this is not the way of prophet Muhammed (pbuh) who is the best example of a good Muslim.

6328f099-2019-04-18T18:46:57Z-00007-000

Islam misunderstood

I will be arguing that Islam is not the true religion. I will take the atheist stand point that no religion is true. I await your opening arguments.

6328f099-2019-04-18T18:46:57Z-00008-000

Islam misunderstood

I truly believe that islam is the truth and I know that there's a lot of you that don't feel the same way, so I was hoping to open this debate to anyone with opposing views who truly wants to have a peaceful discussion on the subject from which we can both benefit from.

6328f099-2019-04-18T18:46:57Z-00000-000

Islam misunderstood

Regarding "The Evolver": My opponent concedes that this is mere assumption and I must say that assumption does not cut it when debating god. With this in mind the first "piece of evidence" falls. Regarding probability: My opponent is making the classic probability fallacy. One cannot claim the probability of something if we don't know how many ways said thing could come about. For example, we don't know how many ways life could come about or if there are different forms of life (that are not carbon based). For this reason this entire probability argument falls. One cannot make the prediction of probability without actually knowing how rare something is! Now regarding evidence. What you have done is provided verses from an ancient book to prove that the ancient book is true. That is called circular logic and can be used by anyone making an insane religious claim. I have provided logical arguments against your god and scientific evidence against your god and I wait to see how you respond. If I can show, even in one way that your god is not needed/has logical inconsistencies I win. //It is important for us to "...believe in the unseen..." because faith is the first pillar of Islam "La ilaha illallah", the shahada, a declaration of faith.// That is not evidence by your own definition. Also, believing the unseen (or unproven) leaves room to believe anything. If this is the case you should believe in farries and unicorns and dragons and genies. This is not an argument. 1: In none of your first paragraphs do you mention Muhammed this I extend. About Genesis, fair enough. I have refuted the passage enough. 2: //The Quran was brought down in Arabic similarly to how the Torah was brought down in Hebrew// But you said it was inspired, not brought down. Also, you have provided no evidence to support this. //As for the expansion of the Universe I don't fully understand the repulsive cosmological constant but from what I understand it's an unknown force, if that's the case than it can be related to God.// Well it's not entirely unknown at all. It is linked to dark energy and dark flow. But just because something is unknown you link it to god? That is terrible (for you that is) because when one does that their god gets smaller and smaller as we learn more. If you do this your god is contingent on out understanding and as our knowledge increases your god get's squeezed smaller and smaller until one can truly say that "God is dead". (also you gave no evidence to support your claim here, just speculation) 3: // now if you look back far enough to the very moment of the big bang you would see that everything that will eventually shape our universe came from one point.// This is so scientifically inaccurate. Right after the big bang there were no atoms and even when the first ones formed there was only hydrogen, none of the major elements that make up earth were there. So this claim is false. //If logic forces you to believe that something must come from something// But that is not what I believe and that is not what is true. Matter came from nothing as shown in my last argument. Since this is the case and I do not comply to the aforementioned statement I can ignore the rest. 4: Fair enough. You have shown that the Quran could not have been forged but that still doesn't compete with my rebuttals of the verses. Arg 1: Well my opponent didn't really answer this but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say this has been disproven. Arg2: //making nothing equal to him.// So he cannot make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? Then he is not omnipotent. Regarding the next part in this argument, it does not matter if you think nothing can be bigger, omnipotence means you are all powerful thus he could do one or the other. Please flow this across. Arg 3: //God is completely different from us he is perfect and we are not. God doesn't need to learn in order to know what learning is like, he invented it. God has knowledge of what's in our minds but he doesn't have to think like us in order to have it, he invented us.// This is not a refutation of the argument, just saying god is not like us. Extend. //Universe from nothing, what are the odds?// Well, you ignored my evidence, and didn't argue against it except by asking "what are the odds" thus I flow this across beautifully. Conclusion: My opponent has only refuted 1 of my 3 logical arguments that show his god is not real thus I extend the other 2. Also, my opponent has not refuted the claim that a universe can come from nothing which I have proven thus I extend that. That shows that there is no need for god at all! Now regarding his claims: Verse one was conceded as being an assumption thus it holds no water. I have also shown that it is false. Verse two has been shown to be scientifically innacurate and was also claimed that "it [the cosmological constant] can be related to God." The problem with this is that there is no evidence to support it. This argument falls. I have disproven all my opponent's claims whist leaving mine unscratched thus I urge you to vote Con!

6328f099-2019-04-18T18:46:57Z-00001-000

Islam misunderstood

Thanks for the extend, sorry for missing the last round, family issues. "God is doing the selecting" I apologize for not explaining this in the previous post. The reason I used that verse was to show that God says that every animal was made from water, since water is necessary in order for life to form and God is "The Evolver" we assume that they were created in water and than evolved (by God). Now let me ask you something, if an intelligent source is not behind the creation of this universe and is not behind evolution than you must assume that everything is random (natural means), than tell me what are the odds? An event with the probability of 1 in 10 to the power of 110 is so insignificant it's considered zero meaning no chance. According to Sir Fred Hoyle, who was an english astronomer and mathematician, the possibility of even the simplest form of life evolving by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000, this is the equivalent of rolling two dice 50,000 times and rolling a12 every time you rolled the dice, impossible. Dr. Harold Morowitz, professor of Molecular Chemistry at Yale University, claims that the odds of life creating itself by chance are one in 10 to the power of one billion! "Logic in true religion" Now you want me to prove that God exists using more than just logic meaning you want me to provide evidence, well lets start with the definition of evidence: http://dictionary.reference.com... I'm not so sure about 5 but 1, 2 and 4 confirms that what I've given you is evidence. However if you want to refer to number 3 in the list of definitions and ask me for facts that God exist we can start a series of philosophical questions and debates (ie. What is reality? What is truth?) that could not be solved by the end of this round. Now lets say that you got your proof and everyone saw God and everyone knew it was God than there wouldn't be much need for faith. Surah 2 'Al baqara' (The Cow), Verse 2 and 3 "This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah / Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them," It is important for us to "...believe in the unseen..." because faith is the first pillar of Islam "La ilaha illallah", the shahada, a declaration of faith. 1: I answered this question in the 1st paragraph. As for the Genesis part I told you in a previous post that the SAME message was delivered 3 times by the three most known prophets Moses, Jesus and Muhammed (pbut). The differences are man made, there shouldn't be three religions but just one. 2: The Quran was brought down in Arabic similarly to how the Torah was brought down in Hebrew. You must understand that up until 1905 no musilm attempted to translate the Quran into any other language in fear of corrupting the message or causing contradiction. (*The Quran is recited in Arabic not read*) The way the words are put together, it's poetry. You can take any word (In arabic) from the Quran and place it in a sentence with regular arabic and always be able to spot which word is form the Quran. The way the Quran is written is very unique in the language and in how the language is used. Hard to translate. As for proof that this universe is the lowest heaven I give you this: Surah 37 'As-Saffat' (Those who set the ranks), Verse 6 "Lo! We have adorned the lowest heaven with an ornament, the planets;" And in Surah 67 'Al-Mulk' (The sovereignty), Verse 5 "And We have (from of old) adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire." As for the expansion of the Universe I don't fully understand the repulsive cosmological constant but from what I understand it's an unknown force, if that's the case than it can be related to God. 3: Also, you must understand the concept of time does not exist for God it only exists for us, in this universe. "The Big Bang theory proposes that the universe emerged from a singularity at time zero..." that verse states that the heavens and the earth were one unit of creation, now if you look back far enough to the very moment of the big bang you would see that everything that will eventually shape our universe came from one point. If logic forces you to believe that something must come from something than we must assume that this matter and energy must have also come from something; "...the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder..." Meaning that all this matter was once part of another dimension (heaven) until God "clove it asunder". 4: There are two sources that Muslims use as instructions on how to live their lives, one is the Quran (The word of God) and the other are the Hadiths (The things prophet Muhammed (pbuh) said and did). These Hadith's were narrated from one person to another until they were all compiled into one book sometime after the death of the prophet. These Hadith's can range from weak hadith's to strong hadith's. A hadith is classified as weak in the case that if one of the people whom this was translated to was either unknown or there was a sight possibility he could have lied or over-exaggerated the truth than this hadith was either considered weak or not considered at all. Now the people closest to the prophet (his wives, his companions and his closest friends) or the prophet himself are normally at the source of these hadiths. If the prophet spoke this would be recorded as hadith, if someone spoke of something the prophet did or said than depending on how true it is, it too would be recorded as hadith. Also, there were many hadiths about the same thing because there were many people to listen to the prophet speak, so when scholars compare these hadiths what other hadiths about the same event and some are noticed to be slightly different from the rest this person who narrated that is now declared an unreliable source. This is how careful they were with these things. I will have to make the following brief because I'm going to run out of characters shortly. FIRST ARGUMENT This life is a test therefore there is good and evil and it's our job to make the right choice. Also, if something bad happens to you it is not necessarily a bad thing because it may lead to something good. I'm sure you've heard this before that cold is not cold but and absence of heat, similarly darkness does exist but an absence of light does, we can't measure darkness but we can measure how much light there is, well similarly there is no evil but an absence of good or rather God. God could have created everything good but than this wouldn't be a trial. If your mother spanks you does that mean that she is evil or just trying to teach you a lesson. Similarly, bad is used to teach man good but God's plan is plenty times more complicated than your mothers so you must understand that the "spanking" would be done on a much larger scale. SECOND ARGUMENT God is the creator he was not created, he has always been, therefore anything God creates will always be a creation of God, making nothing equal to him. Not to mention, God is perfect, meaning that it's not a question of whether or not God can or can't create something bigger than himself but that there IS NOT something that can be bigger than himself. ie. If you know everything, can do everything, can see everything etc. than what are you going to create that can do more than everything, that can see more than everything and that can know more than everything. THIRD ARGUMENT God is completely different from us he is perfect and we are not. God doesn't need to learn in order to know what learning is like, he invented it. God has knowledge of what's in our minds but he doesn't have to think like us in order to have it, he invented us. Universe from nothing, what are the odds? http://www.doesgodexist.org...

6328f099-2019-04-18T18:46:57Z-00002-000

Islam misunderstood

Extend.

6328f099-2019-04-18T18:46:57Z-00003-000

Islam misunderstood

//God is doing the "selecting" // I dare say this is not true. There is nothing "doing" the selecting, it is just the fact that if organisms can't survive they will die. It has nothing to do with god. But even ignoring what I just said, you have no evidence to support that it is god save for the name 'Al Bari'. With this lack of evidence being treated as true I can make any number of assertions regarding who is doing the selecting whilst each having the same amount of validity as your god does. But the only thing that has any real validity is the claim that the selecting process works via natural means. //you most agree that logic should be an important part of a true religion.// Mehhhhhh, somewhat. If a religion is true there would be logic behind it but as in the case of science logic alone doesn't cut it. One can make logical arguments for and against god (which is what I shall do) but you being the person claiming there is a god must prove s/he exists using more than just logic. (Also, giving Quran verses is fine but you shouldn't try to prove the Quran is true using itself. ie. The Quran is true because it says so ect.... I am aware you are not doing this I am merely warning against it) But to the actual verses. 1: What does this first verse prove? It is merely stating that Allah made the animals (much like Genesis might I add). This his absolutely nothing to do with evolution. 2: First off, I looked on Quranenglish.com for the verse in question and I found this: Surah 51:47: "And heaven – We made it with Our Own Power and We have the Power to do so."[1] This makes no mention of the heavens being expanded. But regardless I will answer the argument anyways. You say there are 7 heavens and this passages mentions all of them since it uses the word "heavens" (according to the version you provided) meaning that it is not necessarily talking about the universe. But since the universe is one the heavens this is somewhat valid. But before I go more in depth can I first ask for some evidence showing that the known universe is considered a heaven according to Islam? Thank you. Now, we have a fairly good grasp of what is causing the universe to expand, first off there was the initial "bang" that propelled matter outward and that combined with the repulsive cosmological constant makes the universe expand. There is no need for a god to cause the expansion. 3: //heavens and the earth were joined together // But they weren't... the Earth was formed roughly 10 billion years after the big bang. So no, there is not a clear connection at all. This is just saying that in the creation that the Quran talks about, the Earth and they sky were formed together which, if anything, contradicts modern science. I say, answer that. 4: May I ask what evidence there is (outside the Quran) that says that Muhammed actually saw all this stuff and wrote it? Once that is given I will refute it. Arguments: I will propose a few paradoxes that disprove attributes of your god: First off I will propose the simple "Problem of Evil" set fourth by Epicurus. 1: Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not all loving ergo the god that is commonly described is false. 2: Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not all powerful ergo the god that is commonly described is false. 3: Is God able and willing? Then why is there evil? This cannot be an option since there is evil thus god is either 1,2 or 4. 4: Is God neither willing nor able? Then why call him god? ~~Epicurus (adapted by me) As we can see with the above argument god is either no all powerful thus your god is wrong, god is either not all loving thus your god is wrong again or your god simply isn't a god. QED. Next is the "Omnipotence Paradox". Can god create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it? 1: If yes, he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift said rock. 2: If no, he is not omnipotent because there is something god cannot do. 3: God does not exist. This is why omnipotent beings can never exist. The third and final logical argument is the "Omniscience and Learning argument". (The formal argument is complex and thus I will make it simpler but I will still link to the full one) 1: An all knowing being, God, exists. 2: God is and always has been all knowing. 3: Being all knowing means you have all experimental knowledge. 4: Having all experimental knowledge means one knows what it's like to learn something. 5: 'Thus God knows and has always known what it's like to learn.' 6: Know what learning is like obviously means you have learned something! 7: Learning means that you went from not knowing to knowing. 8: Thus God went from a state of not knowing to one of knowing. 9: 'Thus God was once in a state of not knowing...' 10: Meaning God has not always been all knowing. 11: "God has always been omniscient and has not always been omniscient." 12: Thus your god does not exist. [2] Also, there is no scientific need for a god of any sort seeing as the universe can come from nothing. This may seem odd but listen. Observation 1: Our universe has 0 net energy. Our universe has 0 total energy due to the fact that matter/energy is positive and gravity is negative thus if you add them, the cancel to 0 exactly. The important thing about a 0 energy universe is that it can come from nothing. This will be shown in subsequent observations. Observation 2: Quantum fluctuations can create matter from nothing. Quantum fluctuations can create matter from nothing, of course these are quite short lived since they have positive net energy but if a particle, or a universe, were to say, have 0 total energy, there would be no limit upon the longevity of said entity. Observation 3: Since our universe has 0 total energy and quantum fluctuations can create matter from nothing our universe can come from nothing. Therefore: Your god is not needed. [1] http://www.quranenglish.com... [2] http://www.infidels.org...

d044b73b-2019-04-18T15:24:47Z-00000-000

Avengers vs X-Men

Opponent makes the claim that the rest of the Avengers would be helping Susan out. However, from the arguments from before against the Avengers, we can effectively eliminate four members from the Avengers: Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow; and Hawkeye. Which leaves for the Avengers opponent mentioned: Hulk Thor Invisible Woman However, he has not tried to figure out HOW to defeat the X-Men, rather, he simply copies and pastes powers from the wiki page of his Avenger. So that leaves all 5 I mentioned: Professor X Storm Wolverine Cyclops Magneto All very strong and adept at fighting. X and Storm would defeat Invisible Woman for the reasons used in R3, leaving the Hulk and Thor, who are also both remarkably powerful. However, with the worlds most powerful telepath, a manipulator of magnetic fields, manipulator of weather, extremely potent fighter, and one with a high concentration laser, it seems near obvious who would win. While the Hulk and Thor are both highly durable, they are NOT invincible. They are both able to be killed after multiple extremely powerful attacks. While they may be able to withstand it at first, with powers of that nature, they won't be able to attack, as they would need to focus on defending themselves from the onslaught of forces. Not to mention, both Thor and the Hulk are remarkably Melee-based. With only one melee-based member on the X-Men that I listed, the X-Men would simply need to attack at a range and keep clear of the enemy attacks. In conclusion: Out of the seven avengers opponent mentioned and the five X-Men I listed, the X-Men are easily able to take care of the Avengers. Opponent provides no way in which the Avengers could win, simply stating that they could and listing the hero's powers. Overall, with the evidence stacked against the Avengers, it seems clear the X-Men would reign supreme. Not to mention this claim: "The Avengers are "Earth's mightiest heroes," doesn't X-Men live on earth too? " . .. which is plain absurd. It's meant to be a quote, not a deciding factor of the strengths. Overall, I thank opponent for this debate, but I feel I should win for the following reasons: 1. Opponent's main arguments are copying and pasting powers with little to no reasoning behind them. 2. Opponent, on many cases, fails to provide evidence of how the Avengers could win in a fight 3. :)

d044b73b-2019-04-18T15:24:47Z-00001-000

Avengers vs X-Men

You said that "These five that I have mentioned: Professor X, Storm, Wolverine, Magneto, and Cyclops are all easily able to take down the six Avengers opponent started off the argument with." Let's imagine that cyclops went after the hulk. Considering that the Hulk has probably the quickest healing factor than anyone in the Marvel Universe, including Wolverine. Wounds that would be deadly to most other heroes takes just a short time for the Hulk to recover. "He can withstand concussive blasts, impacts from super-powered villians, and extreme high and low temperatures."[1] You also said how it is unseen in the Avengers, Hulk covers all your credentials of these listed. "Take Thor opposed to Storm, who can create any type of weather and control it at will. Storm obviously wins here." Well, Thor can Teleport, has large scale weather manipulation,ability to control lightning. You said that Thor is not immortal. Well, Storm isn't either. Meaning, with enough hits from Thor's Mjollnir, Storm would easily go down. You gave the scenario of Storm and X taking care of Susan, but it wouldn't just be susan going against the 2, the other Avengers would be helping. Basically, the Avengers would definitely defeat X-men because of their high-tech and physical powers. X-Men may have the supernatural part, but that may not be always a good thing. The Avengers are "Earth's mightiest heroes," doesn't X-Men live on earth too? Cites: [1]http://www.incrediblehulkonline.com... this just for interest: http://www.comicvine.com...

d044b73b-2019-04-18T15:24:47Z-00002-000

Avengers vs X-Men

To respond to Pro's claims I shall refute. First of all, Pro mentions a statement at the bottom of the wiki page: "The following are teams who have used the name of X-Men without express permission of the official X-Men, sometimes opposed to the X-Men altogether, to announce and/or promote themselves to the public. " However, what Pro neglects to mention is that the statement was referring to the list of teams BELOW it, not the ones above. The "fake" ones, for a lack of a better word, include Cerebro's, Great Lakes, and Norman Osborn's X-Men, however every other member above that is a part of the X-Men. Feel free to check, voters. Now onto Pro's argument about Thor. 1. First of all, while Thor has a large amount of natural durability, he is NOT immortal or invincible. If he takes enough hits, he CAN die. 2. Unlike Storm, Thor cannot fully harness weather effects, rather, he can create storm-related effects but cannot control them, as they are artificial. This potentially means that the weather could rebound back onto Thor and he would have no control over it. [1] Take Thor opposed to Storm, who can create any type of weather and control it at will. Storm obviously wins here. Anyway to refute further, opponent completely abandons his idea of the six in the movie and instead looks to the list toward another: Invisible Woman, aka Susan Storm. Now, while she has the ability to completely counter the invisibility and even provide invisibility of her own, opponent neglects that Professor X, one of the, if not the world's most powerful telepath, is still on our side, not to mention a few other things. In my last argument, I provided a scenario where two of the X-Men could wipe out the six Avengers opponent listed. Then opponent proceeds to list another from the list I provided [2]. However, opponent forgets that the X-Men have many more valuable members on its side, including Wolverine, Magneto, and Cyclops. Each of these characters have extraordinary powers, unseen or unheard of in many Avengers. Cyclops' abilities are revolved around his trademark lasers, who were able to even destroy the top of a mountain. [3] Wolverine's abilities include an increased healing factor, and has an adamantium skeleton, capable of withstanding deadly hits from enemies, As well, he is in his physical prime, with great dexterity, speed, and power by the use of his claws. [4] Magneto is able to manipulate electromagnetic fields for a wide array of powers. By these powers he can have a shield capable of withstanding multiple thermonuclear weapon detonations. Even without the shield, he is still able to levitate, and even rearrange matter to fit his desires. [5] These five that I have mentioned: Professor X, Storm, Wolverine, Magneto, and Cyclops are all easily able to take down the six Avengers opponent started off the argument with. Seeing as he is resorting to other Avengers, he seems to recognize that those six alone are NOT capable of taking on the X-Men, thus proving my point even further. How to counter Susan Storm: I never directly stated this before, I just stated that there many other members of the X-Men able to help. However, here's how the X-Men can win. 1. Storm and X take care of the other six present. 2. Susan counters Storm's invisibility and even forms her own around her. 3. Magneto manipulates the matter around Susan and forcefully slams her into the ground extremely hard, leaving a crater where she landed (yes, that hard). 4. Assuming she is extremely hurt from the force of the throw, she cannot instantly get up. Storm rains down natural powers upon her general area where she landed. As she cannot get up, she is forced to withstand this brunt attack. 5. After this, Susan is defeated. To wrap this argument up, the X-Men are simply too powerful. The Avengers contains a lot of people without powers, or those with just enhanced natural abilities. The X-Men has the latter, and every single person on the team has at least one special power. As stated earlier, the X-Men are: ". .. heroic mutants, individuals born with special powers who've sworn to use their gifts to protect mutants as well as humans. " [6] The X-Men simply defeat the Avengers because the Avengers have more physical traits while X-Men contain both physical and supernatural, putting them at an advantage. "Anyways, the Human Torch can just go in and defeat X-Men with his powers of fire. " Taken care of by X and Storm easily, for the same reasons as in the previous round. Awaiting refutation. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(Marvel_Comics) #Powers_and_abilities [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics) #Powers_and_abilities [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(character) #Powers_and_abilities [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics) #Powers_and_abilities [6] See [1] of R2 arg

d044b73b-2019-04-18T15:24:47Z-00003-000

Avengers vs X-Men

Thank you for your response! What are the Avengers known as? Well they are known as "Earth's mightiest heroes." Wait, doesn't the X-Men liven Earth as well? Rebuttals: "Even if opponent argued that there are more Avengers than what he listed (which is true), the list is still significantly smaller than that of the X-Men's." Yes, there are more X-Men then there are Avengers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are better. Not all on the list are considered actual X-Men. After going through the list, on the bottom it said, "The following are teams who have used the name of X-Men without express permission of the official X-Men, sometimes opposed to the X-Men altogether, to announce and/or promote themselves to the public." Arguments: You said that, "Storm's the "clean up crew" for this team. Having one of the strongest powers on the team as well, she uses manipulation of weather to her advantage." You may be forgetting that who on the Avengers also has power of weather? Your answer, Thor. In other words, Thor could easily use his manipulation of weather and his mjolnir against them. "Very vulnerable to invisible natural attacks from Storm." Now, who else from the Avenger could survive Storm.Her name is Susan Storm. to only can she go invisible, but she can also "projected invisibility,invisible force field projection (which bestows the ability to generate protective invisible shields and invisible energy constructs as well as the power to control and manipulate objects")[1] Anyways, the Human Torch can just go in and defeat X-Men with his powers of fire. Cites: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

d044b73b-2019-04-18T15:24:47Z-00004-000

Avengers vs X-Men

1. Strength in Numbers Opponent mentions the Avengers as a team of six members. However, the X-Men are, by definition, "Feared and hated by humans because they're different, . .. heroic mutants, individuals born with special powers who've sworn to use their gifts to protect mutants as well as humans. " [1] By this definition, The X-Men are mutants all a part of one organization. These mutants include Wolverine, Storm, Cyclops, Professor X, Psylocke, Rogue, and Nightcrawler, to name a few. Even if opponent argued that there are more Avengers than what he listed (which is true), the list is still significantly smaller than that of the X-Men's. Compare this: . http://en.wikipedia.org... To this: . http://en.wikipedia.org... And you can clearly see the X-Men are far greater in member count than the Avengers. Using the six Avengers he has presented, if the two organizations were to go head to head it would be near obvious who would win. However, let's create a scenario. Just imagine a normal city. The Avengers and X-Men decide to have a fight. The Avengers take one side, X-Men the other. Now personally, I feel that even two members are able to take down the entire Avengers: Professor X and Storm. PROFESSOR X Professor X is one of the, if not the, most powerful telepath in the ENTIRE Marvel Universe. With the ability to alter enemies' thought, he is an extremely deadly foe. The telepathy range is up to 250 MILES on Earth alone. His tools for confounding enemies are extremely great and can be used at great benefit to the X-Men team. STORM Storm's the "clean up crew" for this team. Having one of the strongest powers on the team as well, she uses manipulation of weather to her advantage. II. SCENARIO The Avegers and X-Men line up to fight. Storm appears alone. Professor X, from a remote location (up to ~250 miles away max) uses the telepathy to alter the waves around himself and Storm to make them invisible. As well, he projects multiple illusions of Storm all heading different directions. Of course, this all happens at once, and the original Storm never seems to "disappear". While the Avengers are continually trying to find the real Storm, Storm (the real one, and still invisible) uses her powers to rain hell on the Avengers, using multiple elements such as lightning, earth, and even an asteroid, all within her power and all capable of stopping the Avengers. If not enough, Storm is even capable of manipulating air inside of lungs. As if the Avengers weren't screwed already. If all else fails, and Storm somehow manages to be discovered and defeated, no need to worry, Professor X is here! Again, using his telepathy powers, he is able to paralyze each member of the Avengers, and even inflict pain amongst them, all from his mind. COUNTERS: While opponent does list decent powers for his Avengers, each of them are weak to at least one element from the pair I mentioned before. Iron Man: Very easily taken out of action by X, whose telepathic powers are able to render the suit useless. Without the suit, Iron Man is nothing. CA, Hawkeye, BW, Hulk, Thor: Very vulnerable to invisible natural attacks from Storm. The only two out of this list I can even think of surviving Storm are Thor and the Hulk, but even their sustain runs out after a while! Opposition claims the Avengers "work" for their powers. The only examples of this I can think of are Iron, BW, and Hawkeye (Hulk's was by a radioactive accident, CA didn't work for the powers and had an injection, and Thor. .. well, Thor's Thor. He didn't earn any of his powers, he already had them. ) Even so, it doesn't matter if one "works" for a power or not. At the end of the day, whoever wins will be the one with the superior powers and the ability to use them well. Don't get me wrong, I love Marvel and the Avengers, I just find their lineup "underwhelming" compared to that of the X-Men. Awaiting refutation :) (Feel free to check for X's and Storm's powers yourself, if need be) Sources: [1] . http://marvel.com... [2] . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

d044b73b-2019-04-18T15:24:47Z-00005-000

Avengers vs X-Men

Thanks for accepting! Who are The Avenger? Are they just a team thrown together at random? No, they are the ultimate fighting team. They consist of Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Black Widow, Thor, and Hawkeye. At this time, I will talk about each individual and their powers. Iron Man: Iron Man can create magnetic fields and manipulate them to create magnetic waves/magnetic pulses and make him magnetic proof. He can also make 3D holograms, which he uses as decoys or generate them on the different armors. Iron Man can also use his nanotechnology to create anything including more armors and even unlimited energy so he never runs out of strength. Other than that, his powers :" Attractive Male,Blast Power,Electricity Control,Electronic interaction,Energy Absorption,Flight,Force Field,Gadgets,Healing,Implants,Insanely Rich,Intellect,Invulnerability,Leadership,Magnetism,Power Suit,Psionic,Radar Sense,Stamina,Sub-Mariner,Super Speed,Super Strength,Technopathy,Unarmed Combat,Weapon Master"[1] Captain America: Captain America, not only being the symbol of freedom during World War 1 and such, but he was a true hero. He has human physiological conditioning, master martial art agility, vibranium steel alloy shield, and excellent field commander. Hulk: Hands down Hulk is the best. He has unlimited strength, the "thunderclap," leaping/jumping ability, accelerated healing, durability, and high resistance. Black Widow: "Agility,Attractive Female,Escape Artist,Intellect,Leadership,Longevity,Marksmanship,Stamina,Stealth,Unarmed Combat,Weapon Master." [2] Thor: He has an extended lifespan,immunity to conventional diseases, enhanced endurance,superhuman strength,Thor can also invoke the berserker rage to increase his strength. Hawkeye: "He is at the very peak of human conditioning; he is an exceptional fencer, acrobat and marksman, having been trained from childhood in the circus and by the criminals Trick Shot and Swordsman." As you can see, in the movie The Avengers, each superhero consists of superhuman strength and ability (except Hawkeye,) in X-Men they only get their powers from being mutants. Avengers actually work hard for their powers. Cites: [1] http://www.comicvine.com... [2] http://www.comicvine.com... [3[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkeye_(comics)

d044b73b-2019-04-18T15:24:47Z-00007-000

Avengers vs X-Men

In this debate, i am pro, meaning the Avengers are better than X-men. The con will try to prove that X-Men is better than The Avengers.

2066fdd2-2019-04-18T19:59:03Z-00000-000

Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution in science class, in USA High Schools.

Fine, don't answer my questions or refute my arguments. I need 100 letters to finish. Thank you for the debate anyway.

2066fdd2-2019-04-18T19:59:03Z-00001-000

Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution in science class, in USA High Schools.

My arguments and questions still stand. If you cannot answer them, then go ahead and say so, but don't hide away in the dark, frightened of the truth.

2066fdd2-2019-04-18T19:59:03Z-00002-000

Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution in science class, in USA High Schools.

Evolution is fact. Here is why I believe so. The majority of people against Evolution say that there are major gaps between the evolving states of animals and humans. This is, for the most part, not true. According to the Scientific Talks Origins Archive transitional fossils have actually been found. Transitional fossils are the link in between the evolved and the previous states of our evolution. Not all have been found. There are still quite a few missing. But these trans-fossils have filled in some of the gaps that we are missing in evolution. And yes, we can prove Evolution scientifically. Natural selection has proved that the weaker will collapse and the stronger will prevail. For example, dogs. They are weaker, they have become the main household pet in most of America. Since they are weaker, we are able to over-power them. We COULD eat them if necessary. Adaptions also occur. For example, how come there are so many different variants of the cat and canine family? Because some have adapted to living as household pets, some have adapted to the wild, some have evolved fur coats to keep them warm in the cold, some have only grown short fur because they live in the hot African wild. These cats and animals adapted from different places from which they first came from. And how do we explain the fossils that we have found of ourselves years ago? According to Science Daily, a girl was found deep in mountains and she looked fairly similiar to a human, but had a slightly more disgured head and was identified to be an incredible amount of years old. Along with all these skeletons we find, and the proof that natural selction, strong over the weak, and adaptions occur, we find that evolution has been proven fact. You say, "No where in intelligent design does it mention biblical times, so there is no need to teach our public school kids about religion." Let me ask you this, what are we going to teach schools in the case of Intelligent Design? How will the beginning of our earth be answered? How will we teach things that have no understanding to it? How will we teach Intelligent Design? "Evolution has no answer for how life was started." Actually, Evolution has said that life started from tiny organisms that were created from proteins, that were created from the Big bang, or similiar ideologies. "If evolution were true then why are no monkeys having humans as babies anymore?" Because that is not Evolution. When we evolve, so do the offspring the we produce. Monkeys do not have human babies because it is impossible and never happened. Monkeys had monkey babies and humans had human babies. "perfectness of human beings" Who said we are perfect? We die, we share similiar traits with many animals, and we can get diseases. "How come Earth was the only planet in our solar system to have the perfect composition of gases and materials to produce intelligent life?" Because the same that that happened to Earth happened to every other planet in the Universe, thus we are perfect because in our ultimate consortium of dimensions we were successful because we were in the right place, a the right time. You think Evolution is puny? HA! Let me show you: 1. Who is the Intelligent Designer? 2. How did this Intelligent Designer design us? 3. What state were we in when we were designed? 4. What scientific proof does ID have? 5. What non-scientific proof does ID have? 6. How are we to teach ID? The argument is ID should be taught in science class: "Intelligent design and evolution can both be argued to not be a science." 7. So you are basically saying it should not be taught in science class, just as I am saying?

2066fdd2-2019-04-18T19:59:03Z-00003-000

Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution in science class, in USA High Schools.

The existence of intelligent design certainly is a complicated topic. Intelligent design basically says that everything was created with an intelligent cause, unlike evolution which says we evolved here from something else. Intelligent design and evolution can both be argued to not be a science. Rather, both are theories for our existence. When children enter the public school system they should be taught both theories side by side. A good student will exam both arguments and the information presented to decide for his own what he believes. The reason they are both theories is because IT IS NOT PROVEN - EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT. Just because public schools teach it does not mean it is the law of the land (just look at some history books they use now). Furthermore, your point about intelligent design being a smoke screen for fanatical religion is far from the truth. Intelligent design does not come from the bible. Rather is just says we are just too complicated and intelligent to come from a monkey. No where in intelligent design does it mention biblical times, so there is no need to teach our public school kids about religion. Intelligent design, unlike evolution, has answers for important questions. Evolution has no answer for how life was started. If evolution were true then why are no monkeys having humans as babies anymore? With the extensiveness of DNA and the perfectness of human beings the way we are, wouldn't something "intelligent" have to design us? How come Earth was the only planet in our solar system to have the perfect composition of gases and materials to produce intelligent life? With these answers unexplained by evolution maybe that theory should not be indoctrinated in to our student's minds alone. The only reason I can think of why people like you do not want our children taught about other ways of thinking than you own is that you are afraid your theory may look puny and unrealistic to even a young science student.

2066fdd2-2019-04-18T19:59:03Z-00004-000

Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution in science class, in USA High Schools.

The existence and possibility of Intelligent Design is a complicated topic, that throughout history has been debated by many people and important figures. Some arguments extend furthur. They extend to the topic of "Should Intelligent Design also be taught in science class?" I believe it should not. There are many reasons why not including: A) Intelligent Design is not a Science. B) Intelligent Design is purely a smokescreen for fanatical Christian and Islamic (or any "Jesus/God-believing" religion for that matter) beliefs to be brought into the American public school system. C) Intelligent Design has no evidence and cannot be proven scientifically (it requires mere untrusted, unquetioned faith). D) Evolution is proven fact (we teach facts in schools, not unlikely possibilities). It is through these statements, working coherently, that I believe that Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class in the United States public school system.

d3bf6dd4-2019-04-18T18:51:44Z-00001-000

Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

Regarding the first question: The question posed in this debate is about which nation is more of a threat, not which nation is militarily stronger. If you continued your argument out, one might say that Canada or the UK are great threats, but this is not the case, since they are not antagonistic to the US. Regarding question two: I never said that most Muslims are murderers, just that the ones in power (thus controlling the resources) are. And we're not just talking about Al Qaeda, what about Hamas? Regarding question three: The whole Muslim population is either unaware of the commands of radical Islam or tends to ignore the, shall we say, distasteful parts? Regarding question four: They would attack the US because the US is an ally of Israel. My crossfire has the following questions: 1. Is the debate about military strength or military threat? 2. Even if North Korea has a stronger military, you need to consider whether they are likely to attack. 3. Ideologies play a large part in global relations, don't they? 4. And isn't the Iranian ideology more likely to be anti-American?

d3bf6dd4-2019-04-18T18:51:44Z-00002-000

Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

There is a couple things wrong with my opponent's argument, as I will point out in here. This is the crossfire. I will ask a few questions. Please answer these questions next round. 1. Does it make sense to say that the militarily weaker country is more of a threat? 2. Knowing that al Qaeda and Iran practice opposite branches of Islam, and that most Muslims aren't murderers, does it make sense to say that Iran is dangerous because of jihadists (al Qaeda)? 3. If the Koran states that Christians and Jews are infidels, and that infidels need to be killed, then why isn't the whole Muslim population in the jihad with al Qaeda? 4. Even if Iran was controlled by jihadists, their war is against Israel. Why would they attack the US?

d3bf6dd4-2019-04-18T18:51:44Z-00003-000

Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

While my opponent presents a convincing argument regarding the ballistic/nuclear capacities of North Korea as opposed to Iran, he neglects to deal with the issue of the ideologies present in both regimes. While it is true that North Korea, as a primarily communist nation, is economically opposed to the United States, the much more dangerous threat comes from the radical Islamic militants in Iran. The jihadists, while not militarily equal to the North Koreans, are certainly more prone to using their military resources against this country. North Korea does have increased military capacity but has thus far no distinct reason for using them. Iran, however, is a country controlled by Sharia law and the radical Islamic faction. The Islamic jihadists believe that, as the Koran says, Christians, Jews, and their supporters are infidels, and the Koran commands faithful Muslims to kill infidels. There can be no more convincing ideological motivation that the violent demands of a radical religion. The general ideological base of Iranian terrorists is the general reason that Iran is more dangerous to the United States than North Korea. Note: I am not saying that all Muslims are radical murderers, just that the ones that control Iran are fundamentalist jihadists (not to mention their leader, Mahmoud Amedinijad, bordering on insanity).

d3bf6dd4-2019-04-18T18:51:44Z-00004-000

Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

JrRepublican, please post your first speech in round 3 and your first crossfire and second speech in round 4. I will post my crossfire and second speech in round 4 as well. My response to your second crossfire in round 5 will be in the comments section.

d3bf6dd4-2019-04-18T18:51:44Z-00005-000

Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

A debate in public forum is composed of a first speech followed by a crossfire (opponents ask each other questions to try to prove each other wrong), then a second speech followed by a crossfire. The first speech is where you lay out your contentions. The second speech can be used to add additional points, support previous points, and/or rebut your opponent's points. There's stuff afterward, but all you need to know is what I've said thus far. I will begin my first speech now. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With perceived threats everywhere, the United States needs to know what the most serious threat is to effectively defend national security. I favor the resolution because of 3 reasons, which I will list here. Contention 1: North Korea has developed nuclear weapons, while Iran is several years from developing them According to TASS, North Korea has uranium enrichment facilities that violate UN Security Council law. In other words, North Korea has the capability to produce uranium enriched enough to produce atomic bombs. At the same time, Trend Daily News reports that snap inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency have found no evidence that Iran was producing nuclear weapons. In fact, Israel reports that Iran won't have the capability to produce nuclear weapons until at least 2015. If any country that makes nuclear weapons is a threat, then it makes sense to say that a country that is closer to making a nuke is more of a threat than the country that has a long way to go before they can successfully make one. North Korea is much closer to making a nuke than Iran. Therefore it only makes sense to say that North Korea is a greater threat to US national security than Iran. Contention 2: North Korea has ballistic missiles and biochemical weapons, which pose a much greater threat than the terror groups that Iran support National security today seems to be all about stopping terrorism. People panic when someone wears a shirt with the word "bomb" on it. People are sent to Gitmo because of suspected terrorist intentions. People blame Wiki Leaks for giving classified information to terrorists. True, terrorism is a threat, and Iran is a terror group supporter, but the threat that Iran poses with its terror groups is dwarfed by North Korea's ballistic missile technology and biochemical weapons. North Korea has anthrax, the same bacteria some terrorists used in the Anthrax Scare in the US. But unlike the terrorists, who have to send granulated anthrax by letter, North Korea can send them as a warhead on a ballistic missile. Which is more dangerous? Which spreads disease faster: explosives or snail mail? North Korea also has chemical weapons that terrorists have no hope of getting their hands on. According to Popular Mechanics, "most assessments of North Korea's WMD capabilities point to a chemical weapons stockpile of some 5000 tons of agents, including large amounts of sarin, mustard gas and hydrogen cyanide. That would make it one of the largest chemical arsenals in the world. " In war, most casualties are not from battle or shelling, but disease, radiation, and gas. North Korea has all of these. Terrorists only have diseases. And let's not forget why there is so much hype on terrorism today. Some terror group that calls themselves Al Qaeda imitated the Japanese kamikazes of World War II and felled the Twin Towers. If the terrorists can do that, so can North Korea. North Korea has more planes than the terrorists, and they don't have to use our planes to do damage like the terrorists do. In short, North Korea can do anything that the terrorists can do, and more.

d3bf6dd4-2019-04-18T18:51:44Z-00006-000

Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

I'm new to this, so what are the rules of the public forum? Also, we must debate quickly, or I may not have access tothe website within 24 hours.

d3bf6dd4-2019-04-18T18:51:44Z-00007-000

Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

This debate is a public forum debate. I will expect my opponent to know the rules of public forum before the debate starts in Round 2. If my opponent has any questions, he/she may ask in Round 1.

d3bf6dd4-2019-04-18T18:51:44Z-00000-000

Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

Answers: 1. Military threat has a lot to do wit military strength. There is no way to execute threats if there is no strength to back them up. 2. You have provided no evidence that says they aren't likely to attack. 3. Yes they do. North Korea hates the US for supporting South Korea just as much as Iran hates us for supporting Israel. 4. No, it isn't. This is apparent because there haven't been any attacks on the US from Shiites. Now I'll start my second speech. First I'll rebut my opponent's points, then I'll support my own. During the last crossfire, my opponent claimed that it was the country with harmful intentions, and not the country with the strong military, that is threatening. In some cases he is right, as one would trust a police officer with a handgun, but not an unarmed mugger, but in this debate he is wrong. The Soviet Union was feared not for its ideology, which was against the capitalist system of the West, but for its mighty military strength, which rivaled the US. Today, North Korea is much stronger militarily than Iran, as I've proven in my first speech with a description of their proliferation abilities and their arsenal of biochemical weapons. As with the Cold War era, it's the militarily strong country and not the one that wants a fight to the death that is a threat. My opponent also said that the Muslim population as a whole was either unaware of the commands of radical Islam or ignores the distasteful parts. Last time I checked, most people know and embrace everything in their religion: believing in a Creator, not believing in evolution, and other things, and most people don't follow a religion that supports murder. The only explanation for radical Islam is that it's a separate branch for the ignorant and violent. Al Qaeda belongs in this group. My opponent has not shown that Iran does as well, and even if he did, he has no evidence to prove that Iran's enemy is the US and not just Israel. My opponent also assumes that because Iran is an enemy of Israel and we are an ally of Israel, we are an enemy of Iran. This is simply not true. In the Vietnam War, we were allies with South Vietnam, but were not enemies with North Vietnam until we decided to join the war and use bombers against them. Likewise, we are not Iran's enemies until we decide to act against them. My opponent has not refuted any of my points, so I will reiterate them. North Korea is much closer to developing nuclear weapons then Iran, thus making North Korea a much greater threat. North Korea has ballistic missiles and biochemical weapons to attach to those missiles, making them a much greater threat. North Korea has the ability to use terror themselves, thus making them a much greater threat than Iran. Thus North Korea is a greater threat to US national security than Iran.

100531be-2019-04-18T19:18:31Z-00000-000

Evolution is a proven fact against creation.

Let me just say you should read my comment; it will further explain my stupidity. :( Believing there is a "creator" is just having a faith. If there is a "creator" why isn't he making new things everyday like he made the universe? Scientist can prove that we have evolved from animals. The supposed "missing links" have been found. "Ida" is the fossil which links us to our ancestors. It was preserved in rock for 47 million years which they found in New York. Have you researched the fossil records which can prove we have evolved slowly from animals? What about the theory of survival of the fittest? What evidence does creationism have? Creationism has no evidence. Everything in life changes. So why wouldn't we have started out as animals and become humans when everything started one was but has changed to make up what we have today? So far, the biggest complaint I'm seeing about evolution is that the theory changes. Yes, the details do change - Darwin had no concept of Mandolin genetics. There are likely other features we will discover in time. What this complaint comes down to is that science can admit that it wasn't correct in every aspect. Evolution is updated as we get more info - and the second that info undeniably asserts a god, it'll go in the theory. I know that Cairo is a city in Egypt. I don't know, or have a very poor idea, of what the residential district looks like - does this mean that Cairo is no longer a city in Egypt? Just because details change, that doesn't mean that the premise is wrong.

100531be-2019-04-18T19:18:31Z-00001-000

Evolution is a proven fact against creation.

My opponent's second round argument is still perplexing. My opponent first quotes: "How could this universe just come about without a designer? Everything that is designed has to have a designer. " Creationism is essentially the belief that an omnipotent Designer (or Creator) created all things. With the question my opponent asks, she is supporting creationism by essentially saying that this universe had to have a designer. That contradicts her stance for the debate and completely supports mine. When my opponent states that everything designed needs a designer, she is once again supporting creationism over evolution, which contradicts her stance and shows more support for my side of the debate. My opponent then quotes: "Is it not true that believing in creationism you are believing that some "God" has designed this universe? And if so then where did this "God" come from? " If one believes in creationism, then he/she essentially believes than an omnipotent Creator has created all things. This Creator is omnipotent and thus did not really come from anywhere, instead, the Creator essentially was there from the beginning. My opponent further states: "He would also have to have a creator because like I stated before someone or something has to be the designer of him. And as science has proven nothing can just create something without using other objects. " Why would the omnipotent Creator have to have someone that previously created him? The Creator is believed to be existent from the beginning of time and thus separates himself from any explanations of someone creating him. My opponent's reference to science has a lack of evidence and really does not bring anything significant to the topic at hand. My opponent's final remark is actually quite confusing and needs further clarification. I believe the victor of this debate is quite clear. My opponent has essentially provided no pieces of evidence to support her side while her arguments supported mine.

100531be-2019-04-18T19:18:31Z-00002-000

Evolution is a proven fact against creation.

Yes, I was referring to creationism. How could this universe just come about without a designer? Everything that is designed has to have a designer. Is it not true that believing in creationism you are believing that some "God" has designed this universe? And if so then where did this "God" come from? He would also have to have a creator because like I stated before someone or something has to be the designer of him. And as science has proven nothing can just create something without using other objects. Thanks for accepting the challenge and helping me with improving my debating skills.

100531be-2019-04-18T19:18:31Z-00003-000

Evolution is a proven fact against creation.

As my opponent really does not make an opening argument, I will allow her to clarify exactly what we are arguing in the second round of this debate. When my opponent states in the resolution that evolution is a proven fact against creation, she is probably referring to creationism, but once again, I will let my opponent clarify exactly what we are debating in the proceeding round. I would like to ask my opponent to specifically address what we are discussing and hope to take part in an interesting debate. Thank you.

100531be-2019-04-18T19:18:31Z-00004-000

Evolution is a proven fact against creation.

I have joined a debate team. I need to practice debating evolution vs. creation. I'm just getting started out so if anyone could help that would be great. Evolution is a proven fact because they found "Ida" which is the missing link. Even though Charles Darwin said on his deathbed that he made evolution up he was on drugs so he didn't know or understand what he was saying.

2b458fa6-2019-04-18T18:45:38Z-00000-000

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

1. Honestly, I'm very surprised the Prosecution hasn't brought this up yet but to prevent him from bringing it up in the last round where I can't refute him, I will refute it now. My infamous debate with iownu about who is a better troll (http://www.debate.org......), does NOT make me a troll. Just because I have skill at trolling (which I admit to in that round) does not make me a troll. For example, I have some skill at the Saxophone but that does not make me, on balance, a musician. The same can be said about trolling. Having an ability for it does not mean that I am one, that is a logical fallacy. I actually planned not to bring because I understand PART of what you saying there. But now that you bring it up I feel as though I should point out a few things that happened in that "Infamous" round..first and most likely the most obvious sign that points to you being a troll is this dialogIownu: he needs to gtfo because DDO is now my trolling turf.*this is obviously means that he does nothing but troll people, and he has done more than a couple"later on in the text you reply you: ... 3. I also affirm/negate unwinnable causes4. I have posted more trolls than you haveI'm specifically talking about number four, because he said that this is his "trolling" turf (meaning all he does is troll) by you saying you have trolled more then he has means you have trolled a considerable amount... far more than "on balance" 2. Now, another thing the Prosecution might bring up in his last round are some previous debates of mine where I have performed poorly. I will explain why those do not make me a troll.I'm was not going to call you out on this because I agree (and still do) just because you are terrible at debate doesn't mean you are trolling. "by definition we are all trolls" - The Prosecution contends that we are all trolls. That is false because A) the definition of troll states intent, and B) if we were all trolls, the word "troll" would not exist. As the famous saying goes "if everyone rich, everyone's poor." In an online community a troll is a distinct member, and the Prosecution still has not proven my uniqueness I.E. trollness to this website.A) yes it does say intent, I am not downplaying that, but feel free to explain debate to me... debate is showing INTENT to change a guys EMOTIONS towards a subject because you feel passionate about it. Unless you don't know you are debating, then you are showing intent to be a troll through the use of inflammatory.B) that statement is truly false, I think you misunderstood me, when I said me I meant everyone that participates in a debate, not the entire Internet. The word "troll" was not originated here, it originated elsware to describe people like us. Also no where in the definition of troll does it say distinct member. The resolution states "on balance" so even if I did admit that, it's irrelevant to the resolved until it's proven that I am a troll the majority of the time.you admitted you were a troll when I stated that every time you debate you are a troll, meaning every time you debate your trolling, I.E on balancenow for your definition, I am ignoring them because they did not come from a reputable source, but even if I did the ideal you are trying to argue (intent) I have already explained. yes it does say intent, I am not downplaying that... debate is showing INTENT to change a guys EMOTIONS towards a subject by arguing with him because you feel passionate about it. Unless you don't know you are debating, then by arguing with you opposer you are showing intent to be a troll through the use of inflammatory.=Closing=I have proven, that just by arguing his case, or any debate case he is infact a troll. Just by opening his mouth (or in this instance typing on his keyboard) he has shown intent to argue/debate which he has already agreed is a form of trolling. Because we are talking specifically about his participation on this debating site I have proven that because all he does on this site is argue, that he has "on balance" been a troll to this site.thank you for this debate, it was my first and definitly not my last.the prosecution rests.

2b458fa6-2019-04-18T18:45:38Z-00001-000

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

=Clearing up some misconceptions=1. Honestly, I'm very surprised the Prosecution hasn't brought this up yet but to prevent him from bringing it up in the last round where I can't refute him, I will refute it now. My infamous debate with iownu about who is a better troll (http://www.debate.org...), does NOT make me a troll. Just because I have skill at trolling (which I admit to in that round) does not make me a troll. For example, I have some skill at the Saxophone but that does not make me, on balance, a musician. The same can be said about trolling. Having an ability for it does not mean that I am one, that is a logical fallacy.2. Now, another thing the Prosecution might bring up in his last round are some previous debates of mine where I have performed poorly. I will explain why those do not make me a troll.Since the definition of "troll" specifically states "intent", the Prosecution must prove that my behavior in such rounds was intentionally bad. This is not the case. He cannot prove, for example, that I wasn't just new and un-used to the site and how to behave on it. Or I am just terrible at debate. Or perha something else entirely. Until my Opponent proves (or at least provides substantial evidence) that all of my "trolling" was intentional, I win this round. Innocent until proven guilty.=Rebuttal="by defintion we are all troll's" - The Prosecution contends that we are all trolls. That is false because A) the definition of troll states intent, and B) if we were all trolls, the word "troll" would not exist. As the famous saying goes "if everyone's rich, everyone's poor." In an online community a troll is a distinct member, and the Prosecution still has not proven my uniqueness I.E. trollness to this website."and you just admitted yourself that you are indeed a troll" -The resolution states "on balance" so even if I did admit that, it's irrelevant to the resolved until it's proven that I am a troll the majority of the time. "i was just saying that in an attempt to be nicer, it is your fault, the way you act and appear is the reasons why people desire you (which you didnt deny) both of these can be changed by you so you intended to do so." -thank you very much for trying to be nice. (I mean that honesly, too many people, esp. on the internet are not nice.) Now you claim that the way I "act and appear" is why these people "desire" (I believe you meant despise?) me. Again, you must prove that A) I have done actions, in the majority of my debates, that can be considered trolling, and B) that I did it with intent. Until that happens, I win this round."I did not decide it, i am going off the four baisc, yet broad catogory's used in the discription of debate.org" -however you still haven't made up for the fact that DDO has a miscellaneous debate category! So your entire contention one falls. "that is a fair statement, but you agree'd that you are a troll every time you debate" -Since you agreed that it's a fair statement that I win if you can't prove the majority of my debates are trolls, and your interpretation of what a "troll" is has been called into serious question, and you still have not proven that the majority of my debates are trolls, you just conceded.=The definition of Troll=This has been brought into serious question during this round, so now I must fully elaborate on what a troll is. The Prosecution contends that we are all trolls. He ignores not only the social context of the word troll, as I've already elaborated on (if everyone is a troll, no one is, he must show my uniqueness), but he's also ignoring the key word in the definition intent. Just to prove my point that intent matters, heres the link to Urban Dictionaries definition of troll. (http://www.urbandictionary.com...) Lets examine some more definitions of "troll". 1. "One who posts a deliberately provocative message..."2. "One who purposely and deliberately...."3. "...who makes idiotic posts in message boards newsgroups for the sole purpose of pissing people off..."ECT. So an intent/purpose is critical in trolling. The Prosecutions still has not shown my intent of trolling, and even admitted that it may not be my fault if I have trolled, so I win this round.=Closing=I know that many of you dislike me. I know that many of you think I'm a troll, however please, in the name of justice do not rule based on your personal belief. The Prosecution has not prove that I am a troll thus far, and his contentions no longer stand so please, vote Pro.The defense rests.

2b458fa6-2019-04-18T18:45:38Z-00002-000

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll I am not a troll. At least, not usually. The burden of proof is all on my Opponent, he must convincingly argue that I am a troll. I am permitted to Cross Examine him. To win I only need to disprove my Opponents arguments, I will not post my own. I contend that using the definition of troll, a special exception can be mae for this site. Like you've said yourself debate itself is inflammatory, so using that logic every single person on this site who has been in a debate is a troll. You must prove how I am more inflammatory than most for this point to stand.That is incorrect sir, by defintion we are all troll's, we can not out of the blue up and decide that because it is better for your side of the argument we must make an expetion for this site, unfortunatly life does not work that way. It is true, i am a troll, you are a troll, and everyone on this site is a troll, and you just admitted yourself that you are indeed a troll. you just conceded this entire debate by agreeing that you are a troll at all times. -actually, if it isn't my fault thn I am NOT a troll, suing your definition. Troll: Im sorry for the confusion, i was just saying that in an attempt to be nicer, it is your fault, the way you act and appear is the reasons why people desire you (which you didnt deny) both of these can be changed by you so you intended to do so. Cross ex- 1. You state that I am a troll because I post "off topic" debates. If I could find some "off topic" debates from some very well respected membes would they be considered trolls too? yes, as i mentioned earilier we, on this site, are all trolls. 2. Also, how do you know that those debates are "off topic", what gives you the right to decide such a thing?I did not decide it, i am going off the four baisc, yet broad catogory's used in the discription of debate.org 3. Since the resolved states "on balance" wouldn't you agree that as the Prosecution you must prove how the majority of my debates are "trolls" and if you fail to, I win this round?that is a fair statement, but you agree'd that you are a troll every time you debate.4. Moving on to your second point, since we can agree that debate is an inflammatory activity, you must prove how I am more inflammatory than the average debater, correct? no, just because it is an inflammatory activity does not mean we can alter the defintion of troll, i am simply going of the resalution and your defintion of troll.

2b458fa6-2019-04-18T18:45:38Z-00003-000

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

=Rebuttal="Notice how they said religion, politics, science, and sports, they did not include a miscellaneous category." - False, a Miscellaneous category does exist, if you o not believe me try starting a debate, and under "category" select Miscellaneous. Just because DDO's statement doesn't mention Miscallaneous debates, they've shown their endorsement of them by creating a category for them. Furthermore, even if you were right that they didn't endorse Miscellaneous debates, they haven't specifically spoken out against them, and anything that is not explicitly against the rules is legal.So that Contention falls."By being on a debate site you are already by definition being inflammatory, you are arguing with someone in an attempt to change there point of view, which in every case has to be brought up by passion or gives your competitor some type of emotion" -I contend that using the definition of troll, a special exception can be mae for this site. Like you've said yourself debate itself is inflammatory, so using that logic every single person on this site who has been in a debate is a troll. You must prove how I am more inflammatory than most for this point to stand."so even though it may not at all times be your fault, you are a troll by definition because you are both inflammatory and extraneous." -actually, if it isn't my fault thn I am NOT a troll, suing your definition. Troll: "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response."Intent: "the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act" [1] so if I didn't do on purpose (I.E. not my fault) I am not a troll.=Cross Examination=1. You state that I am a troll because I post "off topic" debates. If I could find some "off topic" debates from some very well respected membes would they be considered trolls too?2. Also, how do you know that those debates are "off topic", what gives you the right to decide such a thing?3. Since the resolved states "on balance" wouldn't you agree that as the Prosecution you must prove how the majority of my debates are "trolls" and if you fail to, I win this round?4. Moving on to your second point, since we can agree that debate is an inflammatory activity, you must prove how I am more inflammatory than the average debater, correct?I look foward to the Prosecutions reply.=Source=1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

2b458fa6-2019-04-18T18:45:38Z-00004-000

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

I will start by using a couple definitions, and then explain how he is, by definition a troll (for the most part if not all the time).Troll- a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.inflammatory- Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire [1]Extraneous-1. Not constituting a vital element or part. [2]2. Inessential or unrelated to the topic or matter at hand; irrelevant [2]I will combine extraneous and off topic.Now to beginContention one, you are extraneous.Debate.org's statement describing who/what they are goes as follows:Debate.org is a premier online debate website that features active discussion on thousands of debate topics. Find ongoing debates on everything from religion, politics, science, and sports. Exchange your opinion with other community members over today's most pressing issues. [3]Notice how they said religion, politics, science, and sports, they did not include a miscellaneous category. The majority of your topics for debate do not fall into any of the category's listed in the description, making them off-topic/extraneous. Here are the titles of just a few of your extraneous debates..."On balance, Slytherin house is better than Gryffindor.""Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.""cats should be afforded the exact same rights as human beings""cats are more intelligent than humans""Resolved: That mimes can be considered, with little doubt, the worst non-criminal people.""in a fight, megan fox could defeat taylor swift""i cannot lose this round.""Feeding the trolls is more fun than leaving them alone""sunglasses""I will win this debate""I will beat my opponent in this debate"keep in mind that that is not all of the extraneous debate's you have been in, but only a few that i saw as i skimmed over your recent debates.Contention two, you are inflammatory.By being on a debate site you are already by definition being inflammatory, you are arguing with someone in an attempt to change there point of view, which in every case has to be brought up by passion or gives your competitor some type of emotion.You also have understand your effect on people... Im sure you can agree with me that the vast majority of the people on this site find you to be a beautiful human being, they want you/desire to be you. That, though maybe not your fault, makes you a troll all the time.so even though it may not at all times be your fault, you are a troll by definition because you are both inflammatory and extraneous.[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.juggle.com...

2b458fa6-2019-04-18T18:45:38Z-00005-000

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

"it is my job to prove that he has "trolled" atleast once" -actually no, since the resolution states "on balance: the Con (henceforth known as the prosecution) has to show how I have trolled more often than not.I look forward to the Prosecutions allegations.

2b458fa6-2019-04-18T18:45:38Z-00007-000

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

I am not a troll. At least, not usually. The burden of proof is all on my Opponent, he must convincingly argue that I am a troll. I am permitted to Cross Examine him. To win I only need to disprove my Opponents arguments, I will not post my own.Think of this as my "trial" of sorts, regardless of your personal opinion of me vote Pro if I'm "not guilty" and Con if I'm "guilty".No semantics.Troll- a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.[1]1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet)

3c79c590-2019-04-18T18:42:51Z-00000-000

deseptive flaw in debateing system

Pro says. .. "One entire section of my arguments was unfortunately dropped on this alone I think I should win. "Well Pro is entitled their opinion, I am also entitled to my opinion that I should win cause I have a squirell with coffee in my avatar. Never the less I think readers and voters will judge the debate in its entirety and can make judgement on what are the important points and what are not so important. Interpretation of the argumentI was happy to hear Pro at the start of the last round say. .. "I have not moved any goal posts I maintain that contender is at an overall advantage, bec. of the last word advantage. "So was Pro able to carry this burden through out this debate ? The instigators advantagesI presented 3 advantages that the instigator has that can negate the advantage of the last word advantage of the contender.1) The instigator gets to form the resolution2) The instigator gets to make the first argument3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttalPro didn't dis agree that these were advantages available to the Instigator, at best Pro tried to down play those advantages. If Pro can assert that the last word advantage trumps these advantages, then I can merely assert that these advantages trump the last word advantage. Pro statistical AnalysisPros statistical analysis: Other factors unaccounted forYou will recall I bought up the problem of how experienced debators as potential contenders are cherry picking the easier debates thus we would expect that the contenders overall on DDO to have a higher winning percentage. Pro didn't argue against this. So I asked, how did Pro account for this in their analysis ? Pros reply is merely so what. And that in a nutshell is the problem with Pros interpretation of the data. Pro hasn't been able to isolate the variable of last word advantage with the variable of contender winning percentage, as such causation has not be proven and their data is open to more than one interpretation and thus is equivocal. I can merely retort that the cause of the contenders higher winning percentage is due to the cherry picking of potential contenders and the same data that Pro uses will support my claim as well, cause the data is equivocal. As such its unjustified to make the claim based on this data that is has been proven that or that its beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the contenders higher winning percentage is the last word factor. Pro has not been able to establish causation between the contenders winning percentage and the last word factor. As such I submit Pro has not be able to prove that the contender is at an overall advantage because of the last word factor, as Pro had sought to show. .. "I have not moved any goal posts I maintain that contender is at an overall advantage, bec. of the last word advantage.

3c79c590-2019-04-18T18:42:51Z-00001-000

deseptive flaw in debateing system

Response: I have not moved any goal posts I maintain that contender is at an overall advantage, bec. of the last word advantage. My opponent responded that while it is an advantage it is evened out by other advantages that the instigator has. I responded that, no, it has not, and evidence of that is the overwhelming nearly 2:1 difference in in winnings of contender verse instigator. My opponent then In many words and examples quite correctly show that numbers don't necessarily prove any conclusion that fit the #'s. This is true #'s don't necessarily prove any conclusion that fits with the data, it some times does, and one must use logic to determine when the statistical evidence is valid, otherwise we could never use statistical data to draw conclusions. As my opponent himself stated my reason is a valid reason, but it is equaled by other factors. My statistical analysis shows that not to be true by a very large margin. This clearly shows that his other factors do not out way my reason. The difference between my use of statistical data, to the example my opponent gave, is that in my opponents example there is no logical reason to believe that there is a correlation between weather patterns and piracy. As opposed to in my case there is a clear reason to believe that last word could give contender an advantage, as my opponent agreed. The only question is does it in fact do so, or do other factors even it out. My statistical evidence clearly shows that the other factors do not out way the last word factor, and indeed tends to give the contender an overall advantage. My opponents final point is that there are other factors that could explain contenders higher win rate. My response is as follows: 1) So what? So what if there are also other factors. It was agreed that my reason is a valid one, my opponent argued however that other factors out way it. my statistics show that not to be the case. So what if there are additional factors that explain contenders higher win rate. That does not negate my reason which my opponent agreed was a valid reason. 2) The gap is too large to be explained by these other factors alone. In addition to my opponents reasons that instigator should win there are other reasons such as unlimited preparation time. Despite all this There is such a tremendous 2:1 gap in the winning rate. It is unlikely that this is on account of my opponents other possible reasons alone. It was agreed that my reason is a valid one, but other factors out way it. my statistics show that not to be the case. There is a clear higher rate of contender winning this is clearly (at least in part) to my accepted reason. Point Drooped: My argument was composed of 3 parts. 1)reason, 2)data, 3)case examples. My 3rd point, case examples, which was included in my 1st round of arguments, round 2, was not at all mentioned by my opponent. I pointed this out at the beginning of round 3, after which he still did not say a word, not addressing them neither on the whole or even one individually. This is a repeat of what happened in the final case I gave case # 4. I point this out to the reader so a repeat of the unfair voting does not happen again. My opponent will probably now want to respond, and I will be powerless to respond to his response. Is this fair? If this were to happen it would itself be evidence of unfair advantage of having the last word. Summary: My resolution was that having the last word gives the contender an overall advantage. My opponent agreed that this is a factor, However, overall due to factors in favor of instigator it is canceled out. I brought a statistic showing a near 2:1 ratio in wins, of contender to instigator. My opponent argued statistics don't prove all conclusion, and that there may be other factors contributing. I explained why in this case the conclusion is supported by the statistics as there is a reasonable association. I argued so what if there may be other reasons. This is clearly a reason contributing to contenders advantage. One entire section of my arguments was unfortunately dropped on this alone I think I should win. If my opponent would like a redo he should challenge me and I will accept. (We will have to find a time as I am extremely busy now. )

3c79c590-2019-04-18T18:42:51Z-00002-000

deseptive flaw in debateing system

Interpretation of the argumentPro in the last round says. .. "it would seem reasonable that it is indeed this "last word factor" which is contributing to that large imbalance, even if it is not the sole reason. "This is moving the goal posts by Pro and I reject it. I am not going to let them change what they are claiming mid way through the debate. Pro had always implied that the instigator was at an OVERALL disadvantage BECAUSE the contender has the last word. I agreed that the instigator had a disadvantage in not having the last word. What I clearly said I was gong to argue was. . "I shall be seeking to show that even though Pro correctly points out one area where the instigator always has a disadvantage, this does NOT mean that the instigator is always at an OVERALL disadvantage. "1) The instigator gets to form the resolution2) The instigator gets to make the first argumentI am not going to repeat myself on this point, I am confident most if not all readers will get the point here.3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttalPro asks "What benefit is there to a "pre-emptive" strike what difference does it make if the point is made in the 1st round or the second round. "The difference it makes by making it in the first round by the instigator is that you already weaken if not refute the counter argument before the contender can even bring it up. It also makes a difference because if the contender wants to use that argument they have to make the argument while also defending it against your pre-emptive strike. Plus if the defender also has their own argument they want to use as well now they have to split their first round resources between trying to rescue their already attacked counter argument and their own argument as they try to establish their case. Pros Statistical analysisPreviously I argued some data about Danielle and myself which actually "proved" the opposite of what Pro was trying to argue. I think this shows that we are not going to get anyway by arguing over the stats of a particular individual. Pros Statistical analysis: InterpretationBut what about the overall stats from DDO ? as Pro says. .. " The following is a quote from Ore-Ele: "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%. ""I am not going to challenge the numbers here, but what I am challenging is Pros interpretation. The numbers do not speak for themselves as this article from UNC says. .. "If the author gives you her statistics, it is always wise to interpret them yourself. That is, while it is useful to read and understand the author's interpretation, it is merely that—an interpretation. It is not the final word on the matter. Furthermore, sometimes authors (including you, so be careful) can use perfectly good statistics and come up with perfectly bad interpretations" [1]This is why in the last round I gave that example of the pirates vs global average temperature. Its not that the data is in doubt, it just that it is wrong and fallacious to come to the conclusion that based on this data that the rise in global temperature is caused by the loss in the numbers of pirates. Like wise, I am arguing that although the data shows a higher winning percentage for the contenders overall on DDO its wrong and fallacious to come to the conclusion that this due to the "last word" factor, as there are plenty of other factors going on and unaccounted for, just like in the pirates and temperature example. Pros statistic analysis: Correlation is not proof of causationAs part of Pros argument they use two variables, the contenders winning percentage as variable 1 and the contender having the last word as variable 2. Pro tries to suggest a causation between these two variables. But this can't be taken as a given as wikipedia says. .. "The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be used to infer a causal relationship between the variables. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate the potential existence of causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown, and high correlations also overlap with identity relations (tautologies), where no causal process exists. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction). " [2]Pros statistical analysis: Other factors unaccounted forI don't think Pro realizes the full ramifications of Roys comments. Remember on DDO the instigator most of the time creates the debate then waits for some one to accept the debate, and that person who accepts the debate becomes the contender. What Roy was saying is that people, especially experienced debaters who care about winning debates, are cherry picking which debates they take. This is why Roy talks about how debaters are scared off from seeing an instigator with a strong round 1 argument. In other words these potential contenders are going after an easy or easier win. This would explain why contenders have a higher winning percentage, as they are only accepting debates that gives them a good chance, and a higher chance of winning. Now how does Pros analysis take this into consideration ? it doesn't. As such I think we have good grounds for not accepting Pros interpretation of the data that says the contender has a higher winning percentage due the the "last word" factor. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources[1] . http://www.unc.edu...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...