I think you lost the debate tbh but I also recognise that the opponent didn't really try properly as it progressed and rewarding the opponent would be stupid at this point.
I skimread it and thought you had lost and chose not to vote.
As the opponent pushed and reiterates 'consisting of' does actually matter and mean what he says. The molecules are making each other wet.
However, neither side properly clarified what wetness is in and of itself.
Please stop these debates being Rated. They violate yoyr topic rules because the descriptions make them semantic truisms.
SatanLucy has made at least 5 of these.
That is a poor definition of worship.
Stalin was nit Christian and outlawed the religion. Slamdunk he is bound to Hell to 99.9% certainty but we cannot claim we know 100% or we will be damned for the judgement... Idk why but it just is like that.
That is heresy.
The grace at baptism is a sokute and all e compassing, greater grace than that cannot exist or be achieved.
Its also an extreme abomination/travesty for tej unba0tised to receive any othert sacrament. The problem is that adult converts especially, actually *have to* confess prior to baptism, making it all strange.
But in the case of conditional baptism it completely alters when you can get/do your 1st sacrament of recinciliation (confession).
You shiukd receive this months earlier and even di it 2 times, 2nd closer to baotism, if already baptised before. But if not, 1 will be enough and tbh even that 1 is strange because baotisk does the same thing as confession to the siuk but does it in one seift swoop andnguarantees total forgiveness and absolution.
Let us just be observant and grateful enough that Stalin didnt convert on his deathbed and Hitler likely stayed non Catholic. Imagine having to tell others they went to heaven (Calvinists have to say Hitler likely did due to P in TULIP).
Why do you need to show a certificate of baptism if anyone can do it? What if some Indian Hindu did it in the Ganges and just did it yo respect the others' faith but lacks a certificate
One of the original requirements for a valid baptism was that a valid clergyman did the baptism.
Vatican II altered this a lot, afaik.
Then why are female-done baptisms valid to Catholics (they will not rebaptise if give proof)
I don't even understand how I lost this at all. I just have to accept that character debates are too chaotic and that a fully disciplined path to the number 1 leaderboard spot will require me to abstain from any of the show-related debates.
I already did sort of know this but I believed I had a strong counter-case here. It is clear to me that all of these debates are far too risky to take at least for me and my skillset.
In my eyes I delivered extremely well, I basically massacred the opponent's case and turned some points against them. The fact I think that and still am losing, tells me that I simply do not suit this genre of debate if I want to consistently win. It's as simple as that.
I can read it as a poem, all of it. No beat needed.
The beat helps a reader who has poor sense of rhythm to keep up and to set the 'vibe'. that's all.
Interesting.
I assumed it was Arabic numbers.
Now I realise they culturally hijacked more than a religion. ;)
Hindus invented the numerals. Shame the Arabs wrongly get the credit.
None of this iss said against modern Arabs. I encourage them to disown the numerals claim.
Pro will just say "in schools in Arab nations" and win the debate.
I defined it in Round 2. My opponent never did.
I laid out 4 criteria (realism and depth count as 2 different criteria) in my Round 1 already.
You cannot treat Round 2 of a 4 Round devate as too late to bring up new points.
I laid out 2 major ones in Round 1 and I supplied the definition of 'best' too.
Legacy, realism, depth and intelligence.
In my final Round I cut off almost all his points in my eyes and refer mainly to earlier ones I made, to do so.
If willing, please vote.
I have no idea what you mean by aura if you think I didnt address the aura of Gus and Saul being superior even in Round 1 with the legacy point and the fact others fear Gus a lot or underestimate him.
I also think your 'morality' metric was total and utter nonsense. How did Lalo have superior morality to Gus and Saul???? Even from this debate you ignored a lot to achieve that conclusion.
I ask you to please reread my side slower.
I meant Con, not Pro in my Round 1 when referring to you.
I meant Con not Pro damn,,, I thought I am Con to the topic. F###
I got baited so much here!
He permits divorce but says you then need to stay single for life.
He does not justify divorce, though.
Thank you for the decent effort vote.
By the way, I meant heart as in the organ, not the metaphor for feeling God.
However, my point was that indeed a variety of things can be seen as evidence for God.
I will start really concise to let the 5 Rounds flow better rather than overdo Round 1.
The Holy Spirit shall guide the events that unfold.
🫶
Ill get to this soon, dont worry
Or, it is actually all true and your side is the one justifying murder of babies.
end of Round 2 I say GS but meant GF*
Bump
https://youtu.be/2h8D1GzYdSA?si=w_YiIzqQKGZhhu9U
(Warning: gore/death scenes within)
If you cannot argue the opposite side of what you believe in ever, you are an incomplete debate warrior.
As for my take, you will realise an angle you did not assume was viable.
You are lying that the Church didnt believe in a flat earth btw.
