Well, Pro can argue this by claiming subjective morality where everything is good. the issue for Pro is that this topic seems to deal with all people.
Given that Quran says Allah is best liar, it is difficult to believe anything Allah says.
"So what is he?"
Well, ask him. I wouldnt really know, other than when discussing scripture, he does seem to prefer to focus on exactly what scripture says. And scripture doesnt say Christianity, and really doesnt say JW.
I voted. I don't think my vote needs more explanation because the opponent forfeited everything.
Which gender is intersex?
I will post later why I oppose minimum wage. Cant post now because it could influence debate, so I will wait until voting is over.
So if you met Jesus, you would try to eat his arm. Oki doki
We can read whole Bible, and nowhere will we find words "tortured with greatest pain in Hell", which both you and Con conceded was truism. Now, truism is something which must be true, so saying that I made a claim which must be true, while also saying claim isnt true, is nonsense.
Now, if you want to punish me in your vote for making a truism, fine. But then dont at same time pretend Con proved anything. If topic is truism, then topic is true, and if you want to punish a truism, thats something different entirely.
Pro would have to defend literal rape in some cases, because the only way some people can marry is by forced marriage, as not all people are wanted by others. Right to marriage literally means being able to have it at will, which isnt even logically possible, but also would create situation where person who "has right to marriage" has no one to marry unless they force someone to marry them. If Pro is supposed to defend that, then this is basically a debate asking Pro to justify forced marriages, and by necessary conclusion, also to justify rape.
Also, saying that my claim is a truism while giving win to opponent? "Your side of debate must be true, so I will vote for your opponent"
I don't know how someone can cast a vote and mistake me for my opponent. You are literally blaming me for not proving opponent's position in your vote.
Alright, so it seems that words are confusing you. My position isn't to prove greatest possible pain in hell.
My position argues that Bible doesn't teach that.
Now, saying cats aren't greatest animals isn't same as saying cats aren't animals.
Accept the debate to find out!
I am not going for any tricks here. The topic is literally mathematically true. In math, there is actually something which is neither 1 nor not 1. There is also something which is neither true nor false. But I am not going to reveal my argument here. People have accused me of doing "semantic traps", but this isn't really a semantic trap as much as math puzzle.
Here is a debate challenge for you, if you want.
"Whether or not this amounts to "greatest pain in the fires of hell" is inconsequential, "
I am starting to think these voters are trolls. this is like having topic "cats are animals", and voter saying "whether cats are animals or not is inconsequential".
So... so?
So?
No, I agree that Christianity is invented, hence one of reasons for inferiority to Vaheguru.
"I am convinced that Mal is an undercover Jehovah's Witness."
I say let the person tell you what person is.
Excellent topic. I dont mean to ruin Christmas fun which is traditional, but I can see arguments favoring Con here.
"Too many links."
this is a great debate, one of best ones so far on the site. Why would many links be an issue tho? How is it a disadvantage in debate to have many sources?
Are you all scared of Vaheguru?
this isnt really about which religion is more true, it is about which religion benefits person and people around him by considering teachings. So both religions can be not proved true, but their teachings are something different.
Yes.
"if logic wouldn't exist then I except you to understand me no matter what, guess what, you can't understand what I said. therefore the just assumption that logic doesn't exist is truly false, because logic understays under anything."
Well, that makes a lot of sense.
"logic isn't only law of identity. "
Maybe you can say what else logic is?
"logic in Greek means word"
We are not using dictionary from ancient Greece here, tho Aristotle did establish rules of logic which dont mean anything close to "logic = words", tho proving that words exist without using words is I assume difficult too.
No, words arent logic.
Logic is law of identity, which is "A=A" and "A=\= Not A", and neither of these can be proved without relying on themselves, so it is circular logic.
"the fact you can understand me proves logic"
It only works if you already assume logic is true, so you are using logic to prove logic.
Maybe I should start putting these rules directly in topic so voters cant just ignore them each time.
