One thing that seems simple to me is that God, the Father is a perfect, exalted man of flesh and bone, just as the resurrected Jesus described himself. A man with a genetic code via DNA that, being human, was/is compatible with Mary's, so both provided the body of Christ in the flesh. Occam's razor.
To my knowledge, any image you want to post on DC must be converted first to jpeg [jpg] file, first, then copy/paste in the comment field in Forum, or argument or comment field in Debate.
I would really like to vote on this one - it's a great subject for debate, but I am too biased in one direction of the argument to make a fair assessment of the pro/con debate. I am closer to Pro's side of the argument, but that argument does not go far enough to convince me his argument achieves a victory. Con, the instigator, makes a curious accusation against Pro in Con's R2 "I got one scripture that says where his flesh came FROM and it's none other than Jesus himself." He makes several stabs at the necessity to cite scripture in this debate, but totally avoids citing any scripture himself until R5 - the last round, the second of only two citations, whereas Pro has cited 9 scriptures in R1, 2 in R3, and another 2 in R5; - 13 scripture citations in all, yet Con has the temerity in R5 to claim: "I like how people say you said things and quotes nothing." Score: Con = 2 quotes, mocking both, not using them to support his BoP, Con - 13 quotes, using all to support his BoP, but, as. I said, misses the mark on genetic inheritance of traits that is obvious in the extreme because too many people find "magic" as a decisive biblical source of miracles. Nonsense. What's wrong with admitting natural law, even as used by God? Jesus inherits his mortal flesh from both God and Mary because mammals [all humans are], by natural law, cannot reproduce by parthenogenesis, i.e. "virgin" birth. Look it up. Other animal and plant types can, and do, but not mammals, ever. This is Occam's Razor kind of stuff - the simplest explanation is the most correct. By the way, the only product of parthenogenesis is female, never male. Natural law. Oops.
A debate without a description with definitions of keywords is a battle of definition and a debate failure, regardless of sped
Your #3 post is entirely inappropriate, particularly after effectively waiving your R5. I'm not going to vote on this one, so I don't mind making thus comment, Keep your arguments on your arguments because voters should not be consulting this comments section to influence their vote, therefore, you should not try arguing anything in these comments, either.
But, know there is a distinction between rights and privileges. Rights are available universally; privileges are restricted, such as by age. Marriage is a privilege.
Yes, that will work, thanks. I am requesting my vote be cancelled to re-vote.
After reading the arguments, I find I am too biased to vote fairly. I am a student of the Supreme Court, having made it a priority of personal study over the past 25 years, and have written two books on the subject. I find Pro's solution to a perceived problem [I think the perception is jaded] to impose a term limit of 18 years to be meaningless. Over the entire history of the USSC, 42% of all Justices and CJ's already have served 19 years or less, so I do not see how the proposal would change present outcome. I also know that while presidents nominate Js & CJs, the Senate must confirm, or deny hearing, the latter being one of Pro's complaints that politics has sway over the Court. However, in spite of apparent politics, the Court generally finds a way to be non-political in most decisions. A good example is the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, a 7-2 split decision. However, a review of that decision reveals that 5 of the 7 assents came from R-nominated justices, including the CJ., and 1 of 2 dissents was nominated by a D-president. Go figure. Not what I would call "political." Considering that only 10% of all USSC decisions over its history have been overturned by subsequent Courts, that is a far better record of consistency than either Congress or the Presidency, which are both constants of vacillation. Pro also complains that USSC Js should face impeachment. To date, only one Justice has, in early 1800s, and he was ultimately acquitted by the Senate. No J has ever been impeached. That's a fault of Congress, not the USSC, and term limits on the USSC will not solve that one. . Nope, cannot note on this one.
I just voted, but made a critical error, forgetting to mark at the top that Pro wins the debate, so it defaulted to a tie. I don't need to change anything in the vote justification, just the vote, itself from tie to Pro winning.Can you do that that? There's only 12 hours left to vote.
I hate to comment on this one because I plan to vote, but there is a slight error in the "Burden of proof" section of the Challenge, but I will also note that it is corrected in the Description section. Supreme Court Justices do not have lifetime appointments as claimed by the Instigator/Pro. It is as corrected in the description: during good behavior, as stated in Article III.
And perhaps the mistake is yours for not providing a description with definitions...? Think about it next time. The opportunity is offered for a reason. What might that be?
I want to thank you for taking interest in this debate. I'm sorry it ended up as it did. Forces greater than mine interceded to derail it, and I'm sure Kohai agrees that the stars were just misaligned. Happens. Anyway, thanks for your interest.
There's a subject in this debate that talks around a concept with neither participant engaging the concept, which is the suggestion that since God is alleged to be omnipotent, he is compelled to be omnipotent on all occasions, particularly in the arena of creation. After all, who else to create but a perfect, omnipotent being? Well, as it happens, I don't read that requirement in scripture; neither that only an omnipotent being creates, nor that an omnipotent being can only act omnipotently all the time. I do bot believe either statement. Creation is not black magic, nor white for that matter. It is not magic. It is simply the ability to organize chaos and uselessness of raw materials into order of useful materials. Even art, as conceived by man, fits this description, doesn't it? So, in matters of creation of "heaven and earth," why is it so hard to believe God may have had subordinate assistants involved in creation of "heaven and earth?" The idea does not offend me whatsoever, and I sure believe God is not so jealous as to be offended by it, either. What artist does not sometimes have assistants, maybe in training to become, one day, as proficient as the master. What father does not want a son or daughter to one day acquire his skills? I think God, our Father, has such interest in us.
Another factor that could have been mentioned in my vote is that Con's sole supporting citation of scholastic evidence for his R1 [and only round] argument is Wikipedia. I will note that Wiki says of itself that it is not accurate, "...admitting vandalism, bias, and factual errors [that] can occur due to its open, collaborative model," because it allows editing by anyone, which dismisses scholastic assurance.
Once Kohai and I agreed to proceed with a new debate, keeping our respective rounds 1 & 2 intact, making the debate depend much on just original round 3's, the new debate was loaded, but the old debate was not removed, causing confusion. Then, Kohai forfeited R3, and I went into surgery and forfeited my R3. I think the debate ought to be cancelled. I do not want to win on a forfeit, and I'm sure Kohai feels the same. I suggest ignoring the vote
See a Mod. I'm done with bullshit excuses and claims. Get it?
You do not need to teach me about interpretation of words of a Resolve. I am fluent in English, and have a PhD in English Lit and a BA in Linguistics. You, apparently, did not understand either my explanation in the vote, nor my message #11 that while I get it that your BoP was that The "Bible does not teach that God tortures people forever with greatest pain in fire of Hell," but you merely made the claim and offered no argument of evidence showing the truth of the statement. Sorry, your BoP is to show the evidence, not merely to make the claim. But stop arguing with me. If you think my vote was not correct, refer to a Mod, pls. Your arguing with me now its pointless.
No. Your example is a simple statement, "cats are animals." A better example would have been "cats are the greatest of animals," but then, your BoOP is to prove the point Your Resolve is complicated by degree of condition, of not just "pain in the fires of hell," but "greatest pain in the fires of hell," but then failed to prove the point. Merely making the claim is not good enough. By the mere claim, your statement falls into the truism bucket, because the Bible does teach there is pain in the fires of hell. Show me evidence of such degree. You did not, and Con caught you in the error. Every word in a Resolve has meaning and importance.
Words mean things, and certainly6, the worlds of the Resolution have specific and understandable meaning in their context, which is a condition experienced by people who ignore or dismiss "rules of the road" we travel in mortality. However, pro seems to imply by his argument that the Resolution must be taken in its own context, ignoring possible alternative words that say much the same thing, but without using the words of the Resolve. There, in Pro's case, the Bible does not read "greatest pain in the fires of hell," and, as a statement of factual reality, the Bible does not say this string of words in this words. There is great pain suffered, Pro acknowledges, but no "greatest pain."
However, Con's argument effectively shuts down the argument because Pro's claim is effectively a truism, which is a failed debate tactic. Con allows for, and cites several biblical passages, Old and New Testament, which acknowledge pain suffered as a consequence of sin, as a path to glory, and as a test of faith. Whether or not this amounts to "greatest pain in the fires of hell" is inconsequential, because the the consequences can be both physically and spiritually painful unto death, and that is suffice t pain to lose sight of the goal of dealing with pain and surviving to earn their right to live with God or not, eventually. The scriptures Con cites teach these principles clearly, Isaiah 33 18, Matthew 25 and Mark 19, for example.
Con wins.
I've tried to enter a vote, but the system response was that I've already voted on this debate. As there are zero votes noted on this debate as I make the vote attempt, that cannot be, and I have not previously placed a vote on this debate. Mods, plus. address.
I'll try. Got a lot on my plate, and I go in for final surgery, this on my left knee, on Thursday next
Done
I promised to vote on this, then. discovered I could not since it appears voters had to be invited to participate, and I was not. Sorry.
However, I will mention that after carefully reading the Challenge and the debate rounds, I found the Challenge confusing relative to the Resolve, and found the one definition lacking sufficient detail, since Pro then launched a moral aspect to the debate, when it's thrust, by the Resolve and by definition, was limited to legality, alone. But then, Pro introduced environmental concerns, animal abuse, and other concepts I found distracting from the core of the debate Resolve: whether or not non-humans ought to be given legal personhood. I was entirely distracted by these beyond-the-scope arguments. Con allowed himself to be distracted from these side issues; frankly, beyond-the-scope issues, but held, nevertheless, to a solid argument that non-humans did not need to have legal status as persons simply because non-humans have no control of the issues that legal personhood requires to be acted upon. Dogs and dolphins simply do not have the capacity to enter into legal contracts, for example, as Con argued. Nor do clouds and oceans. Hell, even human minors are excluded from entering into legal contracts, and they are human, and quite intelligent. I would have given the debate to Kohai for clarity of his argument, and successful support of it.
I will vote on this before the week is out. This was a good debate.
A nonsense debate. Sorry, but I am not "always in debt." I own my residences and my vehicles, debt-free. I can go completely off grid within 30 seconds at any time, and have sufficient supply of daily needs of power, food, water, and all other needed consumables and endure off-grid as long as four years, if needed. I own gold and silver in sufficient quantity in case US currency goes south. Why else am I possibly "always in debt?"
Agreed, this is a very good subject. Will follow closely and plan to vote.
I suggest these two topics be separated into two debates simply because a debater may both support one and oppose the other of the two subjects, and that is not a simple win/lose decision for voters. And which Bible, since some include the apocrypha, and others do not, which allows greater/lesser latitude in argument. And definitions should be a part of description to avoid that as argument latter on.
Thank you for your vote!
1, Mention of debate language in other debates is out of the scope of this debate - a voting violation.
2. You claim little citation from the Bible. In 4 rounds, I had 10 total Bible quotes [and they discuss far more info than just "days", 5 addition sources about biblical verse, and 5 sources on science and biblical linguistics. That's not "non-biblical sources" as if I had none to offer. The debate Description did not require use of only biblical sources. Invalid voting criteria.
3. Quote the "degrogetory langauge" which I am accused of writing, don't just make the claim that I did. Invalid voting.
4.You claimed there were no definitions offered. Pro offered none; I offered definition of "theistic evolution" up-front in my R1, citing both Darwin and Genesis, thus clearly stating my BoP that the Bible is compatible with theistic evolution.
RE: Debate "Is theistic evolution compatible with the Bible?" melcharaz’s vote, declares, “Description only determines who is arguing what. No definitions of compatible, no definitions of theistic evolution, so they have to agree on definitions in rounds of debating.” Voter concluded his vote declaring, “Contender needs to… stop textual filibustering with off topic and undefined and unclear assertions. Also you get no points for mocking the instigator, if i could dock points for conduct, you would lose.” Voter ignores that since Instigator did not offer any definitions in challenge, I offered definitions I would use in my R1, which was not mocking Instigator, as voter challenged, but Instigator did not challenge my definitions with any of his own, but still argued against them. Further, voter said, “Given the context [of my source, Biblehub], we must consider was there heat before the sun. No one” [debaters] “answers or challenges that.” Voter therefore intrroduces element not part an any participant’s debate, which is voting outside the scope of the debate. Therefore, not a valid vote. Voter further said,
“The stuff from Charles Darwin doesn’t suggest theistic evolution.” That is also outside the scope of debate since the statement was not argument, but clearly identified as part of my R1 definition since my oponent decline to define any terms in his challenge, when even asked to do so by me in comments prior to my acceptance of the debate [see my comment #1, which even included a warning of not offering definitions during the challenge phase in Description. I gave him 3 days to respond, and my opponent still did not. This vote is invalid for these reasons. Please remove.
I didn't read your vote. I merely answered your post #10. And of the 30 countries to which I've been, 5 of them [6, including the US, my native country] are in N & S America, but \none of the residents of those countries refer to themselves as "American." They identify by their country: Mexican, Canadian, Brazilian, Argentine, and French Guiana.
"American" is standard moniker for people from the U.S. I am an American. I've been to 30 countries in my life, mostly for business. In each, without exception, I have been refereed to as an "American," not "from the U.S." My vote should iondicatre to you my mindfulness of Description. And Cancada has more wilderness than any other country in the Nortrh and South American continents..
