please ignore my trailing commentary regarding my waive oof R3. I was erroneously thinking this was a 3-round debate. I will, of course, present an R3 and R4 rebuttals, and waive R5. Sorry.
Having just read this debate through R2, I am fascinated by the Resolve and the arguments so far, and plan to vote at the debate's conclusion. Well done, guys. Just one comment to Mal: in the future, since neither of you have come close to the max argument characters [30k], I question why it was placed so high. Speaking for this voter, and even one that is pressed to stay with 10,000 characters sometimes, I severely question a 30,000 limit. I doubt most voters want to slog through that number, 8 times over. It's an invitation to avoid voting, imo.
Étant Américain, je parle couramment le français et j'y ai vécu quelques années. J'apprécierais cependant une période de discussion plus longue. Je suggère une semaine, si cela vous convient.
I*'m orgasmic over being able to post in the argument field! Ho, ho, ho. Either early Christmas, or just pocket-happy.
Haviong just voted, again, I would like to congratulate Lunatic and Mikal for an excellent debate.
Here's my two cents: Since I concur that our debates may be researched by outsiders for whatever reason, I believe debates, alone, ought to have tight moderation scrutiny specifically with regard to language use, and, if abusive in violation of treatment of others, or even just unacceptable in a polite public [like throwing f-bombs ever tenth word], those debates should still be critiqued by vote, but removed from public scrutiny in a separate folder accessible to members, should they want to,, but still count for member rating overall. Forum, etc, could be monitored more loosely.
Re: your #4: there is no conduct point in this type of debate. You want conduct points, make your future debate a multi-criteria debate, not an unrated, winner-selection general debate.
Re: your #15, it does not help to assume anyone's position on any subject, Mod, or not. Your attitude in that regard is one reason why I refuse to vote on this debate. there are others. Clean up your act. It's childish.
re: your #9: regardless of Pro's argument, there is demonstrated scientific evidence that no significant physiological change occurs between the in-vitro condition of a fetus and it's expansive momentary condition ex-vitro. It is and was and is human, therefore a person with rights, only human, and nothing else, but. The distinction of in- and ex-vitro has no medical/scientific distinction; only one by flawed law.
Amen.
No, I guess, for now, that should be, "Ah...ah...ah.... eeeeeeeeeee!
Yeah. After preparing an R1 argument from the Con position [i.e., against legalization in the US] I realize I made an error. I am always confused by an initiator in a debate taking the Con position. Damn! Oh, well, I have taken the opposing side of my personal opinion before, and I've now wasted two days of my allotted time, but, I will not concede. I'll take the Po side and pretend I never have and never would engage a prostitute, so I'm going to be flying blind. I will not post until first of next week. Still, thanks for the debate. Here goes nothing..
I just realized that none of my source citation numbers in the text survived in my posting in Arguments, R1, so I've repeated them here [the entire outing] in comments # 9, 10, in reverse order for continuous readying. Sorry, I'll correct in R2.
Con R1, pg 1
Con Round 1 [07/24/2025]
In consideration of the Resolution: Christian God cannot be just, if just means that all worlds he creates work by treating all people always and exactly consistently according to their willing actions:
I Argument: That which is "just" allows for the free will of man, i.e., "Christian God" [hereafter: "CG"] does not coerce man's will against "their willing actions,"[1] nor even their initiating thoughts driving such actions.
I.a Being Resolution keywords, I suggest "according to their willing actions" deserved to be defined. I will do so, away from the biased realm of religion to use an unbiased alternative; the law. In Black's Law Dictionary, "free will" is defined as "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control."[2] This includes control by "CG." Man has the power of free will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of his/her unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons, including "CG."
I.b Therefore, by free will, we are each treated by "CG" only according to our own thoughts and resulting actions, and not by any coercion of anyone else, man or God or devil.
II Rebuttal: Pro R1, "my opponent holds position that everything which happens to the person is a consequence of own actions."
II.a I appreciate Pro's attempt to assist by definition of my my BoP, but I will kindly tell Pro, "Get off my lawn." I will demonstrate my BoP, thank you. Pro assumes I, as a Christian, believe "CG" created me as my physical genome expresses today, and not my parents, along with generations of physical traits contributed by my direct past generations of ancestors to my unique genome. This passage of genomic traits from generations of parents to children, and not by direct creation by "CG," is scientific fact,[3] and not merely my BoP. Pro's argument, however, implies argument from the Bible, by way of creation of Adam and Eve, neither of whom had mortal parents to give birth to them. Theirs is a unique creation, and not how the rest of us were and are now introduced to mortality. Therefore, Pro's argument of "CG's" individual treatment of us by creation is not true, and the Resolution, therefore, is false. Not to mention that reference to biblical text was forbidden by Pro, and I call foul for violation of Pro's own rule in Description.
II.a.1 This matter of the unique creation of Adam and Eve, opposed to our natural birth into mortality, which began with their children's [Cain, Abel, etc] natural birth, poses a significant question whether this story is told in other ancient texts than the Holy Bible, from which such discussion is specifically forbidden by Pro. The answer is, yes; the story is repeated with varying detail by such examples as in the Apocrypha [Book of Jubliees][4], Jewish texts [Talmud][5], Gnostic texts [Apocalypse of Moses][6], and Islam [the Qur'an][7]. There are others.
II.b Coupled with this Pro R1 argument is that children who are born with physical debilitating defects were also created by "CG," and, thereby, are treated differently than others by "CG." Just as the rebuttal in §II.a, above, levels the Resolution, so this side-bar argument also demonstrates Pro's argument failure.
II.c Pro then argues a confusing string that shifts justice to the responsibility of the people, who, being treated unjustly by "CG" must, by "logic," also treat others unjustly. By so doing, Pro denies his own Resolution by discussion of an alternative, self-inflicted judgment upon man by man, thus also denying treatment of man by inconsistency, "according to [our] willing actions."
II.c.1 This Pro argument thus takes "CG" completely out of the "treatment" equation of the Resolve by ignoring "CG" altogether, when "CG" is altogether the the treatment entity of the Resolve Pro generated. This is argument creep, which violates both the Resolve and debate protocol.
II.c.2 This argument is an attempt at ontological argument for the existence of "CG," [existence of God by necessity] which simply attempts to prove the existence of "CG" without biblical reference, which Pro has ruled a forbidden argument. This is thin ice for justification of Pro's entire BoP as defined in Description, and, therefore, is invalid argument. I call foul.
Con R1, pg 2
III Rebuttal: Pro R1, "###2, ###1, ###2," et al, if/then logic; the balance of pro's R1
III.a The balance of Pro's R1 argument is a mish-mash attempt at blending forbidden biblical reference [without using the term] with the concept of reincarnation, a non-Christian philosophy, and karma, a biblical [disallowed] philosophy known by another term, namely, "free will." This argument attempts logic that is, at best, ill, simply because it is smashing good effort toward illogic.
III.b "If/then" is a popular, so-called logic exercise many use, apparently without conceiving that "if" cannot justify "then" because "if" is, typically, not currently true, such as:
"If wishes were fishes, [then] we will eat tonight." But wishes currently are not fishes, so the consequence [then] is not a justified statement: We eat, should we eat at all, something else tonight, just by the wish of it. But wishing is only very rarely true, and is not a standard I would trust to support an argument. The truth: Tonight, we eat what is now in the larder, or what can be ordered for delivery to our door, both of which are just actions; or what we can go out and steal, not a just action. Let justice be meted out accordingly.
III.c Pro's argument is confused further by a time element:
III.c.1 "### 1. Foreknowledge ≠ Causation
Let’s begin with identity logic and time ordering: [this, and the following through the end of this paragraph, III.c.1, is all quoted from Pro's R1]
"* Knowing X will happen is not the same as X having **already happened**.
* Even if God *knows infallibly* that person P will do wrong in 20 years, that wrong **does not yet exist in reality**.
* Therefore, P has not *yet* taken a willing action.
* Therefore, punishing them *now* is not a response to a willing action." [end quote]
III.c.2 Note, first, that "CG" has lost his religion; he is now, merely, "God." That has consequence within the defined boundary of the Resolve, engaging in, at least, Resolve creep. I call foul.
III.c.3 Second, it assumes that what will happen in 20 years is cast in concrete, allowing no free will to alter the person's course between now and then. This smacks of determinism, not a concept consistent with "CG."
III.d Consider the following: "24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. 26 And the Messiah cometh in the fullness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."[8]
III.d.1 Note, this is not a biblical reference, in keeping with the Resolve, but, having reference to the "Messiah," it is clearly Christian principle, and, therefore, valid reference in support of Con's BoP to refute the Resolve: "CG" does not punish, particularly not prior to choice of evil behavior on man's part, but rather blesses man for and should their free will follow his commandments to achieve "joy" and "eternal life." It's a conditional consequence, not pre-determined.
III.d.2 In effect, CG says, "Do good, you shall be blessed to live in my kingdom. Do evil, do not expect to be blessed in any kingdom." The choice, and the consequence, is on and by us, only.
III.e Pro has here engaged in misrepresentation of "CG" by erroneous logic. Just because "logic" is expressed in logical terminology [ex: "## Logical Form * **A** = Person is treated based on their willing actions (justice)..." et al] it does not follow that function follows form; i.e., that truth has been told. This house believes truth is made of sterner stuff.
III.f Therefore, once again, the Resolve is false, and justice is held.
I yield R2 to Pro.
Note: R1 Sources listed in comments, post #9
Sources:
[1] https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/1b/christian-god-cannot-be-just-if-just-means-that-all-worlds-he-creates-work-by-treating-all-people-always-and-exactly-consistently-according-to-their-willing-actions Pro's Resolution; final words
[2] Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1910
[3] https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-genetics/
[4] https://www.sefaria.org/Book_of_Jubilees?tab=contents
[5] https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud
[6] https://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/vita/english/vita.gre.html
[7] https://quran.com/2:35/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran
[8] The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2: 24-27
R1 Sources:
[1] https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/1b/christian-god-cannot-be-just-if-just-means-that-all-worlds-he-creates-work-by-treating-all-people-always-and-exactly-consistently-according-to-their-willing-actions Pro's Resolution; final words
[2] Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1910
[3] https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-genetics/
[4] https://www.sefaria.org/Book_of_Jubilees?tab=contents
[5] https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud
[6] https://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/vita/english/vita.gre.html
[7] https://quran.com/2:35/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran
[8] The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2: 24-27
Scrub my posts #1 and #5; I've figured out an alternative that allows my posting of arguments in the argument section! Yeah, problem solved!
I have already tried using a different browser on my device without success. I am willing to accept that the problem, since it appears unique to me, is with my device, a new-generation Apple iMac, which appears to have conflict with both DART and, now, Debatecraft. I am not going to change my device, having invested a fair amount into its purchase just for one site's apparent mid-match with my O.S. It may end up a fact that I must abandon debate on this site. With SatanLucy's acceptance of posting debate argument in Comments, I shall proceed. Relative to voting, I shall make commentary in Comments prior to voting, that votes on this debate which award Pro the win by my forfeit will be called out to Mods to remove the vote for more proper assessment. That voters may still find Pro's argument prevails, so be it. All should know that after nearly 3 years on DART, I achieved a ranking of 14th overall on the Debate leaderboard of over 1,200 participants, and should expect to have that relative position reflected on the DC leaderboard after a reasonable number of debates have been logged.
I have made experimental attempt to publish my R1 argument, but, unfortunately, as with the closing months at DART, I am not allowed to make any entry of argument in the R1 argument field, so that defect continues. I will need to make adjustments to the text to publish, instead, in these Comments notes, but I must first ask SatanLucy if he is willing to continue debate on that basis, but I would rather not have to resort to that longterm. Any suggestions to proceed?
I have accepted this debate beset on two factors: I fond the resolution intriguing, and it is also an opportunity to see if conditions of failure to enter argument in the argument fields that plagued me in this last year of DART. We'll know when I make the attempt to "waive R1" per the debate structure. Hoping for that to be a solved issue.
I have accepted this debate beset on two factors: I fond the resolution intriguing, and it is also an opportunity to see if conditions of failure to enter argument in the argument fields that plagued me in this last year of DART. We'll know when I make the attempt to "waive R1" per the debate structure. Hoping for that to be a solved issue.
