The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

For most men this is the face of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 945 times Debate No: 59500
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

shakuntala

Pro

I argue that for most men this is the face of God
http://www.scribd.com...
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

I thank my opponent for this, ah, enlightening debate.

---

Presumptions

Depending on the chosen definitions, I presume that we're assuming that God and His face exist. If not, please tell.

---

Burden of Proof

Let me remind everyone that the burden of proof within this debate rests solely on Pro, because Pro must assert something, while Con doesn't have to assert anything.

If Pro fails to fulfill their burden of proof, then Con wins.

---

Definitions

* "most men" has two meanings: (1) the majority of male humans, or (2) the majority of humans.

* "this" has numerous meanings: (1) literally the debate.org-style abbreviated link to shribd.com, (2) the cover image of the shribd.com link, (3) the title of the shribd.com link, (4) the word-for-word contents of the shribd.com link, or (5) the statements made within the shribd.com link, which would roughly mean "the human vagina".

* "the face of God" has numerous meanings: (1) the literal title of the shribd.com link, (2) what most people believe the actual physical face of God to be, or (3) what most people believe represents God's purpose.

I ask Pro to clarify which, if any, of these definitions is correct, and, since Pro did not set these definitions up in round 1, to show why those are the correct definitions.

---

Polling

Regardless of which definitions are chosen for the other words, Pro MUST show that a majority (ie, higher than 50 percent) of male humans/humans believe that the resolution is true. The only way to establish this for certain is by polling the entire world's population as to the truth of the resolution, because any smaller level of polling has statistical uncertanity.

If Pro can prove that statistical uncertanity is acceptable for as rigorous a topic as this, then they may poll merely a representative sample of the population.

Because I doubt Pro can do so, especially within 72 hours, and thus cannot fulfill their burden of proof, I negate this resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

hi con
you say
"Regardless of which definitions are chosen for the other words, Pro MUST show that a majority (ie, higher than 50 percent) of male humans/humans believe that the resolution is true. "
my reply
this is an arts debate and not philosophy or logic and as such arts include literature we can assume that my claim has something to do with literature
and it does

my claim is rhetorical-a literary devise

http://www.wisegeek.com...
"A rhetorical statement can also use other devices such as hyperbole and anaphora to construct a more persuasive and powerful argument. Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration in order to make a point, such as a common phrase like "I"m so hungry I could eat a horse."

you treating this debate as logic or philosophy You would to this rhetorical statement

"I am so hungry I could eat a horse." would just say here you are eat this horse then and prove your claim-where in fact there is nothing prove

so again my claim that
"For most men this is the face of God" is a rhetorical

you have missed the whole point of my claim being rhetorical my claim is in fact sarcasm-again another literary device - it does not have to be proved at all
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Art Debate:



Pro: "(T)his is an arts debate and not philosophy or logic and as such arts include literature we can assume that my claim has something to do with literature(.) (A)nd it does(.)"



1: I'm uncertain why this debate is "an arts debate". Pro's opening statement, "I argue that for most men this is the Face of God" never uses the words "art", "debate", "philosophy", "logic", or "literature", making it impossible for me to know that this debate was about art. It is unfair for Pro to require me to know what Pro wanted with Pro never stating it.



2: Even if Pro actually had stated that this debate was an art debate, what could it possibly be about? When discussing art (like in all the movie/video game/drawing debates on DDO), one usually discusses (a) how good/bad the art is or (b) whether it *is* art. Neither is true here. As such, it is implausible that this is an art debate, because it has neither of the characteristics of an art debate.



3: Even art debates must obey the rules of logic. Pro makes an assertion; Pro must back it up. Hence, Pro must back up the literal resolution, regardless of its artfulness or lack thereof.



---



Rhetorical Statement:



Pro: "(M)y claim is rhetorical - a literary devise(.) (sic) .... (Y)ou treating (sic) this debate as logic or philosophy(.) You would to this rhetorical statement(.)"



Pro claims that Pro's claim is rhetorical, and thus not subject to logic. While this is, of course, false (nothing is immune to logic), it also isn't rhetorical.



What is a rhetorical statement? As WiseGEEK.com states (1),


"A rhetorical statement is ... an assertion that uses devices ... often found in rhetoric to become more ... persuasive."



If Pro's claim is rhetorical, it must (a) use rhetorical devices (b) to become more persuasive. (a) is discussed below. Seeing as Pro's opening statement is pretty clearly not persuasive (it is a statement of purported fact), it fails (b).



There's a second category of "rhetorical statements". As WiseGEEK.com states (1),


"A rhetorical statement can also refer to a ... question ... not meant to elicit a proper response(.)"



Does Pro's statement fit this description? No, because it is not a question.



Hence, Pro's statement is not rhetorical.



---



Hyperbole:



Pro: " 'I am so hungry I could eat a horse(,)' would just say here you are(,) eat this horse then and prove your claim - where in fact there is nothing prove(.) (sic)"



I don't understand what Con is attempting to state here.



But it's clearly a reference to hyperbole. What is hyperbole? As Google, Inc., states (2),


"exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."



Is this statement exaggerated? Only if "the Face of God" means something different than the obvious (which Con has declined to tell us), and only if its real meaning is less exaggerated than "the Face of God".



Is this statement not meant to be taken literally? There's no indication that this statement meant anything other than the words on the page.



---



Sarcasm:



Pro: "(M)y claim is in fact sarcasm - again another literary device - it does not have to be proved at all(.)"



First off, why wouldn't a sarcastic statement (or at least its *true* intent need to be proven?



Second, this isn't sarcasm. What is sarcasm? As Google, Inc, states (3), "the use of irony to ... convey contempt"


Where is the irony? The contempt?



Third, if this WAS sarcasm, how could I have possibly known? It is unfair of Pro to require me to know what his true intent was without him indicating it.



---



Summary:



Con’s claim (the resolution) is a factual assertion, nothing more or less. And even if it wasn’t, it’s unfair to expect me to know that when Pro didn’t state so.



---



References:



(1) wisegeek.com/what-is-a-rhetorical-statement.html


(2) google.com/search?q=hyperbole


(3) google.com/search?q=sarcasm


Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

Hi con

in conclusion
con wanted me to prove my claim
I point out that my claim was rhetorical-and thus does not require proof

just like this is rhetorical
" "I"m so hungry I could eat a horse." - and does not require proof

This is an arts debate -and not philosophy or logic - and thus should be discussed from a literature perspective Con did not see or understand this and carried on as if it was a philosophy or logic debate
I thank you
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Debate Summary:

Pro recyles Pro's arguments nearly word-for-word from the last round, and completely fails to rebut any of my rebuttals. I will simply extend my previous rebuttals, because forcing me to do more work when Pro has not is unfair.

I have rebutted Pro's claims that the resolution was (a) an arts debate, (b) rhetorical, and/or (c) sarcastic. Furthermore, even if my rebuttals fail, I have shown that it was impossible for me to have known any of this before I accepted the debate, making that part of the debate unfair and unacceptable. As such, the resolution may be taken as an assertion; no more, no less.

Therefore, all of my first round arguments apply. Pro has the BOP to prove the resolution true. Pro has the burden to define all relevant items in this debate. Pro has the BOP to prove that more than 50 percent of male humans/humans believe *something* to be "the face of God". Of course, Pro has failed, raising no arguments about any ot these issues.

---

RFD Summary:

Conduct: Possible Con win. Pro effectively attempted to change the resolution when Pro realized it was unwinnable. If the debate *was* rhetorical, Pro offered no way to tell.

Grammar: Definite Con win. Pro had many spelling errors, punctuation errors, capitalization errors, grammar errors, and unfinished sentences.

Arguments: Definite Con win. Pro failed to (a) define the terms of the debate or (b) fulfill the BOP of the debate. Furthermore, Pro asserted the resolution to be (a) rhetorical, (b) hyperbolic, and/or (c) sarcastic, which Con disproved.

Sources: Possible Con win. Pro had two sources, counting the opening statement; Con had three, counting one of Pro's.

---

Thanks to everyone for reading this debate.
Free e-cookie to those who vote! =)
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shakuntala 2 years ago
shakuntala
Sufism says god is in everything ie pantheism therefore he is in "human sh*t" and the c*nt if the face of god is everywhere then his face is in the c*nt

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity....
There are elements of pantheism in some forms of Christianity,[54][55][56] Islam (Sufism),"

http://www.islambasics.com...
"Like many other Sufi doctrines, pantheism is adopted from man-made religions and philosophies, as confirmed by S. R. Sharda in his book, Sufi Thought

"Sufi literature of the post-Timur period shows a significant change in thought content. It is pantheistic. After the fall of Muslim orthodoxy from power at the centre of India for about a century, due to the invasion of Timur, the Sufi became free from the control of the Muslim orthodoxy and consorted with Hindu saints, who influenced them to an amazing extent. The Sufi adopted Monism (24) and wifely devotion from the Vaishnava Vedantic school(25) and Bhakti (26) and Yogic practices(27) from the Vaishnava Vedantic school. By that time, the popularity of the Vedantic pantheism among the Sufis had reached its zenith"
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
You obviously do not know what Sufism is. Have you ever even read the Sufis properly? They are based on Islam.
What you say below, is offensive and frankly I have no words to describe you. Do you even know Arabic and Persian? If you do communicate with me, I will know if you use Google Translate as it mucks up the conjugations.
Have you ever read Rumi, Khayyam, Ghazzali? Your ignorance is only preponderanced by your arrogance.
Posted by shakuntala 2 years ago
shakuntala
ajab says
"As a Muslim who has spent his life reading Sufi doctrine I have to hold back the abuses."
further more
Sufism preaches PANTHEISM namely that God is in everything so God must be in human "human sh.t ""and "c.nts"

if you think God being in everything means only nice things like flowers etc then you have learned nothing from your study of Sufism
if you cant see the face of God in every thing including the c.nt then you dont understand Sufism
Posted by shakuntala 2 years ago
shakuntala
ajab says
"As a Muslim who has spent his life reading Sufi doctrine I have to hold back the abuses."
this poem is very Sufi it ia about God being in everything and every where in others words pantheism
a point the first commentator saw which you cant because you cant get past the naughty words

you just cant get past the naughty words
just like the orthodox could not get past "wine" "tavern" etc in Hafiz day
and found such words disgusting blasphemous
just like you find the naughty words disgusting

you should try and understand the translators forward

"are we to assume that Kohl'in Al-Deen images of "cunny juice" are to be equated with say Hazis images of "wine"
are we to assume that Kohl'in Al-Deen images of the "cunt" are to be equated with the "beauty" of Haiz which is a metaphor for the divine perfection are we to assume that Kohl'in Al-Deen images of "cunny hair" are to be equated with the expansion of "Gods glory" are we to assume that Kohl'in Al-Deen images of "down on the cunt lips" are to be equated with the spirits that encircle Gods throne are we to assume that Kohl'in Al-Deen images of "cunny juice" are to be equated with "wine" as a metaphor for the spirit of divine knowledge are we to assume that Kohl'in Al-Deen images of the dark mole is to be equated with is point of indivisible unity"
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
As a Muslim who has spent his life reading Sufi doctrine I have to hold back the abuses.
Posted by shakuntala 2 years ago
shakuntala
you say
"I get what you're saying...but using your same argument then the sun is also a "God". Same as water. without the sun or water then none of us would be alive"
you are very perceptive
you have seen the bigger message of the poem congratulations
Posted by shakuntala 2 years ago
shakuntala
show the poem to a girl you like-see how she reacts
Posted by Eggsample 2 years ago
Eggsample
I get what you're saying...but using your same argument then the sun is also a "God". Same as water. without the sun or water then none of us would be alive
Posted by shakuntala 2 years ago
shakuntala
yes it is the source of life
a creative force
we all came from it
Posted by Eggsample 2 years ago
Eggsample
So....the female reproductive organ is the face of God right? pretty interesting I must admit
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
shakuntalaFuzzyCatPotatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct because Con made huge annoying spaces between the statements, thus making it harder to read. Pro pointed out that he wants some kind of literary conversation, which is only thing that can successfully be done given this opening Round 1. Within scientific debate, God does not have a face at all. Clearly, the only possible way to make this "debate" work is to make rhetorical statements, while Con insisted on arguing for scientific validity of statements.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
shakuntalaFuzzyCatPotatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro somehow thought that labelling a debate an "art debate" or similar simply made a BoP vanish. This is not so, and as Pro has failed his BoP, arguments to Con. Con - one does not need to poll the entires worlds population to establish majority, (it is unreasonable), and surveys (alwaysm, even if you polled everyone) have error. Pro, this is a debating site, not a "make a throwaway statement, claim it is rhetorical and never say anything else" site.
Vote Placed by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
shakuntalaFuzzyCatPotatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CON offered arguments. Pro tries to somehow change the debate topic and shift the BoP. Also pro was quite vague.