The Instigator
Blackangel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kbub
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

God is Black*****

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
kbub
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 63337
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Blackangel

Pro

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم

I bear witness that the Blackman and Blackwoman are God in its Supreme Condensation. And Therefore, the Fathers and Mothers of all events following

لا إِلَهَ إِلا اللهُ
kbub

Con

I accept this debate, and look forward to what I'm sure will be a creative take on very old problems. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Blackangel

Pro

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم

First we'll need to define "God". Let's assume the common definition, being: "The creator of all things" and/or "The eternal essence of all things" or something to that affect.

In that case, then "God" would need to not only assume but possess the quality (s) suitable for these roles.
Logically, the color of Black contains all colors on the spectrum. Therefore, God must be (based on our definition (s)) Black.

And if we assume that "God" lives in and/or is a part of all things it creates, then logic would assume the supreme representation of God to be Black in both metaphorical and literal terms.

God is the totality of everything that was, is, and will ever be. Therefore, God cannot create anything it didn't already contain mentally.

The mind precedes ALL 7 densities of creation in the order of: magnetism, electricity, light, ether, gas, liquid, and solid. Each condensation contains the previous condensation. Therefore, If all creation stems from the Mind of God, then God literally remains present throughout all densities of creation. Even "material" or what you call "human"

لا إله إلا الله
kbub

Con

Thanks to Blackangel for the first round.

----

I will begin off-case by making an extensive Topicality argument ("T"), as well as vagueness abuse and time-suck abuse arguments.

Definition:
Pro begins by offering two definitions for God: "The creator or all things" and/or "The eternal essence of all things," and then adds "or something to that affect [sic]."

Due to the fact that the entire debate rests on whether or not God has a particular trait or quality (Black), it seems to be extremely important that we have a clear definition of God.

The fact is that I cannot perform this debate adequately if the definition of God changes every round, but if the definition of God changes in the _same round_ it makes debating near impossible. I cannot effectively argue that God is or isn't Black from the definitions Pro gave, because my arguments would be different: God "The creator of all things", God "The eternal essence of all things", and God "something to that affect." The first two definitions basically split this debate into two wholly-different debates, meaning that I only have 5,000 words to devote to each debate instead of my original fair 10,000.

Furthermore, the "or something to that affect [effect?]" means that Pro will be able to change the nature of the debate at any point. All of these problems:

1) Make this debate entirely unfair, because any argument I make may be turned around on me by Pro's saying: "That's not God!" I can only debate one topic--debating a multiple or infinite number of possible topics or forcing me to read my opponent's mind gives me a huge disadvantage.

2) Make this debate entirely pointless. If neither I, nor the reader, knows what this debate is about, then what is the point of it? If I am unable to debate fairly, then neither we nor our readers learn anything. Furthermore, if no one knows what the debate is about, then we all _definitely_ don't learn anything, because it is impossible to figure out who it is who is black or not black?

If it is the case that my opponent set up this debate unfairly or in a way that makes the debate pointless, then s/he loses for several reasons. Firstly, a topicality argument (like mine) is considered _before_ the case (a priori) in most debate styles (NPDA, CEDA, NDT, IPDA, NFA-LD, etc). In these styles, if the first team frames the definitions in a way that makes the debate unfair or hurts its education, then s/he loses automatically.

This tradition must continue into debate.org for a number of reasons:
1) To make the website more attractive to collegiate and high school debaters and coaches, and thus improve the website's debate quality
2) To discourage pointless/non-educational debates
3) To give judges and debaters a more consistent framework so they can learn consistent styles and skills, instead of trying to guess their judges' preferences each time or giving up.
4) To discourage tricking people into unfair debates (I assumed that the subject of this debate would be made clear to me by my opponent once it began).
5) To discourage being disrespectful. I wanted to debate, but my opponent made that impossible, and is therefore being rude, disrespectful, and unsporting.

I'm not saying that any of the definitions are NECESSARILY bad, but we definitely need to choose ONE, or else this debate is complete nonsense.

Pro even ADMITS that this analysis is true, that a definition of God is a requirement for the debate: "First we'll need to define "God"." (bold added)

Furthermore, due to my opponent's abusive opening, I've had to spend 4,000 characters whining about fairness instead of talking about what I wanted to talk about: Whether God is Black. This waste of space explaining my opponents' vagueness makes it so that I have less room to make my own arguments, which I what my opponent wants. We cannot allow debaters to use abusive definitions as a strategy for cheating by causing their opponent have less characters available at the beginning of the debate.

(An aside for those who like Standards: Pro gives me no ground; s/he gives no brightline (I don't know who is supposed to be Black); s/he gives no fairness; s/he gives no expectability (who could have predicted infinite definitions of God?); A priori issue. All of stamdards feed into voters of Fairness and Education, and also Respect.)

For all these reasons vote Con.

---

In the actual case, Pro is even more inconsistent. Instead of staying with the original 3+ definitions, Pro adds another definition, saying that "God is the totality of everything that was, is, and ever will be." This is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT definition from the other three, and I'd have to debate it completely seperately.

Thus, Pro has made what should be one debate into 4+ debates, which I'm somehow supposed to address at all the same time.

Cross apply this link to the loss of fairness, loss of education, loss of character space, increase in vagueness, and the resulting importance of voting for Pro.

---

Why God can't be black (for every definition Pro gives).

Pro's first definition--"The creator of all things"--is meaningless and regressive, because it proposes that God created herself, rather than having always existed, and of course creating oneself is irrational, and also a pointless definition to make. The second definition: "The eternal essence of all things" is very vague. What is an essence? What makes an essence eternal? How does one know an essence exists?

Finally, if "God is the totality of everything that was, is, and will ever be," then Pro would have no case. The fact is, if God were the totality of everything, then God would also embody the space between things (for empty space is of course also a thing that is and was). This means that God embodies all wavelengths to an equal extent--from infrared to white. This means that God cannot be characterized as "Black," because much of God is non-black (for example, the places that shine white light). If we think of God pantheistically, then God exists in the place where there is non-blackness, and also has no particular right to be labeled "Black."

Also, for something to be Black it needs space. Although non-existing things don't absorb light, they also aren't black. For one to recognize "black," it must be embodied in a thing that takes up space.

Furthermore, according to Google, black is "of the very darkest color owing to the absence of or complete absorption of light; the opposite of white." God doesn't _absorb_ light under Pro's definition. God IS light. God EMBODIES light. Furthermore, black is also "the opposite of white."

The definition of "white" is "of the color of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of most wavelengths of visible light." If God were the opposite of white then God would be the opposite "of the color of milk or fresh snow." Because God is "the totality of all that is," then God is also the snow, and of course the snow's characteristics (including reflecting most wavelengths). Furthermore, if God is the opposite of white, the God is absent in the situation of "the reflection of most wavelengths of visible light." God is present in those places according to the definition, and not absent; therefore, God must NOT be "the opposite of white" and thus must NOT be Black.

-

Next, Black and White are both concepts that humans have created in an attempt to processes and organize visual data. If we are talking about a being that does not use visual data, does not use eyes, then there is not point in distinguishing Black from White. All of these color-concepts are meaningless.

Therefore, Pro is in a double-bind. If we understand what "Black" is, then it must be something wrapped up in our conceptual framework, and it can't apply to God who, as a "totality" or a "creator," has no use for the linguistic distinction of "Black." At the same time, if by "Black" we mean something that supersedes/transcends our understanding of color, then we CAN'T know it or understand it, so for all intents and purposes God is _not_ Black in any meaningful or understandable interpretation of the word.

---

Does God exist?

The next important point is that Pro gives absolutely no reason to think that God exists.

I am confident that the universe exists, and the God that Pro describes doesn't seem to contribute meaningfully to the totality of the universe. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to think that the God Pro describes (at least one of them, anyway) exists. God in this case is a meaningless epiphenomenon, an unneccessary complication. Therefore, the more preferable worldview would be to reject the existence of God rather than accept the existence of God, according to Ockham's Razor.

Pro also describes God as "creator of all things." If Pro meant that God is "the creator of the universe," then there are more problems. Whatever/Whoever the "creator"/cause of the universe was, we can be confident it was long ago. We can also be confident that as time passes, that we are moving further away from God or knowledge of God, and therefore God's Blackness or any other characteristic is becoming rapidly less-knowable.

---

Because Pro was unable to provide a consistent definition, I will provide my own, in an attempt to make this unfair and non-educational debate at least a little more bearable. I will also use a dictionary in order to make it an ACTUAL "common definition."

God: "the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

The spiritual/mental world that Pro describes does not have a physical presence, and therefore neither absorbs nor reflects light. Furthermore, if God created the universe, She must have at one point _sent out_ light, which means S/He isn't Black. Witnessing would have observed white light from God.

Also, God not have had the world before She created it, or else it wouldn't have been created.

----

For all these reasons, please vote Con.

Debate Round No. 2
Blackangel

Pro

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم

...Ok this might be slightly more irritating than I expected.
Your confusion results from your failure to pay attention to my exact words. The audience doesn't need you to just their view. You accepted the challenge to prove me wrong, not to whine about how "unfair" you think my first round was.

I've already presented "support" for my claim.

Factual "support" only comes from Logic, by way of critical thinking. We could go on for days exchanging textual "evidence" written from many people with different opinions. So because of that, people should first rely on their God given ability to think critically by weighing various information together with their life experiences, and then LOGICALLY extract that which has continuity and RELAVANCE. And that is how true information is gained. This is debate is but one of those many pieces of information that readers will need to engage, weigh, and extract with other information they've obtained.

Your idea of support stems from misunderstanding of universal law.

But if you need documentation, try the Quran (and every ancient text before it). It backs up EVERY SINGLE THING I've said, saying, and will say. And if we gauge reality based on majority opinion, then the Quran is one of the most scientifically resourceful book in existence today, based on the words of nuclear, microbiological, and various of scientists of the world. The Quran is one of their ultimate reference tools

I've already provided you a template through which God can manifest as both creator and creation based on the laws of condensation from magnetism to electricity to light to ether to gas to liquid and to solid.
I simply chose those definitions to ground the debate with flexibility, as all debates are subject to many

Now back... to the Black God

Black is all colors collected and WITHELD from VISUAL sight, therefore exhibiting absorption. White is all colors reflected and RELEASED to VISUAL sight. In essence, God is both magnetic (absorbent) and electric (reflective). But God as a SUPREME representation is Black because logically, God must contain ALL that is in creation before it is created. So it's for that reason that Black is used both symbolically and literally.
When the sun goes down, it's Black. When you turn the light off, it's Black. When a body decays, it turns black.
When all electricity (reflective energy) is retracted, everything is absorbed back into God, whom is Black, who contains all things and its potentials. This is Logical thinking. Truth has to be obtained from Logic, which, in it's divine definition, translates to hearing god. Or meditation. Or intuition

Creation itself is a reflection of God's qualities. Human beings have 5 physical senses that process the God data which covers every inch of the Earth and Universe.

Creation is also anything that condenses from the mind of God in the 7 stages I've provided (magnetism, electricity, light, ether, gas, liquid, and solid).
All things exist as infinite potential before consolidating from the mind of God into Polarities.
ALL condensations, as stated, contain the previous condensation. Therefore, God remains present throughout everything it creates -- wherever that creation goes, also making God omnipresent, which is a necessary attribute of God based on the rules of mental condensation.

"Time" is a planetary effect via the Sun. Suns are a density of creation, the most common being that of Light, and since both light and sound rely on Ether to travel (which is also Black), and by following the rules of condensation, then God exists both "in" and "outside " of what we call "space and time". And because God is the creator of the Sun, which creates time, then God is everything that was, is, and will ever be.

Eternity is a difficult concept for anything that is not God (including opinion from non-black scientists who have not been led by God) because only God can understand its nature in totality and God is eternal. Everything God creates now becomes restricted to "space and time" once it leaves the Mind of God. But the comprehensive concept of "God" cannot be created because it is eternal - which simply means that which preceded what we call "space and time"

لا إله إلا الله
kbub

Con

Alright, thanks for Pro for their speedy post.

Roadmap: Four off-case arguments (one new), and then straight through case.

---
Dropped arguments:

Pro has dropped virtually all of my most important arguments. I will show you point-by-point, dear reader, how I have clearly already won this debate.

Standards (x5)
Ground. Brightline. Fairness. Expectability. A priori issue. All linked to Fairness, Education, and Respect. My opponent dropped these arguments. Extend.


Links (x5):
First, Pro dropped that s/he used 4+ definitions for God in a single round.
Extend it through.
Next, Pro dropped my argument that having one definition for God in this debate is vital for intelligent arguments. Extend it through.
Next, Pro dropped that changing definitions mid-debate gives me a disadvantage. Extend it on through.
Next, Pro dropped that having multiple definitions causes me to have only a fraction of my original space. Extend.
Next, Pro dropped that "or something to that affect" means s/he can change the definition of God whenever s/he feels like it. Extend.

Voters+links
Fairness (x3) Pro dropped that s/he made the debate completely unfair. Pro didn't even both denying it, but only chastised me for caring. Pro dropped that I'm having to debate an "infinite number of possible topics." Pro dropped that I'm being forced to read Pro's mind.
Extend, extend, extend.

Education (x5): Pro dropped that education is the point of debate. Pro drops that loss of fairness causes loss of education. Pro drops that the definitions' vagueness caused the debate to be uneducational and pointless.
Extend extend extend.
Extend also that Pro admitted that having to talk about unfairness hurts the education of the debate. Turn: Pro is to blame for this for _being unfair_ (and not even denying it).
Pro dropped that a loss of education merits an immediate, a priori loss. Extend. (*Here, Pro literally drops that s/he deserves to lose this debate*).

Here, I explain why Pro must lose, but because s/he didn't even answer, dear reader, you get to choose your favorites from five independent uncontested reasons to choose Con:

Reason #1 To make the website more attractive to collegiate and high school debaters and coaches, and thus improve the website's debate quality
Reason #2) To discourage pointless/non-educational debates
Reason #3) To give judges and debaters a more consistent framework so they can learn consistent styles and skills, instead of trying to guess their judges' preferences each time or giving up.
Reason #4) To discourage tricking people into unfair debates (I assumed that the subject of this debate would be made clear to me by my opponent once it began).
Reason #5) To discourage being disrespectful. I wanted to debate, but my opponent made that impossible, and is therefore being rude, disrespectful, and unsporting.

Pro is clearly being abusive by ignoring my arugments, but unfortunately that's not how debates work.

Pro also drops that I've wasted most of my space in two rounds having to talk about this unfairness, and that Pro must not be allowed to get away with this (Reason #6). Extend.

-

For all of these reasons, please vote Pro.

-

Rebuttals:

"Your [Con's] confusion results from your failure to pay attention to my exact words."
I actually quoted Pro's exact words. I see no follow up arguments.

"You [Con] accepted the challenge to prove me wrong, not to whine about how "unfair" you think my first round was."
Pro basically concedes my argumnet that having to talk about fairness instead of the issues is a bad thing for debate. This links my earlier arguments 100% to case; because Con caused the debate to be unfair, it meant that we had to waste time talking about fairness instead of having an honest debate.

"I simply chose those definitions to ground the debate with flexibility, as all debates are subject to many"
Pro's response here links perfectly to my arguments. Pro claims that "flexibility" justified his use of 4+ competing definitions, including one that could mean anything at any time in the debate ("or something to that affect"). I argue that this "flexibility" is the problem: It is good for Pro, because I forced to do over 4x the debates (2500 letters each, minus fairness arguments), whereas Pro's "flexibility" allows her/him to show how any ONE of FOUR of his definitions of God is Black.

Furthermore, having multiple definitions for such an important word is unusual for most styles of fomal debate. It is certainly not the case that "all debates are subject to many."

"I've already provided you a template through which God can manifest as both creator and creation based on the laws of condensation from magnetism to electricity to light to ether to gas to liquid and to solid."
Pro hasn't shown why any of these propositions are true, but claimed merely that they are, or that the Quran "back up" her/his words (no citations). I have no reason to suspect that God exists, let alone does all the magnificant things Pro claims.

"God is both magnetic (absorbent) and electric (reflective)"
Magnants aren't always absorbent, and electricity isn't always reflective. I'm so confused. Pro really needs to cite her/his sources.

"But God as a SUPREME representation is Black because logically, God must contain ALL that is in creation before it is created."
That metaphore doesn't even work, and it definitely doesn't literally work. Magnetism is different from lightwaves, and furthermore, God also created the space between the objects, so the best literal and figurative depiction of God from Pro's analysis would be everything that exists in the universe as it is arranged--not all of it collapsed together like a tower of cards.

"When all electricity (reflective energy) is retracted, everything is absorbed back into God, whom is Black, who contains all things and its potentials"
There are honestly so many things wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin critiquing it. I should think it's obvious that every part of this sentence has nothing to do with the other parts.

Pro then goes on to talk about the unfathomability of time without the Sun. That's incorrect. Time is actually a measure of causation, not the sun. As long as there is causation (i.e. God creating the world), then there is time.

That still doesn't explain how you propose God created herself.
-

"But if you need documentation, try the Quran (and every ancient text before it)."
Challenge accepted.

Ancient texts

Surat An-N$3;r - سورة النور
24:35--

"Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light." (http://quran.com...)

1 John was also written around the same time as the Quran: "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5).

Just look at the sheer number of references to Allah being light, reflecting light (opposite of black) and removing night in the Quran in this link: http://www.qtafsir.com...

The Quaran literally says that Allah will guide followers away from darkness and into His Light (Sura Al-Hashr, No. 59, verse 23).

In the Torah, in Numbers 6:25, God's face is said to reflect light: "The LORD make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you"

Thus, in both the Christian Bible, Hebrew Bible, and Quran, God is said to reflect light (opposite of black), embody light (not absorb), and even (in the Quran) appear white (the opposite of black).

Pro's only source for his entire debate is the Quran which, as I clearly showed, is in favor of God/Allah's reflecting light, not absorbing it. Although Pro claims to speak backed by the Quran, I have yet to see evidence of that. However, using the main scriptures of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, I have shown that God reflects light, indicating that Pro is wrong about God.

-
Metphores:

About the metaphoric use of the word black to mean the combination of everything: I could literally make a metaphore about anything. I could suggest that an armchair is an enormous blueberry metaphorically; however, that wouldn't make it true in a debate sense. If all that it took to win a debate is metaphores, then we would all be winners. I could say things like: "No, the United States should metaphorically raise taxes." Like Pro's case, the example is poetic but offers no sort of argumentation at all. I have shown already that the scriptures indicate that a better metaphore is having God be the giver of light, not the absorber. The Quran seems to indicate that Darkness is a better metaphore for evil than God.

Furthermore, it seems like a better view of God would be the giver of everything (reflective), rather than the stealer (black). Even if you buy that Pro can win off of a metaphore, I still win, because Pro's mataphore doesn't work.

--

More Dropped:

*That "creater of all things" is an impossible definition.
*That "the eternal essence of all things" is completely useless.
*That "the totality of...be" shows that God is as much Black as she is literally every else, and therefore shouldn't be described as Black.
*That Blackness takes up space, which God doesn't.
*That God embodying light isn't absorbing it.
*God is present in white, black's opposite.
*Without visual organs, "black" is meaningless.
*That either black is a human concept that can't apply to God, or a Godly concept we can't understand.
*That we can't know even the mystery of God, so we can't know if blackness applies.

*That Pro gave no reason that God exists.
*That the God Pro describes is pointless.
*That the simplest and best explanation is that God doesn't exist.

*The existence of light-energy means that God sent out light (opposite of black)

---

For all these reasons (fairness, education, holy scriptures, logic) Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
Blackangel

Pro

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم

Lol... You all are hilarious. Ok I forfeit :)

قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ
لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ
وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌۢ
kbub

Con

It looks like my opponent forfeited most all of her/his debates.

I am very disappointed. I feel like I spent a lot of time on this debate, and am unhappy to have my work disregarded, and rendered obsolete (it is pointless to read my arguments, because I have already won). Nevertheless, I suppose I must accept my opponents' forfeit.

Thanks for the debate, Blackangel.

Thanks for your time, dear reader. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
Blackangel

Pro

Blackangel forfeited this round.
kbub

Con

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Thanks, SNP1! It's been awhile since I've brushed off the ol' topicality. I think it's the first I've done it online.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
kbub, good job with your rounds so far. I do think debating this guy is annoying.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
BlackangelkbubTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
BlackangelkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture