Lying is wrong, Straw Men are for Farms.
Debate Rounds (5)
I expect my opponent in this debate to substantiate that (LYING) is the (RIGHT) thing to do IN a DEBATE. I will explain the Opposite.
(TOPIC #2: STRAW MEN ARE FOR FARMS)
I would also like Con to show that Straw Men don't belong on farms, but can alternate between a FARM and THEIR comments with ease, and also hold an important place there.
My opponent lied his butt off in the last debate i had with him.>
Since i didn't call my opponnent a liar during the rounds of that debate, But was called one myself, I have chosen the topic of this debate to be:
(Lying is wrong, Straw Men are for Farms.)
I am pretty sure LarzTheLoser won't accept this debate, So for an Example of a liar just visit his page. ;)
My overall case is that I did not lie in the debate in question, and that lying is morally acceptable. The two are completely different things, and I don't see why my opponent is using one to substantiate the other. I think straw men are indeed very useful on farms, but again, I'm absolutely certain I didn't run such a case in that debate. Besides which, the two aforementioned issues are so broad in scope I don't think it's reasonable to debate all three.
CONTENTION 1: I did not lie
I'm guessing my opponent is going to argue the toss about the following statements from my last round:
a) "My opponent said in the last round that God is a possibility" - I quote from my opponent's last round: "Saying there is evidence of God is subjective. God is a possibility, not a definite."
b) "My opponent cannot have read his own source and be telling the truth!" - This is based on my opponent's source for monotheism, Wikipedia, which does in fact say that Hinduism admits several Gods.
c) My source for Zachariah 13 not being about Zachariah 13 - Actually it's about the whole opening part of Zachariah.
d) "Isa. 2:1-3 and Psalm 69 disproving me. That's a downright lie and I've proved it already" - And this is true. I gave paragraphs worth of analysis to Psalm 69 in the earlier rounds, which my opponent did not respond to. I also gave a paragraph of analysis to Isiah 2 in round three.
e) "Zachariah 13 is a long chapter, some of it is messianic and some isn't." - This will naturally depend on one's subjective understanding of the chapter. I was only reciting majority opinion, and my opponent never came back to it.
Meanwhile my opponent lied until the cows come home. In the final round he stated:
a) "Pro has went from a self proclaimed atheist to christian apologetic" - not only an ad hominem attack, with atrocious grammar, but also a downright lie without any correlating evidence.
b) "I Have shown a multitude of similarities throughout this debate, Pro discredits none" - again a lie, I discredited the myths of Krishna, Zeus, Jupiter, various other Pagan religions, Aztec religion, Mithraism and Syrian religion. Pro only showed one single similarity that I did not rebut.
c) "With factual evidence I confirm that Hinduism is a even older Monotheistic religion than Judaism hereby discrediting his claim" - factual evidence cited does not support my opponent's conclusion.
He did not extend any of his arguments in the last round, only recited old ones verbatim without regard to my extensive rebuttals and pushed a few entirely new cases which barely fitted with his case overall. The poor structure of his case alone would have caused it to crumble if he did not lie to keep it upright.
CONTENTION 2: Lying is morally acceptable
If lying were not morally acceptable, it would be wrong to lie in any situation. This is simply untrue under normative ethics. Take a few scenarios. I live in Nazi Germany and am sheltering some Jews in my house. Hitler rocks up and asks me whether I am hiding Jews in my house. Is it now alright to lie? Take another scenario. It's the day before my brother's birthday, and I go out to buy him a surprise present. As I return my brother asks me what is in my shopping bag. In this case most people would say something other than the present, so as to not spoil the surprise. Is that alright? Take another scenario. A child is at home and a stranger calls: "Are you alone at home?" - the child says no because they are aware of stranger danger. Is that alright?
There are four normative ethical frameworks. Utilitarianism accepts lying because it can be used for the greater good. Moral Rights accepts lying because lying can allow the protection of certain moral rights. Justice accepts lying because sometimes telling the truth to somebody would be unfair. Virtue ethics accepts lying as it is a social norm. Wikipedia classifies normative ethics into Consequentialism (wherein theorists such as Machiavelli have argued lying is absolutely morally alright), Deontology (wherein theorists such as Kant have argued lying may be necessary to protect rights) and Virtue ethics.
This debate is really 2 debates in one. I think my opponent should split it into two to make voter's decisions on each issue clear. By procedural issues aside, I have negated both topics. Thus the motion falls.
GORGIAS forfeited this round.
Since my structure and my grammar herein,(though i think what CON means is punctuation) is in question;
a) "Pro has went from a self proclaimed atheist to christian apologetic" - (not only an ad hominem attack, with atrocious grammar, but also a downright lie without any correlating evidence.)
I will attempt to the best of my ability, to respond within the confines of Con's structure.
In reality (and this isn't debatable), Con insults my intelligence as well as any readers intelligence by making false claims, I will no longer address a liar.
All of Con's statements will be between parantheses so i don't confuse my opponent.
(CONTENTION 1: I did not lie)
.......( b) "My opponent cannot have read his own source and be telling the truth!" - This is based on my opponent's source for monotheism, Wikipedia, which does in fact say that Hinduism admits several Gods.)..........
I was mistaken on this point and didn't comprehend the reading appropriately, and unlike my opponent, I can admit when I am wrong, with out using a straw man argument to evade the point. Yes my source was not a strong backing for my point, but there are philosophies in early Hinduism that are monotheistic, as it clearly stated on wiki, which was the best source i could use, without photocopying the books I have read.
So now that we've cleared that up
To the Liar we go...
(c) My source for Zachariah 13 not being about Zachariah 13 - Actually it's about the whole opening part of Zachariah)
Pro stated in the prior debate;
(My opponent claims Zechariah 13:3 disproves me. That refers to when the Lord opens up the fountain of Jerusalem. Not when the messiah comes. This is telling because this passage is FAMOUS for not being about the messiah's coming (http://www.iclnet.org......).
Yet earlier in the debate i was accused of being ignorant to the Prophecies
Larz did you say this?
(2. Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy of a messiah accepted by Jews... actually, there is no prophecy for this in the Bible. This point also shows my opponent's ignorance of Psalms 69:4, Isaiah 53:1, Zechariah 13:7, Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 11:12-13, Zechariah 11:4-6, Isaiah 53:12, Isaiah 53:5 and about a dozen other prophecies that the Jews had.
Why is Zechariah 13 included in that? Now its FAMOUS for not being about the messiah, why the change of mind between rounds ?
Thank you for the useless argument larz
Now that I have wasted 60 seconds responding to a pathological liar who debates like a child
I'll be on my way ;)
Point a my opponent refused to address.
Point b my opponent conceded. He claims I cannot admit that I'm wrong. Little personal story ... when I was 6 I believed in Santa. I was wrong. There, did it. My opponent expresses an inability to cite anything other than a website, showing a lack of understanding about referencing formats. Funny that his books didn't teach him that, all scholarly books should include a reference list. Had he even cited the appropriate book-references I could have cross-referenced them with some of my own books (I have quite a collection). He also admits to citing content and misrepresenting / lying about their contents. Case in point.
Point c my opponent contends. He just says "oh really?" in response to my argument. I suggest voters, if there are any, to read the opening part of my source for themselves. It's about the start of Zachariah. Saying two words is not enough to launch an argument against it. I did accuse my opponent of ignorance towards the prophecies and I did not contradict myself by saying something like "my opponent is learned in the prophecies." At the time, I was not necessarily speaking merely of the Zachariah prophecies.
Finally my opponent brings out an apparent contradiction - is Zach 13 about the first or second coming of the messiah. I did note in the debate that it's complicated. In order to have a second coming, like Zach 13 prophesies, you first need a first coming. So if you prophecy about a second coming, you also imply that the savior is coming. It does not imply anything about the first coming, just that it must happen for your prophecy to be true. So I did not contradict myself. I admit I could have done more to clarify this, but it's a bit hard to express in a theological debate with a character limit. I would have if my opponent had brought it up. Me having to clarify all this, by the way, only further proves my point that my opponent is ignorant of the true meaning of the prophecies. He can, of course, debate that meaning, but this is no evidence of lying in and of itself.
Point d&e my opponent ignored. I'll take it he is conceding these points.
My opponent absolutely failed to respond to my points about his own inconsistencies and lies.
Because my opponent continues to resort to personal attacks and slander, and because my opponent has raised neither cogent nor valid arguments, and because the one inconsistency he thinks he has shown is in fact not an inconsistency at all, and because he fails to respond to my arguments, I politely ask that voters vote for the debater with the better case. I fail to see how one can agree with my opponent except as a joke.
GORGIAS forfeited this round.
GORGIAS forfeited this round.
larztheloser forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||5|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.