Mary H Christ kicks Alluah Akbars right in ther goat for unlawful carnal knowledge's balls.
Debate Rounds (3)
I would like to thank pro for this very interesting debate. Since pro didn't define terms in their opening argument, I will define terms in my opening argument.
Mary H Christ- This is open to interpretation, but will be assumed to the the mother of Jesus H. Christ, the messiah of Christianity.
Alluah Akbars- A misspelling of Allahu Akbar, in the plural form, which translates to "God is Great" in Arabic, and is a phrase widely used in Islam.
Goat- Any of various hollow-horned ruminant mammals (especially of the genus Capra) related to the sheep but of lighter build and with backwardly arching horns, a short tail, and usually straight hair; especially : one (Capra hircus) long domesticated for its milk, wool, and flesh.
Unlawful- Not allowed by the law.
Carnal- Of or relating to the body : sexual or sensual.
Knowledge- Information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education.
Balls- [From Context] A man's testicles where sperm is produced.
First off, I would like to analyze the nature of the balls as put forth in the debate topic. Now, what exactly does the phrase "carnal knowledge balls" refer to? Now, by the definitions above, carnal refers to something of the body, sexual or sensual. Thus, since carnal is referring to the balls, it is to be understood that the balls in question are that of the man's testes, Now, "knowledge balls" refers to the balls containing some sort of knowledge. This "knowledge" could be thought of as the semen, which has the genetics of the male, thus containing the knowledge of the male.
The Kicking of Balls and Goats
Now, regardless of what Mary H Christ is, by the structure of the debate topic, it is inferred that Mary H. Christ is kicking the balls which belong to Allahu Akbar. Now, here's the problem: a phrase (which is what Allahu Akbar is) cannot actually have any physical manifestations, as it is just a phrase. Thus, it cannot have balls, which is what Pro's case relies heavily upon (the kicking of Allahu Akbar's balls). Thus, since Allahu Akbar has no balls, it is impossible for anything to kick the balls, since what does not exist cannot be kicked. Also, it is implied that Allahu Akbar posseses a goat (as is apparent in "right in ther goat"). Here's the problem with that: a phrase cannot own a goat. Thus, it is impossible for anything to even kick the goat, since the goat doesn't exist, due to a phrase not owning a goat.
I would like to thank Pro for this debate, and wish them luck in the next round.
Regarding the point that my definitions are meaningless, I cited the places from which I got my definitions from. Also, I haven't been given much to work with in terms of a rebuttal. My opening argument still stands.
Thank you, and I wish Pro good luck in the next round.
I would like to point out that Pro made no attempts to refute any of my arguments in the previous rounds, as well as not presenting any of their own arguments. None the less, this was a very interesting and fun debate, and I would like to thank Pro, as well as wish them the best of luck.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.