To be the greatest debater on this website, is to be able to win a debate against me.
Debate Rounds (5)
There is a possibility that Vardas0Antras is divine.
Definition:When I say that I'm divine, I mean that I am above humans (note:This doesn't mean I've created the world)
1. Anything is possible.
2. I am not bound by logic and I don't have to be moral to be divine meaning I can contradict myself and I can lie.
3. Hence I might be divine.
This is common knowledge and if refuted there still is a possibility that the rebuke was incorrect hence anything is possible.
Here I describe who I might be. This is obviously undebatable.
The natural conclusion follows
I cant await my opponents response and I hope I'll see what he meant by "your own peril"
Pro has instead elected to go on a random rant about how he could be divine. I do not see how this has any bearing whatsoever on this debate.
Perhaps my first round confused my opponent. I was merely listing a few facts about myself in preparation for the debate. I said he could name the topic of the debate - however, the resolution in a debate is fixed in stone and cannot be randomly altered at will. I was merely asking my opponent for an interesting topic to add interest to the debate.
It is clear at this point that Pro has done nothing to support the resolution, and the resolution is clearly false. Vote Pro.
Title:To be the greatest debater on this website, is to be able to win a debate against me.
The title suggests that only the best debater may win.
Description: You name the topic
This is what I'm supposed to do, and so I have
Conclusion: Because of the description its obvious that the challenger was arrogant (or careless) enough to accept any topic. Hence the position of my opponent changes significantly from:
You don't have to be the best debater to win against me
Only the greatest debater may win against me and Ill prove it by arguing against anything you present!
1."rant" The word rant implies wildness and disorganization, my post contained none of the both. I am left to assume that my opponent simply doesn't respect me. If you had anything to back up this statement I wouldn't be offended even if it was something easy to disprove.
2."I was merely listing a few facts about myself" Lets test that:
a."Challange at your own peril" One could say that this conveys condescension or confidence but I assert that this is more about me not being as good as he is.
b."you name the topic" This has everything to do with me
c."theres nothing i don't understand and have a strong opinion on" This is an impossibility because a finite mind can't understand everything.
d."BRING IT!" Read Nr.2
Conclusion: You never gave a single fact about yourself and one could argue that it had more to do with the opponent.
3."the resolution in a debate is fixed in stone" Indeed, now prove to me that its impossible for me to be divine.
4."I was merely asking my opponent for an interesting topic" The topic is what the debate is about hence the resolution is Only the greatest debater may win against me and Ill prove it by arguing against anything you present!
You told me to name the topic and I have. The only way your argument can work is if I didn't have the power to choose the topic. The topic changed what this debate is about, I guess we will end up arguing on that but I cant imagine what arguments you could make. In case you decide to keep on arguing:
" the name of a book, composition, or other artistic work:
the author and title of the book
a caption or credit in a film or broadcast
a book, magazine, or newspaper considered as a publication:
the company publishes 400 titles a year
2 a name that describes someone's position or job"
Genesis provides interesting theological thoughts, but it is of little use in ethics, even Christian ethics. Of interest in the creation narrative in Genesis, which is best read in its theological significance rather than its historical accuracy, is the account of humanity being composed of two genders, of which a union is said to make them into "one".
This narrative provides insight into how the culture and writer(s) of Genesis viewed human nature, but it is inadequate to explain what is known of human nature today. We now understand sexual orientation, gender and physical sex to be a spectrum of a whole host of differences that defy the simplistic explanation found in Genesis. In other words, the creation narrative is scope is too small to explain the origins of the whole host of human sexuality, from hermaphrodites, homosexuality and bisexuality. Christians may answer that this results from the Fall, but it is hard to fathom how to view otherwise functional people, as such people are otherwise valuable, productive and well adjusted members of society, as dysfunctional on the basis of the 'mistake' being discussed. In other words, homosexuality is thought to make a person dysfunctional on the basis of a creation narrative that has nothing to say about such people, as they were thought not even to exist when the creation narrative was written. The significance of this fact makes the creation narrative useless in supporting a normative view of human sexuality, as it does not explain or acknowledge the origin of atypical sexual 'natures'.
Genesis 19's account of attempted gang rape of two angelic strangers will be given a brief mention, but it is of no interest to the debate's proposition as it deals with ancient middle eastern concepts of inhospitality (Christians would do well not use this particular account as an ethical wellspring of information considering what Lot attempts to do with his daughters to 'satisfy' the demands of the denizen's of Sodom). Leviticus will also not be dealt with; such commands no longer apply, as New Testament thought holds instead a new source of ethical information, the Holy Spirit, the ultimate guide to ethical living.
This leads to the New Testament. Jesus or the Gospels have nothing to say on homosexuality. Romans 1 is of particular interest, though it also provides no real ethical information on homosexuality. Indeed, homosexuality is seen as a result or judgment for other immoral behavior, namely idolatry, than anything that is ever condemned outright, though Paul almost certainly viewed homosexual passion and behavior in a very poor light, but that is not surprising given his ignorant view of human nature found in. Some might bristle these harsh comments of Paul, but I do not hold to the evangelical view of inerrancy or inspiration, as I think a person may be inspired by the Holy Spirit and still commit error, even regarding faith and morality (for biblical support, Acts and accounts of Paul's hostilities with other Apostles provide some information. It is problematic the Apostles disagreed with one another on the basics of Christian practice, morality, and doctrine and had their own memories of Jesus to guide them, how much the worse for us, 2,000 years removed from their culture and language!).
This makes suspect very much of what Paul himself said about homosexuality, at least when viewed with a modern, scientifically informed eye, as he largely thought of it as a way of usurping what he considered divinely and socially appointed gender roles, incapable of generating, the development of intimate, emotionally supportive relationship, unlike what is known today. Such was associated with usurpation of social roles, and, worst of all, idolatry.
Homosexual behavior today is associated with none of these things, and is simply another component of some loving, committed relationship, in line with Jesus's commands of loving both God and neighbor as ourselves. Truly loving unions among homosexuals are capable of providing all that is good of heterosexual marriages, including well adjusted children from adoption.
I come from a viewpoint informed by biblical principle of love, made manifest in Jesus. As a result, when I observe loving unions, whether among friends, spouses (of either gender), or family members, I see the work and love of God. It is only through an ignorant understanding of today's current scientific understanding, ancient conceptions of homosexual behavior and of ethical discourse that loving, homosexual unions should be condemned. If the greatest value is love, and love is found in these sorts of unions, then the Christian is well justified in thinking God is also found there, or at least has his blessing.
StealthyLlama forfeited this round.
StealthyLlama forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 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:||0||2|
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.