<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Debate.org: jat93's Debates</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&amp;sort=&amp;member=jat93</link>
<description>Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>2013-05-18T09:01:32-08:00</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>2013-05-18T09:01:32-08:00</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>The Supposed &quot;Ground Zero Mosque&quot; should be built.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Supposed-Ground-Zero-Mosque-should-be-built./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) My stance is presented in the title of the debate. 
I will present my case in several manners: 

1) The &quot;Ground Zero Mosque&quot; is, in fact, not actually a Ground Zero Mosque. 

2) The builders of the &quot;Mosque&quot; have a constitutional right to do so, and to prevent them from building it would be unconstitutional. They have the law on their side.

3) It is both Un-American and straight out immoral. The moral components:
a) The &quot;rubbing salt on the wound&quot; idea is incorrect and foolish. Furthermore, the opposition/prevention to the building should be seen as rubbing salt on America's wounds.
b) Opposition of the building on the grounds that the builders are Muslim just like the people behind the 9/11 attacks is unfair discrimination.
c) The terrorists behind the original 9/11 attacks will not have &quot;won&quot; if the Mosque is built. On the contrary, they will have won if building is prevented from being built.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Supposed-Ground-Zero-Mosque-should-be-built./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-11-12T13:35:45-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Destiny-is-not-a-matter-of-chance-it-is-a-matter-of-choice./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Destiny is a matter of chance. If destiny is your choice, than it is within your control. Destiny by definition is something (an event, or a series of events) that will inevitably occur in the future. Nobody can ever be sure that something(s) will inevitably happen in the future. Therefore, destiny is not a matter of choice.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Destiny-is-not-a-matter-of-chance-it-is-a-matter-of-choice./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-05-02T17:49:52-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Music is good for the soul.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Music-is-good-for-the-soul./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Music is good for the soul. No arguments over whether a soul actually exists or not, or any other semantics. Essentially, the argument is that music is &quot;good&quot; for the human being.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Music-is-good-for-the-soul./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-07-01T12:13:59-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>There is no valid reason to believe that prayer to God yields results.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-valid-reason-to-believe-that-prayer-to-God-yields-results./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions. [1]

Prayer - the act of communicating with a deity (especially as a petition or in adoration or contrition or thanksgiving)) &quot;the priest sank to his knees in prayer&quot; [2]

There is no valid reason to believe that in general, prayer to God yields results. The positive effects of meditation or the personal happiness that prayer might produce do not count as results. Results - One prays to God for something in particular, God hears the prayer, God answers the prayer and grants the one who prays what he prayed for.

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=prayer</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-valid-reason-to-believe-that-prayer-to-God-yields-results./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-07-08T08:45:26-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The &quot;Epicurean paradox&quot; disproves the existence of the biblical God.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Epicurean-paradox-disproves-the-existence-of-the-biblical-God./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) &quot;Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?&quot;- Epicurus 

If God is defined as - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions (as according to http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god) the Epicurean Paradox sufficiently disproves his existence.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Epicurean-paradox-disproves-the-existence-of-the-biblical-God./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-07-01T10:11:53-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Verse 34:6 in the book of Exodus accurately describes God.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Verse-34-6-in-the-book-of-Exodus-accurately-describes-God./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) &quot;And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth...&quot; [1]

In this debate, God is defined as - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions, [2] except in this debate, God = God of the Old Testament. No Christian theology, for instance, applies. No arguments over semantics.

My position is that this verse paints the portrait of a kind, just, merciful, &quot;longsuffering&quot; (patiently endures wrongdoings) God but in reality, if one even skims through the bible, they will find this description to be false. 




[1] Exodus 34:6
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Verse-34-6-in-the-book-of-Exodus-accurately-describes-God./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-07-12T18:13:44-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Christianity is &quot;wrong&quot; and therefore not divinely inspired.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Christianity-is-wrong-and-therefore-not-divinely-inspired./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Based on its many contradictions, one must conclude that Christianity is not divinely inspired; that is to say that it is a false religion and was not created by God. 
 The religion of Christianity holds that both the Old and New Testament are divinely inspired, and therefore that its religious beliefs are compatible with that of the Old Testament. Whether the Old Testament is divinely inspired of not, if it contradicts the New Testament, we are forced to concede that the New Testament is not divinely inspired. 
 The New Testament is teeming with trivial contradictions against the Old Testament that are simply irreconcilable. Though this is not what I intend to focus on, they are too numerous to ignore. For instance, John 3:13 says that nobody had ascended into heaven before Jesus, while Kings 2 2:11 states unequivocally that Elijah ascended into heaven. Genesis 11:12 says that Shelah was Arphaxad's son, and the genealogy listed in Luke 3:35-36 goes directly </description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Christianity-is-wrong-and-therefore-not-divinely-inspired./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-05-10T16:43:53-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive: the 31st President Was a Big Govt. Market Interventionist</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Herbert-Hoover-Forgotten-Progressive-the-31st-President-Was-a-Big-Govt.-Market-Interventionist/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Without a doubt one of the most severe, most widespread, and most persistent myths of all American history is that Herbert Clark Hoover, the 31st President of the United States of America who served from 1929-1933, sent America into the tragic, drawn out economic downturn now known as the Great Depression by reducing government intervention in the economy, adhering to laissez-faire capitalism, and shrinking the size of government in general... Or, as Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer sums up, just sitting back and &quot;doing nothing.&quot; [1] Senator Schumer reiterates the common and terribly ironic view that Hoover's lack of government action turned what would have been only a recession into the Great Depression. 

The exact opposite is true: Hoover's policies did anything but lack in government action (and furthermore, it was Warren G. Harding's &quot;doing nothing&quot; that stopped the recession of 1920 - just 9 years before Hoover took office - from turning into a Great De</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Herbert-Hoover-Forgotten-Progressive-the-31st-President-Was-a-Big-Govt.-Market-Interventionist/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-09-16T18:37:00-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jesus is not the Messiah as foretold by the Old Testament.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Jesus-is-not-the-Messiah-as-foretold-by-the-Old-Testament./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Jesus Christ is not the Messiah that is spoken of throughout the Old Testament. There are various tasks/qualifications for the &quot;Messiah-ship&quot; laid out in the Old Testament and, from what we know about Jesus and his life, he did not complete them. There is no legitimate reason to believe that Jesus is or ever as the Messiah, but there are many legitimate reasons to believe otherwise. My main arguments will be presented further in the next round.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Jesus-is-not-the-Messiah-as-foretold-by-the-Old-Testament./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-08-27T20:43:54-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Resolved: Religion is not fake</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Religion-is-not-fake/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Religion is not fake. There is not much else to say on the matter until my opponent provides a counter premise. 

The bottom line is that it is almost UNIVERSALLY accepted fact that religion exists. The evidence to support this position is next to infinite.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Religion-is-not-fake/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-05-06T18:13:02-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-invasion-of-Iraq-was-justified./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;This a response to Jat's challenge to a debate: &lt;em&gt;&quot;Anything from American foreign policy to Israeli foreign policy to the Iran situation to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Your call.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I trust that he will keep his word and is willing to debate.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;I will be arguing that, though mistakes have been made, the US invasion of Iraq was geopolitically and ethically justified. Burden of proof will be shared. Pro has the option of beginning his argument in the first round or allowing me to start in Round Two.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: medium;&quot;&gt;Definitions&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;Invasion of Iraq&lt;/span&gt;: [&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-invasion-of-Iraq-was-justified./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-10-19T08:39:03-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
