- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Obama hated waging war. His saying that would be merely a hope.
Even IS now knows that it's dying. They have put things in place to inspire the next wave, which would generally take about 40 years though I'm not sure what happens with government censorship across the world, except that it'll be longer.
1)Gospel goes worldwide.
Not really. If nothing else, there's the uncontacted tribes.
Things become Sodom and Gamorrah-esque.
Real concept of human rights began from the Enlightenment. It also had a major part in founding of your country. You have the option to live in a medieval-style Islamic country if you want.
3)Syria is a part of some great destruction. (Isaiah 17:1) Check.
4)Christians are beheaded, genocided, and imprisoned in mass. (Revelation 20:4, Revelation 2:10, Revelation 13:10, Revelation 13:17)
Islamic State is dying.
5)Now we just need a temple in Jerusalem... Guess what...
It should take time to build. IS would not be concrete by then (I have been monitoring them for a while).
6)A "Beast system" must emerge. Islam is literally looking for "The Beast of the Earth" in its eschatology who marks their foreheads and admonishes the non-Muslims.
Fundamentalist systems are always doing such things.
Okay, that argument was missing some things. Too much, in fact - it seems like a bad example of begging the question.
If morality isn't accidental, then it is, of course, arbitrary, as I said (discarding already an omnipotence creating it and telling us). Which means that anything which is collectively agreed upon is moral, and there is no morality outside of the agreement. Any moral claim which tries to transcend that is necessarily false.
For society to exist, we need to know what it means. I'd say that a society is a collective of people who are bound under similar laws for existence.
As is evident, such units do exist.
Not really. The guy who makes that is a fan of Freud, so it's more of a reference.
Yes, it isn't cynical. I like it because it's rather poetic.
You can read these 3.
The social contract doesn't limit your free will, but is an extension of it.
You always have the option to leave it. And humans always possess the right to revolt. You could always choose to kill yourself if everything has limited your freedom.
In fact, calling on the laws of nature governing you might have been a better argument, like "I can't run at the speed of light!".
Anything else is barely possible.
You couldn't explain anything even in the past. There's no "evidence" with you.
And reality is that you have no chance at knowing.
You're funny. For someone who can't even know what I consciously am, you sure are trying hard guessing the subconscious part. Though I'd recommend you don't even try, you can read through my complete argument waterfall along with the contexts if want to. You'd still have nothing, but I don't care.
Though I'd oppose that about mortality being accidental and, at best, unaffecting to the functioning of the society, because of its major role in civilisation and since that'd mean it is intrinsic rather than arbitrary... That seems hard and is, anyway, more like a contradiction to your position, as it seems.
Since you admit morality to be a natural inclination, the secular ideologue must appeal to empathy and reason. Religion, on the other hand, needs to appeal only to your fear, which makes its effect much wider and larger than anything secular.
That's simple - either you were wrong or you were trying to hide something.
You couldn't explain anything about me even if you want. You have to, thus, rely on my word that you can't affect me.
It isn't about recognising. I don't give everything the pleasure of me acknowledging their insults.
In that case, enjoy guessing that. I don't really care what you think about telling the truth.
But, of course, I didn't blame you for my mistakes.
Speculate all you want. You shan't ever have anything.
You'll have to try much harder to even be considered worth affecting me.
It'd certainly be insulting to me if I'm called anything like you on that. Whether I take the insult is a different matter. Consistency in myself would, of course, not be.
Then enjoy doing what you consider to be your arcane stuff. I don't consider myself to be doing magic by saying that you're not as annoying as maggot from within.
Oh yes, crying over being blamed is certainly a victor would do. According to you, anyway. I'd rather correct the stuff.
A Freudian slip? You can see from the context that that wasn't even the correct word and doesn't make much sense. But whatever, try guessing my unconscious motivations from that.
You can affect nothing.
Of course it isn't insulting to you. You can fool only yourself by calling all that "telling the truth and responding to what is said".
So it is by magic that you're not as annoying? Seems plausible.
It doesn't matter what you think you may have said. You were elated over your perceived victory.
I always think that people can read it. That last "doesn't" was meant to be "wouldn't".
No such thankfulness from me. I remember these tricks of yours well enough already, and wouldn't have needed you to refresh it. Though you thank me all you like.
At least you are not as annoying as many others here.