- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Promoting Christianity is inherently homophobic.
If you promote the Bible as the truth, and/or suggest following it's rules, you also promote the passage that says to slaughter gay men(Leviticus 20:13).
And if you have a counter-argument don't make me go to another website to get it, because that makes it difficult to create my rebuttal(assuming it is an invalid counter-argument).
"Tell the truth, are you homophobic?"
Specifically "Tell the truth". This implies it is likely someone would lie about their homophobia, and if that were the case, you would need them to provide evidence for their support of gays, because simply having their word would mean nothing.
I'm choosing this side for a semantic reason.
The actual acronym "LGBT" could be improved.
I think "HB+" might work.
Standing for homosexual and bisexual.
And the plus because Homosexuality and Bisexuality are the only sexual identities that i'm sure are valid.
Ex:I haven't seen evidence that asexuality is even humanly possible(without mutation or alteration), so including it in the acronym specifically might delegitimize the movement.
As well as transgender, because using that label makes a statement about the definition of gender that i'm not sure is an accurate one.
And these things apply to all of the other labels that I've seen.
Does the christian god exist?
He has mutually exclusive traits, as well as an impossible trait.
Omnibenevolence and omnipotence are mutually exclusive traits.
Here's Epicurus explaining why so I don't have to:
“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?”
Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
Also, if your definition of God includes omnipotence he doesn't exist because omnipotence contradicts itself: Can god create a rock he can't lift?
Yes: Then he is not all powerful because he can't lift the rock
No: Then he is not all powerful because he cannot create a rock that he can't lift.
I suppose if your definition of God is a being that is omnipotent, with a few exceptions like the one above, he could technically exist, but then you would need to provide some evidence in order for me to believe he exists.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!