- 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.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).|
Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
So you're trying to use logic to disprove an illogical trait? Let me know how that works out.
If you acknowledge God as one who can do anything (including the illogical), it doesn't make any sense to pit logical constraints on Him. On the flip side, if you're going to argue that God can do anything within the constraints of logic, then your argument still doesn't hold, as it wouldn't be possible for there to be a rock that God can't lift (being all-powerful).
He didn't, he demonstrated an entirely different issue.
It's literally the same situation, just flipped. I don't know about you, but flipping situations is one of the best ways to gain perspective.
My point is that he dismissed the initial, larger issue in a way that undermined the severity of it.
I mean, you can interpret it however you want, but the fact is that he never explicitly dismissed the issue.
I have already explained how he did that: He literally dismissed the initial topic by deflecting to a different one.
Well your explanation is not a great one. If someone starts a debate about one group committing violence against another, it's pretty ridiculous to think the opposite won't or shouldn't be brought up.
I would gladly engage in an alternate discussion on his topic, but nice try.
Apparently not. The only thing you've done is insisted that it shouldn't be discussed since it's not as large of an issue (which is a fallacy by the way).
He drew attention from the issue brought up and onto a different issue.
So? A lot of insight can be gained by demonstrating that the problem is more complex than OP made it.
The initial issue brought up is larger, both proportionally and as a sum, than the one he brought up.
I'm not going to argue against that and he didn't either. What's your point exactly?
I have never dismissed police shootings. But he has dismissed the shootings of black Americans.
Show me where he did that.
This "One or the other" bullshit is completely nonsensical.
You're the one propagating that by shutting down any alternate discussions.