Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

[Nathon Detroit]

Presidential Election 2008 - Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain/Palin? Battle Royale XIII
GodsfreeWill and The Graphite vs. WandererinFog and Nicholsmom

In this thread feel free to discuss Battle Royale XIII. Who's winning and why?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Is it immoral to to vote for McCain/Palin? No. Stupid, but not immoral. Is it immoral to vote for Obama/Biden? No. Stupid, but not immoral.

For your vote to be immoral, you have to be voting intentionally against God such as, "I am voting for Obama because I want abortions to continue," or, "I am voting for McCain because he will not do anything meaningful to change abortion.," (Disclaimer: neither position is my personnel opinion) Then you are voting against God's morals making your vote immoral. However, if you know that neither canidate will do anything to address abortion and you look at the rest of their platforms and vote based on which of those platofrms is more inline with Christs's message of love and service to our fellow men, then I do not think that your vote is immoral.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

However, if you know that neither canidate will do anything to address abortion and you look at the rest of their platforms and vote based on which of those platofrms is more inline with Christs's message of love and service to our fellow men, then I do not think that your vote is immoral.

But what if the candidate has made it publicly clear he intends to murder babies?

Isn't it immoral to support a man who has made it clear that he supports murdering people?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh and by the way.... lets do our best in this thread to STAY ON TOPIC. I want to make sure we are discussing the content of Battle Royale XIII and not getting off an tangents that are unrelated.

Thanks!!

 

[CabinetMaker]

But what if the candidate has made it publicly clear he intends to murder babies?

Isn't it immoral to support a man who has made it clear that he supports murdering people?

If there is a candidate that says they are going to force every person under the age of 20 to get an abortion then that is a candidate who intends to kill babies and it would be flatly wrong to vote for him no mater his other positions.

I am going to play devil's advocate here so please don't attribute this position to me. A good friend of mine is very liberal and we have had frequent discussions on this issue. We do not agree on this issue but his argument goes something like this:

A candidate who says they are apposed to abortion but feel that it is the right of a woman to make that choice is not advocating the murdering babies they are advocating choice. Since it a choice made by a woman, nobody is responsible for the results of that choice except the woman and the doctor. They must deal with the consequences of those actions. Therefore it is okay to support a candidate who supports a woman's right to choose.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If there is a candidate that says they are going to force every person under the age of 20 to get an abortion then that is a candidate who intends to kill babies and it would be flatly wrong to vote for him no mater his other positions.

So... if a candidate says... I support abortion in X, Y, but not Z situations that doesn't constitute support for abortion in your mind?

I am going to play devil's advocate here so please don't attribute this position to me. A good friend of mine is very liberal and we have had frequent discussions on this issue. We do not agree on this issue but his argument goes something like this:[/COLOR]

A candidate who says they are apposed to abortion but feel that it is the right of a woman to make that choice is not advocating the murdering babies they are advocating choice. Since it a choice made by a woman, nobody is responsible for the results of that choice except the woman and the doctor. They must deal with the consequences of those actions. Therefore it is okay to support a candidate who supports a woman's right to choose.

That's like saying....

It isn't supporting rape if you turn your back while a woman is being raped. After all... it isn't you who is raping the woman.

 

[Aimiel]

I think Knight is winning so far, but that could just be due to the fact that he's the only one who's posted in the BR thread so far. :chuckle:

 

[CabinetMaker]

So... if a candidate says... I support abortion in X, Y, but not Z situations that doesn't constitute support for abortion in your mind?

It would depend on Z. I am not a doctor and I do not know where medical science is with supporting high-risk pregnancies. Is there ever a situation where an abortion may be required to save the life of the mother? Would restricting her ability to have an abortion leading to the death of the mother and child be an appropriate outcome in such a situation? What if the woman has several children at home, should that be considered? I am more than willing to outlaw all abortions with an exception for medical necessity. But medical necessity should be very narrowly defined since an abortion is the killing of a baby.

That's like saying....

It isn't supporting rape if you turn your back while a woman is being raped. After all... it isn't you who is raping the woman.

I agree. I think its a cop out.

 

[Prolifeguyswife]

I think GodsFreeWill and The Graphite already won the debate. There's nothing Nicholsmom and the other guy can say without seeming to be pro-choice (which I don't think they are) or like they don't care about what God would have them do.

 

[nicholsmom]

I think GodsFreeWill and The Graphite already won the debate. There's nothing Nicholsmom and the other guy can say without seeming to be pro-choice (which I don't think they are) or like they don't care about what God would have them do.

This is not about being pro-life or not. The question - chosen by GodsFreeWill, btw - is "Is it immoral to vote for McCain/Palin?"

Read our response.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The opening round started off weakly in support of the position that it is immoral to vote for McCain/Palin.
Three questions were asked:

GG1: If you were about to do something that God did not want you to do, would you want to know?

This question is vague.
What am I about to do that God does not want me to do?
How is this different than all the other things I do that God does not want me to do?
If this question is about who to vote for, I have to remember that it is God who raises up kings and throws them down.
President Bush is the current President because God raised him to that position, regardless of what anyone else thinks of him.
It was God who put Nebuchadnezzar in place to destroy the land of Israel because of the idolatry of the children of Israel.
Nebuchadnezzar was later used to proclaim that the God of Israel was superior to all other gods.
In order to answer the first question, we need to know which person God wants in office, then vote for that person no matter what we think of their policies.

GG2: Would you still support McCain if he were willing to kill some Jews or some blacks?

This question falls short in addressing the topic of the Battle Royale.
Killing Jews and blacks is legal as long as the person being killed is an infant in the womb.
It is also legal to kill Hispanics and whites under the same conditions.
We already know that McCain is willing to kill some Arabs to defend the country.
The question needed to have more detail on the people McCain is supposed to be willing to kill, why he is willing to kill them, and how much of a hand McCain is to take in killing them.

GG3: Two men are trying to break into a school. One wants to kill all the kids in the school and the other only wants to kill some of them. Neither one is personally threatening your life. You have a key to get into the school. Which one are you going to support, knowing that eventually one will succeed in getting in? To whom do you give your key?

This question seems to be further off than the other two.
Who are the two men, McCain and Obama?
If so, which one wants to abort all the children in the USA for the 4 years in office, and which one only wants to abort some of the children in the USA?
What if you give your key to one of them, but that one remains locked out and the other still gets in?
This question is confusing and takes away from any argument that the first post in the opening round was trying to make.


I also had to wonder, where is the statement that clearly says, "It is immoral to vote for McCain/Palin because ..."?
Without a good statement on why it is immoral to vote for McCain/Palin, there is no basis for any of the other statements in the post.
The post is reduced to a few random sayings that the reader needs to put into an argument for the debator instead of having an argument put together by the debator for the reader.

 

[nicholsmom]

The opening round started off weakly in support of the position that it is immoral to vote for McCain/Palin.
Three questions were asked:

This question is vague.
What am I about to do that God does not want me to do?
How is this different than all the other things I do that God does not want me to do?
If this question is about who to vote for, I have to remember that it is God who raises up kings and throws them down.
President Bush is the current President because God raised him to that position, regardless of what anyone else thinks of him.
It was God who put Nebuchadnezzar in place to destroy the land of Israel because of the idolatry of the children of Israel.
Nebuchadnezzar was later used to proclaim that the God of Israel was superior to all other gods.
In order to answer the first question, we need to know which person God wants in office, then vote for that person no matter what we think of their policies.


This question falls short in addressing the topic of the Battle Royale.
Killing Jews and blacks is legal as long as the person being killed is an infant in the womb.
It is also legal to kill Hispanics and whites under the same conditions.
We already know that McCain is willing to kill some Arabs to defend the country.
The question needed to have more detail on the people McCain is supposed to be willing to kill, why he is willing to kill them, and how much of a hand McCain is to take in killing them.


This question seems to be further off than the other two.
Who are the two men, McCain and Obama?
If so, which one wants to abort all the children in the USA for the 4 years in office, and which one only wants to abort some of the children in the USA?
What if you give your key to one of them, but that one remains locked out and the other still gets in?
This question is confusing and takes away from any argument that the first post in the opening round was trying to make.


I also had to wonder, where is the statement that clearly says, "It is immoral to vote for McCain/Palin because ..."?
Without a good statement on why it is immoral to vote for McCain/Palin, there is no basis for any of the other statements in the post.
The post is reduced to a few random sayings that the reader needs to put into an argument for the debator instead of having an argument put together by the debator for the reader.

This is all criticism for the side you claim is winning. Nothing positive here for their side. Did you read our post?

 

[genuineoriginal]

This is all criticism for the side you claim is winning. Nothing positive here for their side. Did you read our post?

I haven't claimed either side is winning, yet, but the first post in the opening round is so weak that the opposing side is winning by default.
:noid:

I am getting ready to read the second post in the opening round now.

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

Wow! I've just finished reading both teams' initial posts, and I've got to say that GodsfreeWill and The Graphite (GG) are in big trouble!

Before Round Two has even begun, Nicholsmom and WandereerInFog (NW) have blasted their opponents out of the water! Kudos to you two on your use of analysis and logic, and on your excellent debating skills.

As a sidebar note, I myself am absolutely opposed to abortion, even when it's cloaked with whatever clever and canny euphemism the "wise" of this world can devise.

MK

 

[genuineoriginal]

The opening round finished strong in support of the position that it is NOT immoral to vote for McCain/Palin.

The post first laid the groundwork for the question, clarified the reasoning behind the position, and contained a clear statement of the position held:

After careful thought and consideration we have come to the opinion that the only instance in which voting could be definitively considered an immoral act is if a vote is cast for someone who God himself would not command us to obey as a legitimate authority.

The post also clarified what was not being debated:

While we are arguing that voting for McCain/Palin is not immoral, we are not arguing that doing so is a moral imperative. While we defend the position that a Christian voting for McCain/Palin is moral, we are not saying that Christians who choose to vote for other candidate, or even those who abstain from voting altogether, are doing anything immoral.

The post had two questions:

NW1: Has God ever put His people under a leader who was less than perfectly moral?

The answer is yes, of course, but a better question is whether God has ever put His people under a leader who was completely immoral.
The list can include the Pharoh at the time of the Exodus and Nebuchadnezzar.
The list can also include Caligula and Nero, several Popes, Hitler, Stalin, and more.
The only leader who will be perfectly moral is Jesus when He returns.

NW2: Under what circumstances are God's people instructed to rebel against an immoral leader? Please be specific & use Scripture references.

Nebuchadnezzar was an immoral leader, but the children of Israel were told to settle in Babylon and live under his rule.
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, (aka Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar by refusing to fall down and worship the golden image, but they did not rebel when they were thrown into the fiery furnace.
Instead they accepted the consequences of their actions and Nebuchadnezzar's authority in setting their punishment for their rebellion.


At this point of the Battle Royale, NW is clearly ahead, and GG is still trying to figure out what they are trying to say.

 

[Alate_One]

I think Godwin's Law applies to the first post. Not that abortion isn't terrible, or murderous but McCain's support (debatable) of abortion being compared to him killing Jews in the VERY FIRST POST seems a bit over the top.

Also . . . .

I smell fresh PWNAGE . . . .

K:

 

[Clete]

I'm somewhat surprised at the limited scope of the question being debated. Given the specific nature of the question I see no way that WondererInFog could lose, especially after having read his opening statement.

I do have a bone to pick with WIF though. In his opening statement he said...

3)We hold that refusing to vote for Obama or McCain does not equate to helping Obama or McCain's campaign. Rather, it simply has no effect on either campaign. The belief that a Republican not voting for McCain is helping Obama is an example of moral relativism and therefore directly contradicts the absolute truth of God's word and the absolute moral law of God.

This seems to me to be an enormous error on WIF's part. He's laid down one of the biggest weapon in his arsenal in this debate because if a vote for Obama is immoral, which I believe it would be given WIF's own argument, then any vote that helps Obama would therefore be immoral. Talk about turning the tables on your debate opponent!

Also, I would love to see either party in this debate answer the one question that I haven't yet been able to get anyone to answer. Actually I haven't checked the thread since the last time I asked it so that might not be true, but in any case, I'd love to see either party in this debate address the question, "Which of the two, Obama or McCain, is happier to see Keyes running for President in the state of Colorado?"

The answer is obvious and I think it proves that WIF is incorrect when he asserts without foundation that "refusing to vote for Obama or McCain does not equate to helping Obama or McCain's campaign. Rather, it simply has no effect on either campaign. "

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[kmoney]

I'm somewhat surprised at the limited scope of the question being debated. Given the specific nature of the question I see no way that WondererInFog could lose, especially after having read his opening statement.

I do have a bone to pick with WIF though. In his opening statement he said...

This seems to me to be an enormous error on WIF's part. He's laid down one of the biggest weapon in his arsenal in this debate because if a vote for Obama is immoral, which I believe it would be given WIF's own argument, then any vote that helps Obama would therefore be immoral. Talk about turning the tables on your debate opponent!

Also, I would love to see either party in this debate answer the one question that I haven't yet been able to get anyone to answer. Actually I haven't checked the thread since the last time I asked it so that might not be true, but in any case, I'd love to see either party in this debate address the question, "Which of the two, Obama or McCain, is happier to see Keyes running for President in the state of Colorado?"

The answer is obvious and I think it proves that WIF is incorrect when he asserts without foundation that "refusing to vote for Obama or McCain does not equate to helping Obama or McCain's campaign. Rather, it simply has no effect on either campaign. "

Resting in Him,
Clete

That quote was actually made by GFW. WIF repeated in a section of points that he didn't agree but go into further detail. It was a little unclear, however, because of the formatting.

 

[koban]

Am I missing something?

You've got a Battle Royale going on and you don;t bother to stick it in the current staff picks, or make it a sticky, or even post a link to it in the "Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII" thread?


Who's in charge of this monkey house? :sozo2:

 

[WandererInFog]

That quote was actually made by GFW. WIF repeated in a section of points that he didn't agree but go into further detail. It was a little unclear, however, because of the formatting.

Kmoney is correct on that. We were simply noting our disagreement and moving on as it fell outside the scope of the question being discussed. Sorry if the way it was formatted made that unclear. :-(