Since when is it on the person in the negative in a debate to prove something isn't true. It's always been the person in the affirmative who has to prove his point.
Hello! When we are talking about debating, everyone has to prove something. We all have a burden of proof even if you are simply denying a claim. The person with the positive must prove it and respond to objections. Additionally, they must disprove the other side. The negative must also prove their side and respond to objections. Furthermore, they must have reasons why the other side is wrong. It does not matter what the debate topic is because that is the burden of proof for both sides. If one side misses one of these requirements, then their argument is lacking. Even if they are simply denying their opponent, they must provide a reason for why they are right. If you simply bring objections to a debate and do not prove your point, then you will objectively lose the debate. Let me know what you think.
@@thecontemplatingchristian The negative side in a debate has several key responsibilities to counter the affirmative’s case effectively. First, the negative side should refute the affirmative’s arguments by addressing each major point and providing counterarguments to challenge their validity, evidence, or logic. This involves pointing out flaws, inconsistencies, or weaknesses in the affirmative’s case. Second, the negative often defends the status quo as preferable if the debate involves changing a current policy or idea. Alternatively, they may propose a different solution if they believe the affirmative’s proposition is not the best option. Third, the negative should examine the evidence or sources used by the affirmative, questioning its reliability, relevance, or bias. This can weaken the affirmative’s position if their evidence is shown to be inadequate or misleading. Fourth, the negative can bring their own arguments that highlight potential harms, costs, or unintended consequences of the affirmative’s proposition, building a case for why the proposition is unfavorable. Lastly, the negative must respond to all substantial points raised by the affirmative, as failure to address significant arguments may result in dropped arguments, which judges can interpret as concessions to the affirmative. By fulfilling these responsibilities, the negative side aims to demonstrate that the affirmative’s position is less convincing and persuade the audience or judge that the proposition should not be accepted.
This Baptist is outside of the traditional stance of the 17th century Baptist, according to the 1689 London Baptist confession. Baptism is not a sign "and seal" of our faith. That is ripped from the Westminster confession and is presbyterian thought NOT BAPTIST. His view that he is a espousing is not the traditional Baptist view. In fact if he is in affiliation with any historic restoration movments in the Baptist faith he would be scolded for using such language. I use to be a Baptist too and Just like everything else in the Baptist faith, the theology is all plagiarized from historically rooted Christianity in order to patch the holes in there flawed system. Even the confession is just the Westminster and Savoy reconstructed and baptised Lord willing this Baptist will repent and unite one more with the body of Chirst in accordance with the Nicean Creed.
What exactly is baptism? Do specific words need to be spoken, does it matter who baptizes u? Requiring a person to dunk themself in water seems odd. Christ's work 100% washes the sins of those who believe...water can't wash sins away.
Baptism should be for a person who has made Jesus Savior. That could be a 6-year-old to an elderly person. Ir should be dunking if the person is able to do this.
*SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR INFANT BAPTISM* _"Let the little children come to me."_ _Peter answered, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise that was made is for you, for your children, and for all those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39)_ The promise is for all including children. _One of the women, whose name was Lydia, was a worshiper of God. She was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. As she listened to us, the Lord opened her heart to accept what Paul was saying. 15 When she and her household had been baptized, she urged us insistently, “If you regard me as a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she won us over. (Acts 15:14-15)_ The entire household was baptized urgently in the middle of the night. No reception in the fellowship hall afterward. _At that late hour of the night, the jailer took them and bathed their wounds. Then he and his entire family were baptized without delay. 34 Afterward, he brought them into his house and set a meal before them, and he and his entire household rejoiced over their belief in God. (Acts 16:33-34)_ The entire household was baptized with no mention of children being excluded. _I also baptized the household of Stephanas. (1 Co __1:16__)_ Obviously, Paul missed an opportunity to explain that he did not baptize any infants here or that all of the kids were old enough to be baptized. Paul was careful to specify that women were not allowed to speak in Church, so if infant baptism was not acceptable, I think he would have said something. _In him also you were circumcised, not with a physical circumcision but with a spiritual stripping away of the old nature with the circumcision of Christ. When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead. (Col __2:11__-12)_ In this passage, Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ”. Circumcision, of course, is a Jewish rite normally performed on infants.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 That is wrong, According to you you could take a bath and have your sins taken away. According to you a person do a person doesn't have to have faith in Christ as Savior. Why, because according to you Jesus' blood doesn't cover our sins and takes them away. Baptism does. But nowhere does the Bible say this. Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
I love this format. Well done guys!
Since when is it on the person in the negative in a debate to prove something isn't true. It's always been the person in the affirmative who has to prove his point.
Hello! When we are talking about debating, everyone has to prove something. We all have a burden of proof even if you are simply denying a claim. The person with the positive must prove it and respond to objections. Additionally, they must disprove the other side. The negative must also prove their side and respond to objections. Furthermore, they must have reasons why the other side is wrong. It does not matter what the debate topic is because that is the burden of proof for both sides. If one side misses one of these requirements, then their argument is lacking. Even if they are simply denying their opponent, they must provide a reason for why they are right. If you simply bring objections to a debate and do not prove your point, then you will objectively lose the debate. Let me know what you think.
Could you give the example from this debate that you believe is unfair?
@@thecontemplatingchristian The negative side in a debate has several key responsibilities to counter the affirmative’s case effectively. First, the negative side should refute the affirmative’s arguments by addressing each major point and providing counterarguments to challenge their validity, evidence, or logic. This involves pointing out flaws, inconsistencies, or weaknesses in the affirmative’s case.
Second, the negative often defends the status quo as preferable if the debate involves changing a current policy or idea. Alternatively, they may propose a different solution if they believe the affirmative’s proposition is not the best option.
Third, the negative should examine the evidence or sources used by the affirmative, questioning its reliability, relevance, or bias. This can weaken the affirmative’s position if their evidence is shown to be inadequate or misleading.
Fourth, the negative can bring their own arguments that highlight potential harms, costs, or unintended consequences of the affirmative’s proposition, building a case for why the proposition is unfavorable.
Lastly, the negative must respond to all substantial points raised by the affirmative, as failure to address significant arguments may result in dropped arguments, which judges can interpret as concessions to the affirmative.
By fulfilling these responsibilities, the negative side aims to demonstrate that the affirmative’s position is less convincing and persuade the audience or judge that the proposition should not be accepted.
@@thecontemplatingchristiani don't know that anything was unfair as they seemed to both be under the same rules.
Amazing video! 👍👍👍🥔👍👍👍
This Baptist is outside of the traditional stance of the 17th century Baptist, according to the 1689 London Baptist confession. Baptism is not a sign "and seal" of our faith. That is ripped from the Westminster confession and is presbyterian thought NOT BAPTIST. His view that he is a espousing is not the traditional Baptist view. In fact if he is in affiliation with any historic restoration movments in the Baptist faith he would be scolded for using such language. I use to be a Baptist too and Just like everything else in the Baptist faith, the theology is all plagiarized from historically rooted Christianity in order to patch the holes in there flawed system. Even the confession is just the Westminster and Savoy reconstructed and baptised
Lord willing this Baptist will repent and unite one more with the body of Chirst in accordance with the Nicean Creed.
What exactly is baptism? Do specific words need to be spoken, does it matter who baptizes u? Requiring a person to dunk themself in water seems odd. Christ's work 100% washes the sins of those who believe...water can't wash sins away.
Baptism should be for a person who has made Jesus Savior. That could be a 6-year-old to an elderly person. Ir should be dunking if the person is able to do this.
*SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR INFANT BAPTISM*
_"Let the little children come to me."_
_Peter answered, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise that was made is for you, for your children, and for all those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39)_
The promise is for all including children.
_One of the women, whose name was Lydia, was a worshiper of God. She was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. As she listened to us, the Lord opened her heart to accept what Paul was saying. 15 When she and her household had been baptized, she urged us insistently, “If you regard me as a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she won us over. (Acts 15:14-15)_
The entire household was baptized urgently in the middle of the night. No reception in the fellowship hall afterward.
_At that late hour of the night, the jailer took them and bathed their wounds. Then he and his entire family were baptized without delay. 34 Afterward, he brought them into his house and set a meal before them, and he and his entire household rejoiced over their belief in God. (Acts 16:33-34)_
The entire household was baptized with no mention of children being excluded.
_I also baptized the household of Stephanas. (1 Co __1:16__)_
Obviously, Paul missed an opportunity to explain that he did not baptize any infants here or that all of the kids were old enough to be baptized. Paul was careful to specify that women were not allowed to speak in Church, so if infant baptism was not acceptable, I think he would have said something.
_In him also you were circumcised, not with a physical circumcision but with a spiritual stripping away of the old nature with the circumcision of Christ. When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead. (Col __2:11__-12)_
In this passage, Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ”. Circumcision, of course, is a Jewish rite normally performed on infants.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 That is wrong, According to you you could take a bath and have your sins taken away. According to you a person do a person doesn't have to have faith in Christ as Savior. Why, because according to you Jesus' blood doesn't cover our sins and takes them away. Baptism does. But nowhere does the Bible say this. Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
Immersion is indefensible
No age is given
@@bigtobacco1098 John the Baptist immersed people. I am sure God would accept other ways depending on the circumstances. Jesus was immersed.