RFV
Hm, jamesrobertjoseph a bit late in making argument that murder is unjust killing (R5), and not many words used to address it.
Though I don't find Barney's murder arguments highly compelling.
jamesrobertjoseph 'personhood arguments lacking,
'Yes personhood subjective,
But most people don't think a rock is a person,
jamesrobertjoseph needed make more arguments on why a zygote,
Is a more blurred case than a rock,
Though for some people it's not, and the blurring comes later,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood
. .
Eh, even if one is not religious, not believe in soul,
Even such people believe in sentience, often, at least 'act like do, practical,
Just replace soul with some other word.
But I am rambling,
I'm just going to vote Barney, as throughout debate,
Their points were more fully developed, more pronged.
I still don't think it was 'convincing,
But it was a better effort and result.
jamesrobertjoseph points were more focused on single prong of new existence,
But they did not fully develop this prong.
They 'did blunt some of Barney's prongs a bit, but not 'consistently.
Various thoughts of Voter during debate.
jamesrobertjoseph
Description/R1
Makes an assertion, states some facts.
Not enough facts to prove the assertions yet though.
Barney R1
I'd say murder 'can be a legal term,
But even if a judge or jury rules an individual did not murder some other individual,
Might be people still dead certain on the view that it was murder,
And I mean full adult individuals with full mental capacity and activity.
Course this is 'my arguement.
jamesrobertjoseph argues personhood is subjective in R2,
And in R3 says laws should be objective,
This doesn't quite make sense to me,
But Barney in R2 differentiates justifiable homicide and murder,
As well as the homeless example.
. . . There are many different 'laws though, differentiating types of killing,
So Barney's claim isn't really 'objective.
Though jamesrobertjoseph 'wants to claim murder objective as well.
. . .
Hm, well, subjective voter is all there is to be swayed.
. . . . .
Barney R1
Makes agreement about separated human body parts not being another person,
If they had more words, they might make further agreement about intelligence lacking,
jamesrobertjoseph R2 notes that the fetus contains 'different cells, implying new person.
Course people about this argue the new cells still not a new 'person, even if blueprints.
'Personhood seems a bit tricky though.
Barney R2
Makes interesting agreement about hand having potential to be a new person,
Twins 'do exist after all,
As well as clones, I am reminded of The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer.
My Thoughts Currently
I don't think Barney murder agreement is strong,
More relevant is whether fetus is considered person or not.
jamesrobertjoseph R3
Is mistaken in agreement that human hand cannot become-
Hm, I don't actually understand cloning. . .
Googling, Hm, I 'think you can clone something using blood,
Hm Barney R3 video, process involved putting the dna into an empty egg and electricity,
This is a step 'behind of fetus,. . .
Though of course Barney made this agreement addressing jamesrobertjoseph's agreement of potential.
. . .
'Potential varies though.
Ink and paper 'could be a painting,
Half drawn painting 'could be a fully finished painting,
People probably more upset if you take away the half finished painting while in the process though, features, 'life, 'personality are in that half painting.
Hm, regaurdless.
jamesrobertjoseph R4 does not adequately address cloning,
Though their words seem to imply that if I made a clone of myself it would still be me and not a separate individual.
Further side thought,
Debate description makes note of zygote,
Rather than say an unborn an hour from birth.
Barney R3
Agreement that if fetuses are people, they are responsible for their choices, is not very convincing,
But jamesrobertjoseph 'is having trouble addressing 'all points made in debate.
Also I am not convinced of it being criminal to care for ones children,
But it's a short word debate.
jamesrobertjoseph R4
Hm, interesting agreement about new human life,
But I'm not sure the new life 'matters,
As we don't think a hand cut off is sentient,
Maybe people certain zygote not sentient,
Though I'm still not a fan of abortion myself, at all.
jamesrobertjoseph R5
Ah, now addressing the differences between a zygote and a severed hand.
But short on words, short on convincement.
Barney R5
Eh, newborn baby needs external resources to be an adult, eh 'adults need external resources food, water.
But eh, debates done.
My opinion in that specific situation would be disappointment at the very least, quite likely more than that.
Most humans 'don't tend to help people though,
Least not all the time,
Beyond most humans expected willpower, possibly beyond expected 'care.
People 'have their money, their possessions,
Don't sell all of it and help the poor,
Walk by the homeless, the drugged,
Don't fight in wars,
Launch crusades of help in their neighborhoods.
. . .
Arguably abortion is not 'quite 'like seeing a baby drowning in a pond,
At the very least human perception/culture/reaction to it is different.
A pond is also pretty easy to wade in save the baby,
Not like it's a pond of acid.
Many Pro Life individuals also have lines they draw of where they are against abortion,
Rape, for some of them,
Compared to where they see the existence of the Yet Born in abortions of convenience, as being created in an act of callous disregard of the Yet born.
(Tossed the baby into the pond)
I don't think it is wrong/unexpected of Pro Life individuals for push for laws that help people,
As opposed to Pro Life individuals suffering great pain to help only who they can help individually.
A baby drowning in a pond is common and basic test applied to ethical systems. What does X command someone to do about it…
So what would your opinion be of people who run away from the pond to petition the government to force someone else to rescue said baby, yet refuse to do it themselves because they’re too special to be inconvenienced?
Somehow your question and statement go over my head,
Can you rephrase them?
If said people stood by and let babies drown in a pond for fear of getting their shoes wet, what would your opinion of them be?
Ethically it would be quite similar (basically identical in their opinion). The key difference is that much like the pregnant woman, they may opt for some future more willing person to carry the fetus to term.
"Doesn't mean people are wrong to push for laws that take kids from parents that beat/starve/neglect their kids"
Umm yes, it does mean that people are mostly wrong.
Children in foster care are also beaten and neglected, so really, anyone thinking children are being done some great favor is himself completely retarded and needs a brain.
Plus, often children get treated worse in foster care than by parents they are taken away from.
Its just that our current society is too retarded.
I believe that I am the only person on Earth with a working brain, which is mostly a curse to be honest.
Eh, some people don't want to adopt abused kids either,
Doesn't mean people are wrong to push for laws that take kids from parents that beat/starve/neglect their kids.
There was a limit of 500 characters, which caused things to have to be presented in their most simple form.
While I failed to get it across properly, if anyone has their feelings hurt by abortions, then they should preserve cells from each fetus for their later use. Ideally we’ll find a way to convert men into baby incubators, allowing for all men who oppose abortion to know the joys of pregnancy and prevent any “murders” from having occurred in abortions.
Somehow I doubt any of the anti abortion politicians would be willing to endure pregnancy were it an option.
Abortion is simply referring to the result of killing.. regardless of referring to the result of murder or not. Once you see the word "Abortion".. consider that the word "killing" is involved at all times.. even if it is legal or not. Morality is different for places and for people, for this necessary case.
Everybody party until barney writes "Cloning = copying" which is a very dangerous verbal mistake, it makes you consider if he is well educated on "the differences between words and their definitions"..
..Quite interesting.
Thanks again for the debate.
If you’d ever like advice on strengthening any arguments, just ask.
@Barney
In some ways a debate is nicer without participants giving lengthy explanation, that one might already be aware of,
Enough to reference fact/claim/study/idea.
@NoOneInParticular
Argument, not arguement.
Stupid spellcheck user, not 'looking close enough at the words, before changing arguement to agreement.
Thank you both for voting.
In both your votes you stated some of my thoughts much more articulately than I managed.
No problem!
The hand comparison was certainly difficult to tie together with just 500 characters.
Thanks for the vote.
And yeah, I did not have nearly enough characters to make the discussion of preserved human bits properly entertaining and logically valid. As was, it was kinda just there as little more than a side tangent.
Nice job on your first serious debate.
I rather enjoyed the unique challenge of the 500 character limit. While I don't like to prattle on too much, any one of my points would most likely normally take that many.
A really good resource for you is: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
There's even a section in it on writing strong resolutions... Basically make it both minimal in contentions and precise in meaning (I've seen these debates kritiked with such things as animal abortions).
As Ponikshiy said, you'll also want to be assertive/proactive. For this debate, before even responding to me it would have been best to present your case for abortion being murder, and your case for the fetus being innocent.
Oh and your best defense to such odd contentions as the hand, is to say something like "If anything else is or is not murder, is outside the scope of this debate." My debates usually have some thing more for entertainment; in this case, I really did not have the characters to properly explain it.
Judges will use a form of abductive reasoning when judging a debate. I would advise you to present a better case that your opponent rather than simply arguing what I call.
"Nuh uh"
At most "nuh uh" mitigates your opponents arguments, it doesn't build your case.
Friendly reminder, you have one day remaining to post your opening argument.