Women do not have a Constitutional right to abortion

Since the voting period is over, there's no risk of influencing any decisions. A couple thoughts...

The shit those politicians get up to is fucking weird! I was initially just making fun of them a little as a fun side-note to the debate, but then pro took major offense at me calling misogynistic cultists “misogynistic cultists,” so I treated it as an exploitable weakness concerning the 14th Amendment... I believe in isolation the kritiks here would have carried the day, but in this over-sized debate they got lost under so much other debris.

I generally will advise for any debate when key players are attacked on ethical grounds, to just briefly acknowledge it then dismiss it as scope creep. As a couple voters pointed out, what ought to be doesn't define what is. The constitution can be corrupted and unfortunately still be the constitution.
Letting me poison the well so much, risks the audience letting their disdain for a serial rapist (sorry, serial /attempted/ rapist) influence their opinion of Kavanaugh's performance as a justice and in turn not want to agree that he had any power. Oh and Todd Akins, you can literally endure yourself to the audience with something like “Yes yes, he was a piece of shit… Thank jove he’s dead… But him having been dead for awhile now, means he probably didn’t get to serve as mentor to those brand new justices.” Which in turn would splash mud back in my face by showing low relevance to one of my chosen weapons.

The tanned eunuchs was a micro-point about hypocrisy, but mainly just there to entertain. They were planned for a final joke at the end concerning what type of livestock occasionally bit their dicks off… I think I was going to imply donkeys at gloryholes, and add as if to redeem them that they aren't such asses as to think it was people being forced to perform.

Thanks for voting!

> Con, for whatever reason, brings up the Dobbs decision
It was already brought up with mention of repelling Roe v. Wade. But yes, my tactic there was largely to invalidate the appeal to authority with both a greater appeal to authority and with ethos and logos appeals. In hindsight I do totally get yours and Wylted's point that it doesn't always matter what ought to be the case but purely what is. Plus, it let me tie in their great teacher Todd Akin, who is positively always fun to mock.

> Pro also points out the contradiction in saying that abortion was typically allowed before the quickening, but also that many enslaved women were forced to remain pregnant.
I admit I still tilt my head in confusion at this. I do believe it's self evident that different classes of people exist, plus I thought I proved pretty well that they were not all black slaves being raped and forced to give birth to increase the number of chattel, and that 13th amendment raised those who were mistreated to that degree to the level of those who were (most often) mistreated far less.

> I feel like this point goes to Pro.
No objection there. I actually considered ignoring everything pro said in R1 and just going into the 13th, but thought that would be disrespectful to the work he put in; as you concluded, not all points need to be won.

> He tries to make a separation between institutional slavery and sex slavery,
IMO some commentary from the authors of intent of the 13th could have carried this (particularly since those guys were men of their time, and while not all evil, I doubt any were feminist). As is, at least to me it fell closer to renaming slaves "Peons" or "Student Athletes" rather than actually not slaves.

I'm going to try and see if I can get my RfD completed in time, but I might not be able to. These past few days have just been crazy busy for me.

It was a fun debate, nevertheless. However I wish we had not gone into so many different ways about it so that the arguments did not get so monstrous to read.

Thank you for voting.

> simply stating that the current Supreme Court establishes it as unconstitutional.
That was why I attacked Trump's appointees so much, to bring into question if their decisions are valid.

> I think Pro got too hung up on points regarding tradition and custom as rights
I also got hung up there. When undermining the 14th Amendment, one of Trump's "Justices" has repeatedly made the declaration that that nothing can be a right unless it was first a tradition. I find that mentality to be quite ill informed to say the least, but from it I could make a few implicit arguments, such as if that's valid they're coming for your guns next.

> abortion either is an issue left up to the states by the Constitution or it isn’t.
Wholly agreed. That something has completely failed, doesn't mean it is not the law. I argued the aughts because it's a powerful appeal along all three of ethos, pathos, and logos (this one the weakest). Much of it is fallacious, but still undeniably stirring appeals.

> I don’t believe that either definition is mutually exclusive from the other
I agree. Inside a debate I can argue in black and white terms to talk smack about someone moving the very goalposts they had set, but definitions are generally holistic.

> and simply calling Con’s definition “subjective” and “made-up” isn’t enough to dismiss it entirely.
Wasn't actually my definition.

> I think Pro had an opportunity here to accept this and argue that women having this constitutional right as slaves who were subjected to rape and torture is a pretty distinct scenario from women today...
I'd like to think that would have been the path I would have argued were I on the other side. But yes, outside of the debate I'll wholly agree that women being turned into a type of slave by the states today, only somewhat compares to women as literal slaves their whole lives back then. A big one toward that would be something I pointed out inside the debate, that laws were passed to force children of slaves to themselves be slaves; that was the type of slavery the 13th abolished; even if a woman is a slave for 9 months, her children are not, so right there it's notably different.

> there’s too much distracting information in this debate
Guilty. I did not mean for there to be as much. But it got loaded, then overloaded.

actually there is no audio WTF

here is an unlisted video, I made responding to all of that. Only people with a link can see the video

" Essentially I felt like you were calling me stupid with your response, and I was offended, so I really fail to see why I wouldn't insult you back the same way you insulted me."

See this as a clear example of why you should be open to criticism and see that your logic can indeed be flawed from time to time. You say that you felt I called you stupid with my response, but did my response call you stupid? No, all I said was that you should have put that reasoning in writing when casting your vote and I asked you a question based on it. that is not an implication of calling you stupid. that is simply communication.

Furthermore, at any time, you could have expressed that you felt offended by what I said, and explained why, and I could have easily explained as I am doing now why it is not offensive. In contrast, you intentionally called me retarded and tried to argue that it wasn't an insult when it was. Now, you try to say that you did so because I somehow offended you by making you feel that I was calling you stupid despite never having done so or so much having implied. That is called being illogical and irrational.

So, I will end my comment by saying that while I can understand that your actions may have been driven by childhood trauma triggers that caused you to act irrationally and that you may have somehow felt offended over what I said based on an illogical framework that may or may not be the result of your underline disabilities. I still recommend that you reevaluate your approach. You seem to have misconstrued disrespectful conduct and insulting language to be on the same level as helpful criticism when its fact there are clear differences. You seem to indicate that merely questioning your reasoning or expressing disagreement is enough for you to think other people are calling you stupid when that is not the case.

You should be respectful to people, especially if you disagree with them if they have not done anything to harm or attack you. You should take your background of having disabilities as a valuable lesson as to why you should show compassion and understanding to people with other disabilities instead of belittlement. And lastly, you should also not expect people to understand you, or you're reasoning regardless of your disabilities or lack thereof. No one can truly understand another unless they question and critique them. That's how communication works. And above all, do not presume that someone doesn't agree is because they are calling you stupid or lack compensation. There is an infinite school of thought in every situation.

"Maybe that's because I grew up and needed a ton of speech classes because I couldn't speak right and be understood."

See, now I am truly lost, because whether you realize it or not, others including myself have grown up with disabilities and been misunderstood as well. So, you more than most should be able to see what is wrong with mocking others or insulting them. Especially if it's over a perceived disadvantage that you think the other person might have. But you did the opposite of that. Also, for your information, many of those who suffer from ASD have speech issues that can make communication difficult. Some cases have it to where they never learn to speak at all. So, in the end, I get the frustration you are expressing. But it doesn't excuse anything. If anything, such experiences should have taught you the value of respect and getting to know someone before rendering judgment.

"Maybe that is because I myself have been surrounded by teams of psychologists as a kid because people cannot understand me, maybe it is due to me having a learning disability and feeling like I am stupid and when people do not understand me, I am not sure if I am being called too stupid to write clearly or if I am actually so stupid that my logic is incomprehensible and thus stupid and it offends me."

Now, I never got the help I needed growing up because I was born in 97 and there was very little help for my disability when growing up. So, again, I completely understand where you are coming from. However, what you have to understand is two things. One, while I may have said what you said made no sense, I never implied it was that you were stupid. Merely disagreeing with you is not an implication that you lack intellect. And two, you should be open to the possibility that your logic is indeed flawed. That's what a critical thinker is supposed to do. No one's logic is completely flawless, and it wouldn't matter if it was as that still would not mean what they say is right.

I had no issue for example with you saying that you found my argument unconvincing. I would have accepted that without issue. But when you implied that you were not convinced by the Cons argument, you found at least some persuasion in mine. I took that as you voting outside the criteria, which is based on better arguments. And when we devolved in deeper you seemed to have contradicted itself more the more, so I kept arguing back to get you to see my point.

That's dumb. Decorum is another word for lying, and I do give respect."

Wow, way to show your lack of research, Decorum by definition means to be socially calm, correct, and polite. lying means to say something completely untrue for the specific purpose of deceiving others. Which is actually in contrast to what decorum means.

"You forfeited after seeing my argument, so........................ Now when I list out realistic reasons for that to occur only one came up."

Firstly, I did not forfeit after "seeing your argument." I told you very clear and plainly that I was not interested in debating you because you insulted my IQ in your video. at no point did I say, "I won't debate you because your video was hard to argue against. It is not my fault that you cannot listen to the writing on your screen. Which, you lied about btw. as you tried to say you only briefly mocked me and moved on, but you actually spent 7 minutes insulting me out of the 28 minutes of video. You also can't claim to give respect to people you also call shit. Sorry, but that's again called being toxic.

"If you are only going to improve when somebody who criticizes you also kisses your ass, then you will never improve."

Please explain to me how my saying: "Do not disrespect me, and I will be glad to hear what you have to say," somehow translated to, "Kiss my ass before critiquing me"? This is honestly making me concerned. Every time I try to give a very simple logical answer. Such as Don't insult me + show respect = I will listen to what you have to say. You turn it to some form of illogical argument of Dominance or try to say being a bully is somehow helpful. You can't justify your toxic behavior with illogical arguments.

"I also feel like you disrespected me by not understanding what I said. A failure to understand me for whatever reason, really pisses me off."

First of all, I never disrespected you before you insulted me. The worst I said to you before you insulted me by calling me mentally handicaped was that you were double-talking and that you did not vote by the Criteria. That is not disrespectful nor is it a lack of understanding. That is called DISAGREEMENT. See, you say failure to understand you piss you off for any reason. You think I misunderstood you, which is subjective btw, and that doesn't justify attacking my character, which is something I did not do to you initially. Thats disrespect. me saying that I do not understand your reasoning or pointing out why it doesn't make sense from my perspective is called constructive criticism. As I critiqued what you said without making it personal. You did not do the same.

"well the video is the vote, and the few sentences is a summary of the video so not sure why you would judge the vote based on the summary of the vote, I am also not sure why you would continue to misrepresent the explanation of the vote either."

I never misrepresented you. I addressed everything you said as you said it in the comment's and when you contradicted yourself as I continue to demonstrate even now, you kept on arguing and eventually insulted me.

"Who cares what I think. I can say I don't think you are stupid for disagreeing with me. I think a lot of people who disagree with me are bright. I thought you were stupid for the comprehension issues."

It's less about what you think and more of the fact you tried to defame my character. As I said before, when you treat people as if they are stupid just because they do not agree with you, you lose respect and any hopeful critique you want to give will be ignored even if it was helpful. This is the part that I am trying to get you to understand. You cannot disrespectfully treat people, and then a second later be like: Oh, but I want to be helpful. That is called being toxic and no one listens to that. And again, you prove my point.

You made assumptions about me without actually knowing me. And even now as I try to get you do understand why the way you went about this was insensitive and wrong, you fail to COMPREHEND that just because I have a different perspective on this matter, doesn't indicate I lack intelligence. As much as I hate religion as an atheist, you would do well to remember this wise saying, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

"I likely have autism. Either that or OCPD which is nearly the same thing. I did google it and a high functioning autist can have an IQ as low as 80, but I personally have autistic cousins who have IQs in the 130-150 range and so I was thinking of them, when I thought of high functioning. I can now see that maybe my standards for high functioning, may have been too high."

First of all, you do not know if you have autism or not until you have been psychologically evaluated. Secondly, OCPD is not the same as Autism. Autism is a neurological developmental disability that has an actual Spectrum of classifications which is why is categorized as ASD. OCPD is an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. It involves having unwanted thoughts that can be obsessive. Although they may both be disabilities. They are not similar in any manner. lastly, who are you to tell who has high IQ or not? What PDHD or college that you graduated from do you base that authority on? I suspect none personally. So, maybe it's not that your standards are too high, but rather you simply never learned to be respectful as a person.

"The comments actually explain the vote and are not the vote, so obviously will be a shortened version of 2 hours of logic boiled down to a sentence or 2, but those sentences should have brought up some ideals in your head of where you went wrong. I know when I debate I know what mistakes I made, even before the judge points them out."

And, as I explained before, had they made sense to me they would have. But that is where the disconnection came. You said I "dropped" my legal arguments early on and did not focus on them. Yet, the first round of my argument solidified my Connotational stance and understanding, and as I have just shown you, I never stopped referencing law and the Constitution throughout my rounds. I also think this might be part of the problem I mentioned earlier. You think that just because your reasoning made sense to you, it should make sense to everyone, but that's not reality. Had you attempted to understand why I could see things differently, we could have worked to find mutual understanding. Instead, you just kept defending your position with more and more irrational rhetoric that I constantly showed was double talk and when I wouldn't relent you went on offensive mode.

"I am pretty sure I gave at least one example of each. For example when you focused on the history of abortion in America. That was a red herring you focused on or in the first round where you touched on how The supreme court decides what is constitutional but you didn't seem to stick with the argument and it never was expanded on or brought back up in additional rounds."

See, that's the whole thing, you call it a "red herring," but no one but you understand what you mean by that. It's also false to say that I did not stick with the Supreme Court argument. What happened is that Con claimed in the first round that Abortion was a long-time accepted tradition that had been legal for 250 years. I countered that by providing a source that showed anti-abortion laws since the 1820s. I also pointed out Con's contradiction in saying that abortion is both a long-time tradition but also that anti-abortionists held the power during that same time.

"That is what we are referring to as a drop here. You dropped your own argument, not your opponents. You seemed to address his arguments but failed to fully understand his premises and instead focused on counterarguments as opposed to rebuttals about his premises."

Again, that makes no sense. First, your idea of "dropping" an argument seems to be based on the idea that I, "didn't stick with the argument" but that is false as I brought up the Supreme Court multiple times throughout the debate. in Round 1: I provided a source that showed Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. I also provided a link to the 9th Amendment that showed that people could not use the 9th Amendment to say abortion was a right undefined by the US Constitution. The basis of the first round can be summed up by me saying that Roe V. Wade. was overturned. The Constitution does not mention Abortion, and the 9th Amendment cannot be used to say that it does. So, I by no means "dropped the argument.

The Second round had me provide several rebuttals including countering Cons' claim that abortion was legal for 250 years with a source that proved abortion had been made illegal throughout several periods that Con said it was legal. Also countered Con's claim about the 10th Amendment and provided several sources that proved the legal difference between the 13th Amendment, the definition of slavery itself, and abortion. And I countered Con's false claim that women can be locked up for live as abortion was a felony by providing serval sources that showed it was only in Texas, and not as a standard rule.

The third round saw me use the 19th, and 14th, as well as the 13th Amendment to counter claims made by Con and affirm that they do not prove Abortion is not a constitutional right. And me and Con had our disagreements over case law, where he said that it was unconstitutional for Supreme Court to rule Abortion as not a right based on case law and I said that any thing not in the Constitution yet still claimed to be a right is decided in case law and thus constitutional.

And I can keep going but the point is that contrary to the narrative you try to create, I never "dropped" any argument. Now, did other areas get mentioned outside of the law? Yes, because Con was making claims such as the Supreme Court being run by cultists and that women had no rights.

As far as rebuttals go, I do not get your point about that either because you keep saying that I either did not addressee his arguments, or I did, but the rebuttals failed to address what Con said, which you also tell me were irrelevant anyways and that I should have agreed to them anyway. See what happens when you not only double-talk but triple-talk? It gets very confusing.

In any case, it's not true anyway because there are several times where he made claims such as abortions not being illegal for 250 years and I responded with a Source that countered what he said. That is by definition a rebuttal. And if you cannot see that as addressing Con's argument, then we are living in two separate concepts of reality.

"Which was vague and very misleading especially since what you said later was inconsistent with this statement."

I am pretty sure I gave at least one example of each. For example when you focused on the history of abortion in America. That was a red herring you focused on or in the first round where you touched on how The supreme court decides what is constitutional but you didn't seem to stick with the argument and it never was expanded on or brought back up in additional rounds. That is what we are referring to as a drop here. You dropped your own argument, not your opponents. You seemed to address his arguments but failed to fully understand his premises and instead focused on counter arguments as opposed to rebuttals about his premises.

"My issue came about the comments you made, which eventually became offensive as time went on."

The comments actually explain the vote and are not the vote, so obviously will be a shortened version of 2 hours of logic boiled down to a sentence or 2, but those sentences should have brought up some ideals in your head of where you went wrong. I know when I debate I know what mistakes I made, even before the judge points them out.

""I looked at both arguments and while I am not convinced of either one, the Cons argument was better to me based on (whatever examples you want). Had Pro done (whatever other example you want to give), I might have been more inclined to vote for them.""

That's actually what I did

"Now, that might be what you did in your video, but that is not what you did not this site"

well the video is the vote, and the few sentences is a summary of the video so not sure why you would judge the vote based on the summary of the vote, I am also not sure why you would continue to misrepresent the explanation of the vote either.

" you think I am mentally challenged just for disagreements I had with what you said. "

Who cares what I think. I can say I don't think you are stupid for disagreeing with me. I think a lot of people who disagree with me are bright. I thought you were stupid for the comprehension issues.

"you may not have known this but telling someone born with autism what level they are on or not. Is very disrespectful in particular. "

I likely have autism. Either that or OCPD which is nearly the same thing. I did google it and a high functioning autist can have an IQ as low as 80, but I personally have autistic cousins who have IQs in the 130-150 range and so I was thinking of them, when I thought of high functioning. I can now see that maybe my standards for high functioning, may have been too high.

"you have gone on to call me a shity person and I suck too bad to win a debate with you."

You literally forfeited after seeing my argument, so........................ Now when I list out realistic reasons for that to occur only one came up.

"The Point I am making is that if you want your critique to be heard, and even listened to. Then you need to show decorum and respect"

That's dumb. Decorum is another word for lying, and I do give respect.

" if you can manage that, then I would have no issue taking criticisms from you or improvements."

If you are only going to improve when somebody who criticizes you also kisses your ass, then you will never improve.

"That means No insulting a person by calling them Retarded or shity, nor trying to insult their intellect."

Saying an argument is bad is a statement of fact. Intelligence being high or low is not a value statement. Still, it really shows somebody's character when they think mentally disabled people are bad and they are offended by being called one. You wouldn't be offended if you thought somebody with a mental disability was equal to you.

I also feel like you disrespected me by not understanding what I said. A failure to understand me for whatever reason, really pisses me off. Maybe that's because I grew up and needed a ton of speech classes because I couldn't speak right and be understood. Maybe that is because I myself have been surrounded by teams of psychologists as a kid because people cannot understand me, maybe it is due to me having a learning disability and feeling like I am stupid and when people do not understand me, I am not sure if I am being called too stupid to write clearly or if I am actually so stupid that my logic is incomprehensible and thus stupid and it offends me. Essentially I felt like you were calling me stupid with your response, and I was offended, so I really fail to see why I wouldn't insult you back the same way you insulted me.

"You say that You feel like you failed as a voter because you did not give criticism that helped both sides of the debate improve"

I did not say this

" However, what you fail to realize is that your idea of "Criticism" borders on bullying and toxicity rather than real advice."

Give me the minute mark on the criticism video where I bullied

"It was because when you told me your reasoning, it did not make sense to me"

I wish you knew how much it pisses me off when I speak clearly and am not understood. It makes me feel as if there is something wrong with the way my brain works and like I am crazy tbh.

Listen, man, I told you a long time ago that I am a serious person. I do not tolerate any trolling or disrespect. Now, You say that You feel like you failed as a voter because you did not give criticism that helped both sides of the debate improve. However, what you fail to realize is that your idea of "Criticism" borders on bullying and toxicity rather than real advice. You may not see it that way, but that doesn't change that is how it is taken.

For example, the reason our conversation got so heated wasn't that I could not take criticism. It was because when you told me your reasoning, it did not make sense to me and seemed to go against the role of voting. When I tried to explain that to you, rather than see things from my point of view, as I tried to understand yours. You simply argued inconsistently, made several claims that I refuted, and even made accusations such as I "dropped promising legal arguments" and you even went so far as to misquote me on my argument about Con's comparison to pregnancy being slavery.

Had you instead said something along the lines of, "Well, I did not like either pro or cons argument and, here is why," and then provided actual examples for what you said, I would have been perfectly fine with it. Instead, you said, "Con made a stupid and wrong argument but I gave them the vote because Pro dropped several promising legal arguments and chased irrelevant red herrings." Which was vague and very misleading especially since what you said later was inconsistent with this statement.

Now, you did make a video explaining your vote, and the mods did permit it. However, My issue was not based on anything you said in the video. My issue came about the comments you made, which eventually became offensive as time went on.

True helpful criticism would have been something along these lines:
"I looked at both arguments and while I am not convinced of either one, the Cons argument was better to me based on (whatever examples you want). Had Pro done (whatever other example you want to give), I might have been more inclined to vote for them."

Now, that might be what you did in your video, but that is not what you did not this site. On the site, you used disrespectful language, calling both of mine and Con's argument shit, that you spit on both of us and that you think I am mentally challenged just for disagreements I had with what you said. This is not helpful criticism. That is called being toxic.

Now, where you have been a bully is not only in the fact that you called me names and called me retarded, but you also went so far as to talk to me about my autism and what level on the spectrum I am in. Now, you may not have known this but telling someone born with autism what level they are on or not. Is very disrespectful in particular.

And I think the part of all this the most is that you do not understand that when you have offended someone, regardless of whether you understand why the other person is offended by what you said, and regardless of if you believe it is offensive, you are supposed to respect the offended person's view on the matter and stop. You did not do so. You CONTINUED to do it even after I told you to stop, and others told you to stop as well. And since then, you have gone on to call me a shity person and I suck too bad to win a debate with you.

No one would want to take advice from someone who acts like that. That's just basic common sense. And I will be honest with you, the whole reason I unblocked you was because after I saw you make videos on the site, I thought, "Huh, maybe I misjudged that person, " because you came across to me as a thoughtful person when on video and not a jerk as I took you for when I first met you. Now, your actions and subsequent actions have once again soured my view of you. You make great videos but are simply not respectful as a person.

The Point I am making is that if you want your critique to be heard, and even listened to. Then you need to show decorum and respect. That means No insulting a person by calling them Retarded or shity, nor trying to insult their intellect. And especially do not try to act as if you know a person's actual disabilities more than they do, if you can manage that, then I would have no issue taking criticisms from you or improvements. However, if your response is to say, "No, I am going to just be insulting and not care how other people feel," then be prepared to be ignored. No one has to take shit from you just because you feel entitled to belittle them.

I will personally add, I feel like I have failed as a voter if I do not have criticisms that can help those on both sides of the debate improve. If they are a better debater than me, the least I can do is potentially point out flaws in their arguments they have missed so they can specifically improve that argument.

Thank you White flower for evaluating the vote. I appreciate you brining clarity to the issue.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision: https://youtu.be/Mfq98FqnxOQ
You can skip to the last 5 to 7 minutes for the vote
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter clearly does a great deal of due diligence going through the debate, as established by the YouTube video that showcases a line-by-line evaluation of the points presented by each side. The standards for voting on this site don’t require that level of detail, so it is more than sufficient with regards to establishing that the voter read the debate and evaluated the given arguments.

As for whether the voter met the criteria for voting on arguments, even including comments, I think he did enough to establish his view of the debate and how it relates to his point allocation in a way that is sufficient. Pointing out that he (the voter) has a problem with the side he is voting for is distinct from saying that that argument was successfully refuted by the other side in the debate. Voting based on which side “won” is a question of the arguments and how they stacked up against each other, so that falls under convincing arguments. The voter doesn’t need to be personally convinced that one side is right to award these points. Other issues like drops, which he seems to support in the video, consistency in his RFD, and voting on issues one side sees as irrelevant are more granular and, generally speaking, are not bases we evaluate for removing votes, particularly when that vote isn’t wholly reliant on any single one of these. It seems like at least some of these issues are arguable and not clearly false views on the part of the voter, so they can’t be used to throw out the vote.
**************************************************

Lol

It was a very strong argument that was left unrefuted. However, in evaluating the debate as a whole, Pro's arguments resonated more profoundly with me. Though Thomas Jefferson’s quote was indeed a compelling and thought-provoking argument.

I tried to be impartial throughout the debate, but a reason Thomas Jefferson's quote impacted me on a shallower level is because the moment a slave conceives, the issue shifts from one of economic exploitation to one of moral and ethical responsibility. It becomes a question of safeguarding and protecting the inherent dignity of the unborn, rather than a matter of reducing individuals to their economic value.

What was your opinion of the Thomas Jefferson argument?

To improve it in future, I'd be good to know your thoughts on why it failed at the onset and/or how it was refuted.

--><<<Amber>>>
I would advise looking over the debate and after reading it, to vote based on the criteria, Your vote as well as your opinion would be much appreciated.//

I do not have any authority to vote in debates. Sorry.

fine

Seriously, can this just stop? I know you're frustrated, but this is not helping and all this requires at this point is for you to drop it. I'm already on the hook to go over your vote and determine whether it meets the voting standards, so that's going to happen regardless of what else is said.

I listed high IQ. I mentioned most high IQ people would not struggle with this but that it is possible that an outlier who has high IQ could potentially struggle with this, despite their high IQ. I did not say you had a high IQ. I said it was possible you have a high IQ. the possibility of having high IQ is different than actually having high IQ

You see the issue? Double talks.

"Well PM me those reasons if you can because I can only think of 3 and none seem likely.

1. He is not very bright

2. He is a non native english speaker"

Followed by

"Maybe he is gifted but an outlier"

Spent this entire time calling me intellectually challenged even after being warned to stop then its going to claim he called my IQ high.

You did not mean gifted to mean high IQ. Stop lying. I am done talking to you about this. You proved in your own words that you are not complying with the criteria. You keep insulting me. And then you even refuse to listen to the Mods after both of them have told you to stop. What part of, "I will no longer talk to you, so wait for the mods to determine this matter," do you not understand? Frankly, I was told that if you did not stop your insults on my IQ other steps would be taken. So it amazes me that they haven't done so at this point since not listening to the mods is disrespectful to them as well.

Okay let me explain this in a different way, tell me specifically where you are struggling and I will move on from there.

"“Imagine you have two toys, and both are broken. One toy has a small crack, but it still works a little bit. The other toy is smashed to pieces and can’t be played with at all. Both toys are bad because they’re broken, but the one with the small crack is still better because you can play with it a little. So, even though they’re both bad, one is not as bad as the other.”

I assumed Barney would ignore me so I asked chat GPT other reasons besides low IQ that could explain why somebody would struggle to understand the concept of bad things being disproportionately bad in relation to each other and here is what chat gpt said

There could be several reasons why someone might struggle to understand that two bad things can be on different levels of severity, even beyond intelligence or IQ. Here are some possibilities:

Cognitive Biases: People might have cognitive biases, like black-and-white thinking, where they view things as all good or all bad, without nuance or gradation.

Emotional Involvement: If the person has a strong emotional response to the subject, it can cloud their judgment and make it difficult for them to see different levels of severity.

Lack of Context or Experience: Without prior experience or context, it can be hard for some people to grasp the concept of comparative badness, especially if they haven’t encountered similar situations before.

Communication Style: Sometimes, the way information is communicated can influence understanding. If the explanation wasn’t clear or aligned with their learning style, they might not grasp the concept.

Fixed Mindset: People with a fixed mindset might struggle with complex or nuanced concepts, preferring simple, clear-cut answers.

Defensiveness: The person might feel defensive or protective about their views or choices, which can make them resistant to considering the idea of comparative badness.

Cultural or Social Influences: Cultural norms or social influences can shape how people perceive and evaluate situations. In some cultures, gradations of badness might not be as emphasized as in others.

Psychological Factors: Conditions like anxiety or depression can impact cognitive processing, making it harder to engage with complex or nuanced ideas.

Time or Stress: If the person is under time pressure or stress, it can hinder their ability to process new information thoroughly.

Understanding these potential factors can help in finding better ways to communicate and bridge the gap in comprehension.

You’re being dense.

Please tone it down, or at least target someone like me with thick skin (we could even argue over which of us is the bigger idiot… FYI, I’m 6’3… I’m so dumb that I’m using imperial units (long live the queen!), I don’t know the conversion rates, but I’m pretty sure I’m more big than the average bad analogy typed at 50 WPM)

Gifted means High IQ, LOL.

I cannot believe this. It's too good

Here he goes again mocking my IQ. You told him multiple times to stop and he still will not listen. This exactly what I said he would do. he's really trying to push me into saying things I will regret in response. But unlike him, I respect the rules of this platform and what the mods say. Who the fuck is he to tell me I am "gifted"?

"There can be plenty of reasons why he's not getting your point that don't require you to assume his IQ."

Well PM me those reasons if you can because I can only think of 3 and none seem likely.

1. He is not very bright

2. He is a non native english speaker

3. I am retarded and though me saying that 2 bad things can be different levels of bad, perhaps this is tard logic and only makes sense to me because I am retarded.

I can grant that number 3 is an option because I have had no outsider verification that the logic two bad things can be seperate levels of bad, I find it unlikely. His user name makes me think he is probably a native english speaker, so I am out of options. Usually I consider a range of options and pick the most likely one as my working theory

> Nonetheless, his arguments where still highly intelligent but they did not have the same effect that they would have had if Barney kept a cooler composure throughout.

If you believed pro's arguments that I was emotional and therefore wrong, I really can't fault that line of persuasion since it worked (to be clear, out of the debate I do not fault it; inside the debate I literally prefaced everything with a defense against that likely line of attack).

For future reference, my arguments almost always include a healthy dose of wit. Such as my one Hall of Fame winning debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/866-fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd

I did say most people with a 3 digit IQ this time, so we know that there are exceptions. Maybe he is gifted but an outlier

To be honest, I am done with this conversation with him. In fact I said that multiple times. All he does is insult and double-talk. And I've had it with his mockery of MY IQ and his presumption of my disabilities. He is not going to listen or follow the rules. I am much happier just to wait for your final decision on this matter. He wants to be toxic, and I am not going to be a part of it.

Again, please refrain from questioning his intelligence. There can be plenty of reasons why he's not getting your point that don't require you to assume his IQ.

"So first statement is I never addressed Cons arguments."

I think I said you didn't adequately address his relevant arguments

" Then you change your claim to say that I DID address Cons arguments and its BECAUSE I did in fact do so that it was irrelevant and stupid of me to do."

You failed to adequately address his relevant arguments and focused on rebuttals for red herrings. Both can be true. Not sure why this is hard to understand

You can't make a video supposedly giving a thoughtful answer and then let it be known in the comments section that you aren't complying with the rules. it was especially low of you with how you handled it. There could have been so many ways this never got to this point.

You could have A:

Never comment letting me know you aren't voting based on the given criteria. At this point, I would not have said anything as White Flame made it clear that videos were acceptable.

You could have B:

Treated me with respect and heard the points I was making, and we could have come to a mutual understanding. You would have been aware of what Criteria votes are based on and not your misinterpretation such as, "Who won." And I would have been satisfied with an apology and a correction of the vote to still give Con the vote but with a better reason behind it.

And C: we could have mutually agreed to disagree and let the mods handle the determination.

But did you go with ANY of these options? No, you just proceeded to argue pointlessly and ignore anything I had to say, and when I kept pointing out that what you say is either outside the rules or not making sense, you insulted my IQ level. And even now when I am talking to SOMEONE ELSE to explain my side, you proceed to be vulgar and insult me again. There are just no redeeming qualities in you for me to respect you, as you do not respect me.

>How stupid does a person have to be to not understand there are different levels of shitty and I was forced to choose between a turd sandwich vs douche.

This my point: all you have is insults. I brining up facts based on what YOU said. And you proceed to be insultive and go on an unrelated rant to avoid the points I am making. I am not playing that game.

>If the best possible argument is a 10 and bad arguments are any number below 6 than I can say an argument that ranks 3 is shitty but still superior to one that ranks 1. You are simultaneously bitching that I called you stupid, while simultaneously not realizing that both sides of an argument can be bad. This is not something that would confuse most people with a 3 digit IQ.

Okay here you are ignoring what the mods said and insulting my IQ again, which you were told not to do. It's a simple concept. If you are supposed to vote based on a criterion. Then you go by the basis of that criteria. You did not do as you said you voted based on who, "Won," not who made the convicting argument. or better sources or better conduct. What part of that is hard to understand?

>Wow you are still too evil to watch the video and know what I said. I have no ideal how you plan to win the next debate while refusing to watch videos

If you did something like, I don't know, PAY ATTENTION. You would know that your video is irrelevant. No matter what you may have said in your video. The fact does not change that you said, and I quote you:

"The vote is based on who won, not on my personal opinion. I don't have to be convinced to change my opinion on a topic just because the side who won, disagrees with me."

"Con's arguments for abortion equalling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments."

Both comments prove you aren't voting on the criteria.

Then here is where you double talk:

"Pro went after red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments."

"Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant red herring is stupid. You could have agreed with him and it wouldn't make you any less likely to lose. If he said the best color was purple I could see you falling for that red herring and randomly arguing against it"

So first statement is I never addressed Cons arguments. Then you change your claim to say that I DID address Cons arguments and its BECAUSE I did in fact do so that it was irrelevant and stupid of me to do.

Make up your mind. Did I not respond to Con's points, which is why you said I only went after, "red hearing" or did I indeed do so and its because I did that you think "Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant herring is stupid"?

This guy still cannot grasp the concept that a shitty argument can be better that an even shittier argument. HOw am I expected to respond to that refusal to acknowledge that there can be different levels of bad, something easily grasped by anyone with an IQ over 80

"To be honest with you bro. The whole reason this comment section turned into a flame war was because WyIted admitted that he wasn't voting within the farmwork of the criteria. He said that your argument was "Shitty and wrong" But gave you the better argument vote "

How stupid does a person have to be to not understand there are different levels of shitty and I was forced to choose between a turd sandwich vs douche.

If the best possible argument is a 10 and bad arguments are any number below 6 than I can say an argument that ranks 3 is shitty but still superior to one that ranks 1. You are simultaneously bitching that I called you stupid, while simultaneously not realizing that both sides of an argument can be bad. This is not something that would confuse most people with a 3 digit IQ.

"His video might have been something else. "

Wow you are still too evil to watch the video and know what I said. I have no ideal how you plan to win the next debate while refusing to watch videos

To be honest with you bro. The whole reason this comment section turned into a flame war was because WyIted admitted that he wasn't voting within the farmwork of the criteria. He said that your argument was "Shitty and wrong" But gave you the better argument vote because he claimed I, "dropped very promising arguments early that the supreme court decides what is considered constitutional " (which wasn't true). And I supposedly, "chased red herrings" (which he changed his story about several times.) Then he admitted being voting not on the topic at all, but rather on the definition of slavery (which wasn't the topic) and then he proceeded to lie by misquoting me (which I also proved in the comments). Then he claimed that he is supposed to vote based on who, "Won" rather than who made the more convincing argument (again voting outside of the criteria). And then when I kept exposing him for lying, he grew frustrated and called me a retard.

At that point, the conversation devolved into me critiquing him for mocking my intelligence and him trying to justify his behavior. The only point I tried to get across to this whole stupid argument was that he admitted to not voting by the Criteria. And rather than just saying, "Okay, I get your point, I will cast a vote that reflects why Con made the better argument," as any normal person would do. he kept lying, insulting, and arguing. Mind you, he KEPT arguing after I said I was done talking about it.

His video might have been something else. But his comments prove he did not follow the rules, and he has been doing everything he can to ignore or avoid that fact. and that is the source of my frustration. Votes should be by the Criteria or not at all.

I would advise looking over the debate and after reading it, to vote based on the criteria, Your vote as well as your opinion would be much appreciated.

Women do have a right to an abortion under personal liberty laws/protections.

"Incel is probably a more nuanced term than I realized. I used it for variety. I should have said Men's Rights Activists."

These guys get a lot of hate because of the worst people who identify as incel like elliot Rodgers. Their communities when viewed by outsiders often do have people in the anger phase expressing some hatred towards women and Chads, but those are normally people introduced into those communities early. Typically the more mature users will take 2 possible roads.

road 1- Black pill

They realize that they are ugly or their personality is ugly and they just try to live life by focusing on their own well being and not worrying so much about getting laid.

road 2- looks maxxers

These people will start trying to minimize their unattractiveness. They will buy shoes with lifts, try to strengthen their jaw so they are not chincels, tan, workout and

Sadly we are seeing a 3rd and more rare group emerge, and they are new so I don't want to comment too much, but they are trans maxxers. They think women have an easier time getting laid and have life on easy mode, so they start transitioning to get all of those advantages.

I do struggle with MRA's.. I think they do overboard but I also reached out to some groups when my first child was essentially kidnapped by the mother and kept away from me. Ultimately when this happens usually the women get away with it and if the shoe was on the other foot than I would be in prison. I won full custody of my first son but was still out of his life for about a decade, and I am in contact with him again but kind of have to play the part of the reformed bad guy because if I tell him the truth about his mother than obviously he will side with her and push me away even more. So these groups do act like the male version of feminests and start crying about stupid shit like their being very few or almost no battered men's shelters. So despite their usefulness on some things they are essentially the male version of feminests and so they are just as stupid as feminists for the most part.

I think the term you are looking for is tradcons

"I argued no because the villains were the embodiment of the Egoist ideals for wanting to just mooch off the contributors"

She seemed like an ethical egoist to me. To me the heroes just wanted a society where they could profit from their own work and be generally unimpeded in improving society and the villains varied . You had the common man who was evil for wanting to just exist with a low level of resistance or contribution, then you had politicians who would take advantage of those impulses to propel themselves upward. The real badguys were the other industrialists though. Her brother dated a girl because he felt sorry for her. When she found out that he didn't love her because he saw greatness within, she killed herself. Another badguy was a lobbiest who used the government to break up monopolies and to win contracts to make his company bigger with disasterous results. The good guys did act in an egoist way but seemed to be more motivated by justice than a comfortable lifestyle. Dagny Taggert could have lived a relatively carefree life and been in the lap of luxury, but instead of dealing with an evil government she steps away from society to be a simple laborer. So the philosophy is a philosophy of egoism, but the characters were motivated more by making sure the philosophy was practiced on a large scale than they did even for their own good. Their personal actions were almost the opposite of their ideology, because they did fight for a higher good.

"20:15
I really did not expect such an offense at hyperbole against objectively evil SOBs. That of course influenced my course going forward. "

I understand and have used the strategy myself LOL

"That was not one of pro’s best moments."

Yes, he had the seeds to defeat you, but just failed to capitalize

"I’m getting lost in that thought experiment. I believe conjoined twins have tested the law on killing another sentient being to be free of them (you may not), but I don’t think any slavery angle has been legally used in any cases with merit."

I wanted to look into this but the debate was so long I just shut it out of my mind kind of immediately.

Oh, I see. When I saw Barney's exceptional record (52 won debates), I was expecting a well-reasoned argument, not a heated exchange that included insults and swearing. It caught me off guard and reduced my confidence on the debate. I understood his approach to be more emotional than logical which lead to his arguments not resonating as deeply with me as Pro's did.

Nonetheless, his arguments where still highly intelligent but they did not have the same effect that they would have had if Barney kept a cooler composure throughout.

Obviously thank you a hundred times over for getting through that, and a hundred more for putting the work into such a thoughtful vote.

Here were some thoughts I had at different points in it...

R1 con:
Seriously, I did not expect so much of this to actually be something pro would want to focus on.
6:00
I'm entertained by the voice selection. Curious how close to that guys actual voice this is. Regardless, wicked program.

10:40
Yup, I introduced the points from a place of arrogance. I did make them (somewhat) warranted with sources.

12:00
My remark on Madison was to decrease nitpicking. The quote from him stood by itself regardless of what anyone may or may not raise about him.

14:00
Glad you enjoyed the contention just before the 13th got going, and also glad you immediately opted against taking it all seriously (I’d be worried if anyone did). And yup, pathos appeals are one of the weapons in my arsonal… Anyways, that paragraph was a satirical shell around a key theme to the debate, which also served as lead-in for the next point.

15:45
Incel is probably a more nuanced term than I realized. I used it for variety. I should have said Men's Rights Activists.

18:30
The logic indeed can be applied to taxation. Atlas Shrugged was largely an exploration of that idea (by a brilliant idiot who wants to bore us all to death… That reminds me of a fun debate I had with one of my philosophy professors on if Rand was an Egoist or not. Their argument was something like yes because the heroes are all about how they shouldn’t have to work for the common good; whereas I argued no because the villains were the embodiment of the Egoist ideals for wanting to just mooch off the contributors).
And I really was hoping for social contract theory. Interesting discussions can happen in that space.

R2 pro:
20:15
I really did not expect such an offense at hyperbole against objectively evil SOBs. That of course influenced my course going forward.

22:40
Not rude against pro, and also 100% truthful with sources to back it up.

23:00
Glad you saw it, and saw it right away… Those were not even meant as big red herrings, I even prefaced the argument with what was important.
Oh that little typo you had for a moment of “abortion is slavery” I have literally heard that from pro-lifers. 🤯

28:20
That was one of pro’s best moments (not that I’d give credit during the debate, instead of pulling the Karen card).

34:40
That was not one of pro’s best moments.

R2 Con:
38:00
Fair! It

38:40
Glad you understood that I was having some fun with that.
Admittedly, I’ve only read the opinions of the justices (the full thing is over 100 pages), and intuitively assume that since it is raised in the context of him trying to have his VP killed, they meant it to apply to that (even if another court takes over from here). But yes, it was an intentional oversimplification to poison the well against the three justices in question.

44:30
This stumped me for a good minute, then I broke out literally laughing aloud!

49:30
I’m getting lost in that thought experiment. I believe conjoined twins have tested the law on killing another sentient being to be free of them (you may not), but I don’t think any slavery angle has been legally used in any cases with merit.

—

R3 Pro:
52:50
Likewise, this will be the last time I take part in such a lengthy debate.

53:49
Outside the debate I wholly agree that it’s not inherently bad that they have religion. But I do stand by it being problematic when it’s required.

57:50
Yo momma so fat, that when she ‘fell out of the sky’ no one thought she was an angel, they thought she was the next extinction event!

1:05:25

1:07:08
Respect.

1:08:45
Knowing how this turns out, it’s good to see someone agreeing with the side they ultimately through strength of arguments votes against.

R3 con:

…

R4:

…

Conclusions:
1:13:25
I appreciate what that vote was trying to do. It’s actually a good place in the development of a voter to consider where sides surpassed each other.

And I agree with your advice to pro for how to beat me next time.

In an early issue of X-Force Kane gets into a fight with Deadpool. Kane knows Deadpool is tougher than him, but he also knows that Deadpool’s most deadly power is his mouth. So he bit down, ignored everything Deadpool said, and just kept focused on hitting him.

Thank you both for voting!