Seeking a competitive debate.

Uncertain as to how long I'll be back, but with some free time, I'm seeking a debate with some high level competitor. 

Topic proposals (preferred but not limited to) 

Above

I hope you are defending socialism or marxism there.

I find your arguments to be very interesting and very well constructed, and I like when you defend position I agree with.

Would you be willing to do a live debate of the abortion argument. I would like to argue a devils advocate position. 

I also have written on objective morality before, I lost my riting unless somebody knows where I can find some archives of debates on debate.org, but I need to recreate what I have written previously for my zettelkasten so I might be open to that, since it wouldn't take much work to recreate

Why are you so elitist about who gets to clash you? It can't be that you're so against noobsniping, you clearly have some sort of ego complex about only vsing those you see as worthy.

Probably because debates like the following are pointless

And even if you get a more competent noob opponent like intelligence or weakeredge their arguments are stuff you have seen a million times and won't be challenging. It doesn't mean you will beat the more competent noobs because voting is so poor here, but it's not going to be challenging because they can't make you rethink your views with rebuttals you already exposed yourself to and defeated before you even thought about creating the debate. 

It's pointless to debate midwits and noobs other than as som sort of ego lift or to maybe be persuasive but debate is not about persuasiveness so probably pointless even for that purpose. 

i didnt mean to humiliate u in that debate

Wrong. The ego lift is you thinking you're above them. You are only truly above those you can regularly defeat and they make fantastic warmup/sparring partner for the big clashes anyway.

You are above nobody. I am dirt, you are dirt. Debate always with this approach and you will find you debate much better, regardless of opponent.

I'll try

and fail because u have the IQ of a headless chicken

🐔🐔🐔

save yourself the embarrassment & go back to being a jew-hating conspiracy theorist
leave the debating to the pros

assuming they haven't died tragically from the brain cancer u gave them by forcing them to read your verbal word vomit when u tagged their names

I hope not. I would feel pretty guilty about it

self-fulfilling prophecy in your case

Attack the argument, not the person.

I am not sure about rules right now, but people did get banned before for using direct insults too much.

You can insult arguments, but not people.

Roosevelt gets away with it somehow. He is literally just the liberal version of TWS and goes unpunished. 

I feel like some people are just allowed. I think I would be banned for it. You would probably get banned for it, but it's just gut feelings.either way it's not something that should be tolerated.

I dont think bans are really the solution, when site has so few users who post daily.

I think the solution is to ignore insults as if they werent even said and keep asking your opponent to refute your arguments.

The other users or mods too can point the user to use arguments.

I feel like most situations can be solved without reaching for the ban button, with just clear directions.

If someone calls me stupid, I can just say "Yes, I am stupid, but what is your response to this argument here?"

Of course, there are situations where words cant help and person just keeps going with insults and rule breaking, but I feel like those situations are rare.

I think if person is given  direction, it usually works.

It shouldnt be "dont do this or you get banned."

It should  be more  like "do this instead".

Welcome back! I also came back to the site today after a long absence and was pleasantly surprised to see some intelligent conversation resurfacing. I dont think I will have the time to debate you but let me know if any of these debates happen, I would like to read and possibly vote

Curious what your position on the morality of abortion is since almost everyone I see opposed to it is religious 

Also curious about your thoughts on abortion as public policy....it seems like everyone, even many pro lifers, broadly agree that it would be better if the people who are aborted are never born, pro-lifers would just prefer they were never conceived in the first place. But I'm not so sure anymore. I saw a stat the other day that in the last century over 200,000,000 Russian pregnancies ended in abortion. I think the answer to the question of "would Russia/Russian culture have a stronger influence today if those 200,000,000 children and their descendants had been born?" is an obvious YES. We're at the point where birthrates have been so low so long that countries have been importing third world adults to shore up the labor force. Is killing would be native born children in the womb a good idea at that point? I haven't seen this point brought up before. 

Russia would at least have more cannon fodder to throw at Ukraine if those fetuses weren't aborted

Exactly. And it’s true that a lot of them would be poor, in rough situations, maybe contribute somewhat to violence and dysfunction…but we’re speaking English today because England had a huge population surplus for like 400 years straight that it constantly exported. It wasn’t always pleasant for the people there but now the English language, culture, and blood, even if all these things become mixed to some extent, will live on until the end of time. 

Right now tons of countries are depopulating rapidly and thats only going to increase. There’s basically infinite upside to a population able to expand. I would kill for my ethnic/cultural group to be growing right now

Thanks for the welcome! I would have loved to debate you, as I think you are not one of those members who are sadly crippled by ego, who avoid competition to preserve their perceived acumen in debating.  If you change your mind, feel free to let me know. 

Regarding your first question, I as an atheist oppose abortion on non-religious grounds. I go through it in depth in my debates, but the general gist is that I consider the only logical time to bestow personhood to an individual is the first moment of their existence - conception. 

With regards to the second question, the issue of policy in debating is far more complicated. Obviously, as a pro life thinker, I would restrict abortion to the greatest extent that is possible. I think the reductio that abortion ought to be allowed because it would prevent over population is absolutely stupid - because you could then employ the same justification in the case of infanticide, which would serve the same end.