On debateart, if there is a tie, both people get the points in that category. If there is a tie on sources, both sides get 2 points. The format is a little different from that of DDO because on DDO, ties result in neither side getting points for that category.
He said in his debate, "The Woman Should NOT have the Right to Choose, with one exception.". Maybe his exception is if the mother was going to die. What is his exception?
"How then do you justify your fears when Hispanic and American culture are seemly so very compatible?" They are not compatible. That was decided in the 1850s when the US took Texas because it was more American than Mexican. It also is decided when many in PR want to secede because of their culture. The Hispanics historically assimilate to at least some extent.
Sorry for taking so long. I had a lot of work to do.
"Hence, in most cases when that union was perceived to be an overall detriment, secessionist movements formed." Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big. I have 2 situations that involve America, one of them is present day, so they kindof match America. They are:
-How the US got Texas and California in the 1st place.
-Why there is an independence movement within PR. They cite cultural differences.
In the case of 1st generation immigrants, this is true. However, their kids might end up breaking away in the future if they get "oppressed" such as having a president they don't like. The kids tend to keep their culture, which is fine, but speaking it should be prohibited(exceptions apply) to help Americanize the population that will inevitably making up the majority within some states in the future. This happened with California because they were culturally diverse, they were sore losers about their president and they used this as an excuse to get an independence movement. If there is a language minority within the US, then they just need to snap once and they would want to secede, just like many in California. In my examples, none of the leaders thought that their country would break up on the basis of language and by the time they realized it, it was too late.
"This being the case, what motivations do Hispanics in the US have to secede?" Because history rhymes. Ask many Puerto Ricans why they want to secede and they would say because PR is Hispanophone whereas the rest of the country is anglophone.
If God doesn't exist, then why does Ice float on water, despite Ice being a solid and solids usually being less dense then liquids? And what would happen if it didn't float above water? Then fish would die and many civilizations that survived off of fish would die as well.
If God doesn't exist, then why does Ice float on water, despite Ice being a solid and solids usually being less dense then liquids? And what would happen if it didn't float above water? Then fish would die and many civilizations that survived off of fish would die as well.
" Because "good" has not been defined" The definition of good is, "satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/good). Lets go with that.
"Also people exonerated from DNA evidence ought to get at least 1 million for every year in jail." $1 million seems like too much for just one year in prison.
The law says that DACA illegals are allowed to stay here if they prove they are DACA. I also wouldn't use law as a source of morality. By saying illegals should be deported because of the law, one can also make a case that abortions should be legal because of the law. This is both ways, circular logic. Because of this, just because the law says something does not make it right, or unchangeable.
Liberals say immigration laws can be changed. Conservatives tend to use the "They're illegal" excuse.
Conservatives say abortion laws can be changed. Liberals tend to use the "It's legal" excuse.
Can we simply make opinions based off of our own morality instead of what other people have said is moral?
I posted the 108th comment. This means that it is tied for the most number of comments on Debateart as of right now(https://www.debateart.com/debates/309)
"Given that God of OT is actually Satan and that Lucifer is Jesus and later on is Allah" I know you're Pagan, so you have a different belief system, but I would not consider this to be accurate.
The BoP is on those who want something to be illegal. As a libertarian (to a large extent) everything should be legal unless there is at least 1 good reason why it should be illegal. The BoP is therefore on Con.
"If BOP is solely on any side it is pro here because pro is actually arguing against the status quo." The status quo is that DACA personnel, which are here illegally are allowed to stay within the US if they prove that they are DACA by filling out this form:
Deporting their parents, who are not DACA requires the breakup of families. This infringes on the rights of the children because they basically become orphans. Taking care of them is expensive to the government. It's easier if the parents do it.
I used to be conservative, but now I think I'm libertarian on many issues. There has yet to be a decent reason to be against illegal immigration for example. Part of me wants my mind changed on this topic. Otherwise, I would have called the illegals undocumented. If I could vote today, it would be for Gary Johnson or some other libertarian candidate. I also support some pretty extreme right wing policies, such as I want the US to expand. I don't like any taxes on the basis of wealth, I want to bring back manifest destiny, but without the killing of civilians. On DDO, I debated with Our Boat is Right on illegal immigration to see if my mind could be changed(https://www.debate.org/asta/).
@blamonkey
Just because they are illegal doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to stay in the country.
"So I guess my point about your examples is that there are specific motivations that cause separatist groups to form." Like what? What caused my 1st example, Austria Hungary to break up if it wasn't for the cultural diversity?
"Is the cultural difference really a good enough motivator for a separatist movement, despite the fact that Hispanic culture is already fairly well ingrained in the US in the first place?" It's only a 2nd language for some people in the US. I wouldn't call it totally ingrained within the US. Culture differences often prompt people to want to secede. It did in my examples. Although you're not seeing it, I kindof am.
What if for example being pro life was considered hate speech because it was deemed, "too offensive to women". If you think it's slippery slope, it's not. This kid got in trouble for saying something pro life. I sympathize with him. The left starts out by saying that hate speech should be illegal, and then says any speech that they disagree with is hate speech. It happened with "Robert". If being pro life is hate speech, then what would be free speech?
Exceptions to the rule should apply. The exceptions are:
-At home. This allows bilingualism to remain, while minimizing the risk for separatist movements.
-When communicating to tourists or you are a tourist yourself. This helps the economy and tourists usually don't break away from a country. I think they have yet to do it.
-For educational purposes.
Other then that, there is not much incentive to stay multicultural.
We control rapist's bodies when telling them to not rape people because it infringes on the rights of someone else. We technically control everyone's body by saying they can't rape or assault. Is this an infringement on autonomy? Yes. Is it unjustified? No. Same basic thing for deciding on whether or not to allow someone to have an abortion. We should force our values on the women to protect the scientifically confirmed fetus from dying.
P.S. I would like to congratulate you on your conduct. It's better then many other pro choicers I've debated with on the subject.
"More directly, are you able to provide any evidence that shows that there are rampant numbers of unassimilated migrant Hispanics that have formed distinctive subcultures within America or is likely to be an occurrence in the future?" Most Hispanics do get assimilated, but currently about half of them prefer their native language over English in public communication. I imagine that this trend will increase as the number of Hispanic immigrants inevitably increases as well. My 1st link said that Hispanics will hit the 100 million mark within the US by 2050. This is about 2/7 of the US population and a majority in some areas. This would slow down assilimination into these areas.
"Your first source is actually evidence against this. While it does state that there is a large growth of Latino populations in California due to immigration, it also notes the existence of Spanglish and states that the Spanish language fades in successive generations." Although it does fade in successive generations, I'm worried that this could slow down because the number of Hispanic immigrants is increasing and even many non Hispanics are learning Spanish. It's fine to learn Spanish, but it's not fine to speak it because of the potential for a separatist movements in the US. Also, although the Hispanics are being more assimilated, the American locals are also being assimilated to the incoming immigrants as I mentioned earlier. The willingness that people will inevitably have to communicate in Spanish would slow down assimilation.
"Spanish for example has persisted in Puerto Rico and near the Mexico/US border" In PR, 1/3 of the residents want the island to be a freely associated state, which is similar to independence. In the South West, English is way more common than Spanish and most of the Hispanophones are bilingual in English and Spanish, so currently they don't want to break away. However, the immigration among Hispanics is increasing(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/09/18/facts-on-u-s-latinos/). With this, comes less assiliminated immigrants. As a result, it puts pressure on the US locals to partially assiliminate to them rather than the other way around. It’s why Spanish is learned as a 2nd language in the US. I’m not against it, knowledge is knowledge, however the more immigrants come to the US, the more bilingual the country has become.
I think many of my examples are a result of excessive immigration. In my 1st example, the Austrians could have been Germaniphone because the Austrians might be decedents of German immigrants. Same basic principal applies with Example #2. I think all of my examples fit into one of the 2 categories:
1: They happened as a result of ancient or recent immigration relative to the separatist movement
2: They came when the inhabitants were annexed into a larger country and were failed to be assimilated.
One example I know of for certain was subconsciously due to cultural differences how we got Texas. There were other factors, such as ideological differences, but there are ideological differences within the US, largely motivated by Hispanic immigration that exist. There is even a separatist movement based on ideological and cultural differences; California. Had this multiculturalism not existed, California would not be wanting to be its own country.
God is pretty mean. He decided to burn most of the world's population in hell forever with no chance of escaping. No one deserves to burn in hell forever.
It would apply to very little people. How little? It's safe to assume that even if you have $1 million in the bank, the notion that you could double your money gradually if you get raped would still seem pretty appealing. Assuming the cutoff is $1 million (meaning that if you have less then $1 million, an extra $1 million would seem appealing and if you have more then this, then the $1 million would not be worth it), lets see how many people this applies too.
It's a good point, however, there are 160 million women in the US. Assuming that 1/4 of them have abortions, since some of them get multiple abortions, this means that there are 40 million women that get abortions since Roe V Wade's existence. This is about 800,000 per year. Assuming 1% of the abortions are due to rape(https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html), this is about 8,000 abortions per year due to rape. 5% of Americans are millionaires (https://www.reference.com/business-finance/percentage-americans-millionaires-c3a30edf68c8c4d5).
This means that only about 400 abortions, barely one per day are from millionaire women who were raped. We should not base a whole nationwide policy on the focus of just 400 women out of the 300,000,000 Americans. We should not base nationwide policy based off of people that almost literally make up 1 in a million Americans. For them, their reward may seem nominal, but for the 99% of other women who got raped that weren't rich beforehand, it is life changing.
It makes the state control of her body (if you would call it that) justified because the woman gets restitution for the pregnancy she endures without her prior consent to sex. It helps the woman in the long term because with all that rapist money (if you would call it that), she can afford college without any student debt and maybe could buy some stock with that money. Even though she endures 9 months of unwanted pregnancy, she won't have to endure 9 years of student loan debt. If she picks good stock with the renaming money, then she in theory won't have to work very hard the rest of her life once the pregnancy was done.
I think Pro's exceptions aren't limited enough because there are often ways to save both lives. I wouldn't say we are reading from the same play book. It seems that you were kindof insulting me, which is poor conduct.
"Punishing someone who violates a woman's body doesn't justify a second violation" What is this 2nd violation?
I have tried to contact her about it, but she still hasn't responded.
BoP should be on those that want something illegal. If there is no reason to keep someone/something illegal, it should be legal.
I think God is evil because the bible says most people will burn in hell forever. No one deserves to burn in hell forever.
On debateart, if there is a tie, both people get the points in that category. If there is a tie on sources, both sides get 2 points. The format is a little different from that of DDO because on DDO, ties result in neither side getting points for that category.
He said in his debate, "The Woman Should NOT have the Right to Choose, with one exception.". Maybe his exception is if the mother was going to die. What is his exception?
Can you send your argument with very little time left? I am very busy with school work.
"How then do you justify your fears when Hispanic and American culture are seemly so very compatible?" They are not compatible. That was decided in the 1850s when the US took Texas because it was more American than Mexican. It also is decided when many in PR want to secede because of their culture. The Hispanics historically assimilate to at least some extent.
Sorry for taking so long. I had a lot of work to do.
"Hence, in most cases when that union was perceived to be an overall detriment, secessionist movements formed." Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big. I have 2 situations that involve America, one of them is present day, so they kindof match America. They are:
-How the US got Texas and California in the 1st place.
-Why there is an independence movement within PR. They cite cultural differences.
In the case of 1st generation immigrants, this is true. However, their kids might end up breaking away in the future if they get "oppressed" such as having a president they don't like. The kids tend to keep their culture, which is fine, but speaking it should be prohibited(exceptions apply) to help Americanize the population that will inevitably making up the majority within some states in the future. This happened with California because they were culturally diverse, they were sore losers about their president and they used this as an excuse to get an independence movement. If there is a language minority within the US, then they just need to snap once and they would want to secede, just like many in California. In my examples, none of the leaders thought that their country would break up on the basis of language and by the time they realized it, it was too late.
"This being the case, what motivations do Hispanics in the US have to secede?" Because history rhymes. Ask many Puerto Ricans why they want to secede and they would say because PR is Hispanophone whereas the rest of the country is anglophone.
I was trying to point out how science confirms that God exists.
Why am I being ignored?
If God doesn't exist, then why does Ice float on water, despite Ice being a solid and solids usually being less dense then liquids? And what would happen if it didn't float above water? Then fish would die and many civilizations that survived off of fish would die as well.
If God doesn't exist, then why does Ice float on water, despite Ice being a solid and solids usually being less dense then liquids? And what would happen if it didn't float above water? Then fish would die and many civilizations that survived off of fish would die as well.
We need to reproduce sometimes in order to keep the human race alive. Also, pregnancy is not a disease, it is a conditional state.
" Because "good" has not been defined" The definition of good is, "satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/good). Lets go with that.
"Also people exonerated from DNA evidence ought to get at least 1 million for every year in jail." $1 million seems like too much for just one year in prison.
@ dustryder
The law says that DACA illegals are allowed to stay here if they prove they are DACA. I also wouldn't use law as a source of morality. By saying illegals should be deported because of the law, one can also make a case that abortions should be legal because of the law. This is both ways, circular logic. Because of this, just because the law says something does not make it right, or unchangeable.
Liberals say immigration laws can be changed. Conservatives tend to use the "They're illegal" excuse.
Conservatives say abortion laws can be changed. Liberals tend to use the "It's legal" excuse.
Can we simply make opinions based off of our own morality instead of what other people have said is moral?
@Mopac
The bible contradicts it's self a lot.
I posted the 108th comment. This means that it is tied for the most number of comments on Debateart as of right now(https://www.debateart.com/debates/309)
@nmvarco
How many stars are on your American flag?
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, ironically being God's advocate at the same time.
If god doesn't exist, why does Ice float above water? And what would happen if it didn't freeze in this way?
"Given that God of OT is actually Satan and that Lucifer is Jesus and later on is Allah" I know you're Pagan, so you have a different belief system, but I would not consider this to be accurate.
"Kritik" Who is he?
"Fortunately, I have a real opponent who has agreed to debate this topic with me." Who?
The BoP is on those who want something to be illegal. As a libertarian (to a large extent) everything should be legal unless there is at least 1 good reason why it should be illegal. The BoP is therefore on Con.
"If BOP is solely on any side it is pro here because pro is actually arguing against the status quo." The status quo is that DACA personnel, which are here illegally are allowed to stay within the US if they prove that they are DACA by filling out this form:
https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca
Deporting their parents, who are not DACA requires the breakup of families. This infringes on the rights of the children because they basically become orphans. Taking care of them is expensive to the government. It's easier if the parents do it.
@RM
I used to be conservative, but now I think I'm libertarian on many issues. There has yet to be a decent reason to be against illegal immigration for example. Part of me wants my mind changed on this topic. Otherwise, I would have called the illegals undocumented. If I could vote today, it would be for Gary Johnson or some other libertarian candidate. I also support some pretty extreme right wing policies, such as I want the US to expand. I don't like any taxes on the basis of wealth, I want to bring back manifest destiny, but without the killing of civilians. On DDO, I debated with Our Boat is Right on illegal immigration to see if my mind could be changed(https://www.debate.org/asta/).
@blamonkey
Just because they are illegal doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to stay in the country.
You can do those things.
I might vote for Pro because his arguments were easier to understand. You also said, "kiss my ass" in your argument. This is poor conduct.
I'm not saying this in a rude way, but why are you guys rhyming your arguments?
What if God is exaggerating about his power? If humans can exaggerate about their traits, why can't God?
Polygamous relationships are more likely to spread STDs.
What if God is not all powerful?
When citing, can you post links in the future? This way, we can click to the studies.
The bible says most people will burn in hell. This doesn't sound all loving to me.
"So I guess my point about your examples is that there are specific motivations that cause separatist groups to form." Like what? What caused my 1st example, Austria Hungary to break up if it wasn't for the cultural diversity?
"Is the cultural difference really a good enough motivator for a separatist movement, despite the fact that Hispanic culture is already fairly well ingrained in the US in the first place?" It's only a 2nd language for some people in the US. I wouldn't call it totally ingrained within the US. Culture differences often prompt people to want to secede. It did in my examples. Although you're not seeing it, I kindof am.
How about you challenge Earth to a debate on this?
It varies from person to person. I'm competitive, so I care about victory. I'll learn from whoever accepts this debate, if anyone.
I'm scared I'm going to lose. I can think of some arguments on how trees could be better.
What if for example being pro life was considered hate speech because it was deemed, "too offensive to women". If you think it's slippery slope, it's not. This kid got in trouble for saying something pro life. I sympathize with him. The left starts out by saying that hate speech should be illegal, and then says any speech that they disagree with is hate speech. It happened with "Robert". If being pro life is hate speech, then what would be free speech?
I can think of a few pros. Humans are:
-Smarter
-Not eaten by anyone else
-Can move freely.
-Don't have to hibernate in the winter.
Exceptions to the rule should apply. The exceptions are:
-At home. This allows bilingualism to remain, while minimizing the risk for separatist movements.
-When communicating to tourists or you are a tourist yourself. This helps the economy and tourists usually don't break away from a country. I think they have yet to do it.
-For educational purposes.
Other then that, there is not much incentive to stay multicultural.
I agree with Pro. The bible says most people will burn in hell for an eternity. I believe no one deserves to burn in hell forever.
We control rapist's bodies when telling them to not rape people because it infringes on the rights of someone else. We technically control everyone's body by saying they can't rape or assault. Is this an infringement on autonomy? Yes. Is it unjustified? No. Same basic thing for deciding on whether or not to allow someone to have an abortion. We should force our values on the women to protect the scientifically confirmed fetus from dying.
P.S. I would like to congratulate you on your conduct. It's better then many other pro choicers I've debated with on the subject.
"More directly, are you able to provide any evidence that shows that there are rampant numbers of unassimilated migrant Hispanics that have formed distinctive subcultures within America or is likely to be an occurrence in the future?" Most Hispanics do get assimilated, but currently about half of them prefer their native language over English in public communication. I imagine that this trend will increase as the number of Hispanic immigrants inevitably increases as well. My 1st link said that Hispanics will hit the 100 million mark within the US by 2050. This is about 2/7 of the US population and a majority in some areas. This would slow down assilimination into these areas.
"Your first source is actually evidence against this. While it does state that there is a large growth of Latino populations in California due to immigration, it also notes the existence of Spanglish and states that the Spanish language fades in successive generations." Although it does fade in successive generations, I'm worried that this could slow down because the number of Hispanic immigrants is increasing and even many non Hispanics are learning Spanish. It's fine to learn Spanish, but it's not fine to speak it because of the potential for a separatist movements in the US. Also, although the Hispanics are being more assimilated, the American locals are also being assimilated to the incoming immigrants as I mentioned earlier. The willingness that people will inevitably have to communicate in Spanish would slow down assimilation.
I apologize that this took so long to get.
"Spanish for example has persisted in Puerto Rico and near the Mexico/US border" In PR, 1/3 of the residents want the island to be a freely associated state, which is similar to independence. In the South West, English is way more common than Spanish and most of the Hispanophones are bilingual in English and Spanish, so currently they don't want to break away. However, the immigration among Hispanics is increasing(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/09/18/facts-on-u-s-latinos/). With this, comes less assiliminated immigrants. As a result, it puts pressure on the US locals to partially assiliminate to them rather than the other way around. It’s why Spanish is learned as a 2nd language in the US. I’m not against it, knowledge is knowledge, however the more immigrants come to the US, the more bilingual the country has become.
I think many of my examples are a result of excessive immigration. In my 1st example, the Austrians could have been Germaniphone because the Austrians might be decedents of German immigrants. Same basic principal applies with Example #2. I think all of my examples fit into one of the 2 categories:
1: They happened as a result of ancient or recent immigration relative to the separatist movement
2: They came when the inhabitants were annexed into a larger country and were failed to be assimilated.
One example I know of for certain was subconsciously due to cultural differences how we got Texas. There were other factors, such as ideological differences, but there are ideological differences within the US, largely motivated by Hispanic immigration that exist. There is even a separatist movement based on ideological and cultural differences; California. Had this multiculturalism not existed, California would not be wanting to be its own country.
How is a tree superior to a human?
God is pretty mean. He decided to burn most of the world's population in hell forever with no chance of escaping. No one deserves to burn in hell forever.
It would apply to very little people. How little? It's safe to assume that even if you have $1 million in the bank, the notion that you could double your money gradually if you get raped would still seem pretty appealing. Assuming the cutoff is $1 million (meaning that if you have less then $1 million, an extra $1 million would seem appealing and if you have more then this, then the $1 million would not be worth it), lets see how many people this applies too.
It's a good point, however, there are 160 million women in the US. Assuming that 1/4 of them have abortions, since some of them get multiple abortions, this means that there are 40 million women that get abortions since Roe V Wade's existence. This is about 800,000 per year. Assuming 1% of the abortions are due to rape(https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html), this is about 8,000 abortions per year due to rape. 5% of Americans are millionaires (https://www.reference.com/business-finance/percentage-americans-millionaires-c3a30edf68c8c4d5).
This means that only about 400 abortions, barely one per day are from millionaire women who were raped. We should not base a whole nationwide policy on the focus of just 400 women out of the 300,000,000 Americans. We should not base nationwide policy based off of people that almost literally make up 1 in a million Americans. For them, their reward may seem nominal, but for the 99% of other women who got raped that weren't rich beforehand, it is life changing.
Do you like this idea?
It makes the state control of her body (if you would call it that) justified because the woman gets restitution for the pregnancy she endures without her prior consent to sex. It helps the woman in the long term because with all that rapist money (if you would call it that), she can afford college without any student debt and maybe could buy some stock with that money. Even though she endures 9 months of unwanted pregnancy, she won't have to endure 9 years of student loan debt. If she picks good stock with the renaming money, then she in theory won't have to work very hard the rest of her life once the pregnancy was done.
What is a r/woosh?
I think Pro's exceptions aren't limited enough because there are often ways to save both lives. I wouldn't say we are reading from the same play book. It seems that you were kindof insulting me, which is poor conduct.
"Punishing someone who violates a woman's body doesn't justify a second violation" What is this 2nd violation?
No it's not.