I just noticed that there's a long argument window, so my busy schedule would probably allow it... So it's tempting
And yes, I know I'm trying to be done with debating, but abortion debates call to me... I don't even take them that seriously, in the last one I used Xenomorphs as a (weak and just there for the lols) argument for forced abortions.
-> when I insist I have a right to free speech Constitutionally
Does that apply to writing and other forms of expression as well? Or literal just to what our forefathers wrote, the spoken word? Also do any instances of 'man' and such refer to woman equally?
Also please add your definition of constitutional right into the description.
You may also want to add a few details of the types of abortion you are applying this to. Human (obviously), before the end of the third trimester, but second trimester forward or conception forward or what? And are you wishing your ban to allow exceptions for instances of rape, health issues (hopefully at least ectopic pregnancies), or anything else?
The studio began pre-production on Alien 2, then James Cameron became a big deal. Anything with his name on it that they could find got the green light (some were never finished, like 1994's Spider-Man... Actually, apparently that one was not finished because his name was on it, and that got the rights to the character disputed). It turned out he had written a spec script for Aliens, so Alien 2 was canceled in favor of it.
When the time came to make a sequel to Aliens, there were any number of fantastic scripts out there (William Gibson's being my favorite). But the studio realized they could save a tiny bit of money by using a script they had already purchased... Thus Alien 2 was retrofitted into Alien 3, with all changes from Aliens having to be done away with in the first minute or two of the movie.
The shittiness of what the studio did was so bad that Michael Biehn (Hicks) successfully sued to keep his likeness out of the finished product. That Hicks survived is largely considered canon, and he was nearly in Alien 5 by Neill Blomkamp; but Ridley Scott shat his pants and gave the studio Alien Covenant in exchange for them not making Alien 5.
They are. That's actually why I looked at this debate, due to said reports. However, we don't get a notification or anything, so there's some time variance on when we'll see it.
FYI, counter votes are considered vote bombs. It’s not particularly problematic on a “debate” like this, but for future debates please just report the offending vote (and if tight on time, tag the moderators in the comment section).
Right now someone could defeat you by showing some political motivation.
Add the qualifier “primarily” into the resolution, and you should get the debate you want. The other side won’t win by merely showing prosecutors voted democrat, but you won’t win by showing something equally minor. It still favors you, but there’s work to be put in.
It was good facing you, and I hope you see more of your debates in future. If you'd ever like assistance with the setup for a debate, please don't hesitate to ask.
Have you seen The Good Place? The Trolly Problem episode ends with the perfect rebuttal on this topic. When a doctor is faced with being forced to murder one person to harvest organs for five (five who he ran over with the trolly earlier in the episode), he puts his foot down and refused no matter the consequences for him. As a doctor he took the Hippocratic Oath, and killing the one would be a harm even if it resulted in the net benefit of more people living.
That and morals are easy when there's no dilemma, if we back down from them every time sticking to them is the harder path, it proves the weakness of our convictions. While maybe efforts should be taken to force a doctor under rare circumstances, the doctor should not give in if being forced.
There are tactical advantages to it, but for growing in skill being at a disadvantage is better.
On the other hand, instigating a debate without any easily exploitable loopholes is a lot of work. Then there’s no assurance anyone accepts the challenge.
> Airborne combat medics are movable between locations.
Only with great effort, but add the weight of an extra couple degrees (with frames we’re talking about as much as two pounds!) and I’m not sure it’d be possible without assistance of a crane.
Plus, as a lawyer I know pointed out, if someone adds value to a business, they are a fixture of that business and aren’t allowed to ever quit; and the 13th amendment doesn’t apply because the involuntary servitude is being forced…
(I didn’t say it’s a lawyer I respect; rather he’s one I’m going to crush)
I'm not sure if that can be applied to Doctors, since chattel is movable between locations... Doctors seem more like real property, which is to say buildings.
You need to clarify a decent bit. Generally, explain in the description the spirit of what you wish to discuss; and include the word "approximate" to avoid kritiks focused on exactly 7 hours, with never a minute of varience; which could even go towards 7 hours per week instead of per day if it seems too long.
It'd have to be weighted... Like if you give all three people in the comments 5 stars, and never anything else, those 5 should register as three (or maybe 3.something). Likewise if you rated us each as 1 star, and had not done any of those 5 star reviews, the 1s should be averaged to about 3.
A quality opening should address Qualitative standards and Falsifiability.
* If it cannot be described, it cannot be proven.
* If non-falsifiable, it is meaningless.
---
Which for this debate is largely to say have metrics with which to weigh it by.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadmad // Mod action: Removed (or would be had the voting period not ended)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: Encouraging suicide and bullying instigted entirely by Pro on a shit tier rated debate about arbitrary diet choices. Vote goes to Con wholeheartedly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Overwhelming misconduct can spill into arguments; but sources and legibility are not merited to punish other categories than themselves.
I personally wholly agree with the sentiment of the vote. The removal would be a statement against the slippery slope of vote bombs which resemble it.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline and non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to con, 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. That said, there are issues with it, but in consideration of the lower standards and content of the vote (it references multiple parts of the debate, and gives points to both sides), I'm ruling it as borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
**************************************************
Definitions would be useful on this one.
Currently someone could easy argue for an afterlife of feeding worms.
You both forfeited. Would you like this debate deleted?
I was trying to remember the name for this. Thank you!
Devotees certainly behave as if it were one!
That comment about Nintendo... I'd like to think I've evolved past that type of humor, but it still tickles my funny bone.
Good luck on your future debates.
I of course advise accepting that premises are usually flawed, and testing your skill by arguing them anyways.
My argument is almost ready. Next time I have time to add another paragraph or two and proof read everything I’ll post it.
Better that than being turned into turducken people!
https://youtu.be/MQMBZzjCxTM?si=kYy7HyxsPdy75qUa
I just noticed that there's a long argument window, so my busy schedule would probably allow it... So it's tempting
And yes, I know I'm trying to be done with debating, but abortion debates call to me... I don't even take them that seriously, in the last one I used Xenomorphs as a (weak and just there for the lols) argument for forced abortions.
-> when I insist I have a right to free speech Constitutionally
Does that apply to writing and other forms of expression as well? Or literal just to what our forefathers wrote, the spoken word? Also do any instances of 'man' and such refer to woman equally?
Also please add your definition of constitutional right into the description.
You may also want to add a few details of the types of abortion you are applying this to. Human (obviously), before the end of the third trimester, but second trimester forward or conception forward or what? And are you wishing your ban to allow exceptions for instances of rape, health issues (hopefully at least ectopic pregnancies), or anything else?
What is your definition for constitutional right?
Only if you forget about the 13th and 14th amendments... Probably some others as well.
You should specify a bit more. Is it all recommended vaccines, just certain ones, etc.?
If the debate goes anywhere, nitpicking that is bound to be the destination.
Since it’s a full forfeiture anyways, sure thing.
If this is still unvoted in a few days, please remind me and I’ll vote.
Technically aren’t all words that at some point in their past?
https://youtu.be/EF98G8lWZeA?si=tZf8GpUcY9QUh7sC
Brandolini's law
Thanks for the vote.
Fun bit of trivia, Alien 3 was actually Alien 2.
The studio began pre-production on Alien 2, then James Cameron became a big deal. Anything with his name on it that they could find got the green light (some were never finished, like 1994's Spider-Man... Actually, apparently that one was not finished because his name was on it, and that got the rights to the character disputed). It turned out he had written a spec script for Aliens, so Alien 2 was canceled in favor of it.
When the time came to make a sequel to Aliens, there were any number of fantastic scripts out there (William Gibson's being my favorite). But the studio realized they could save a tiny bit of money by using a script they had already purchased... Thus Alien 2 was retrofitted into Alien 3, with all changes from Aliens having to be done away with in the first minute or two of the movie.
The shittiness of what the studio did was so bad that Michael Biehn (Hicks) successfully sued to keep his likeness out of the finished product. That Hicks survived is largely considered canon, and he was nearly in Alien 5 by Neill Blomkamp; but Ridley Scott shat his pants and gave the studio Alien Covenant in exchange for them not making Alien 5.
They are. That's actually why I looked at this debate, due to said reports. However, we don't get a notification or anything, so there's some time variance on when we'll see it.
#Respek!
https://youtu.be/iBKk1McBLxM?si=VZwgJ7RfGbCSiALk
FYI, counter votes are considered vote bombs. It’s not particularly problematic on a “debate” like this, but for future debates please just report the offending vote (and if tight on time, tag the moderators in the comment section).
Thanks for voting,
May you never be forced to carry a Xenomorph to term!
Right now someone could defeat you by showing some political motivation.
Add the qualifier “primarily” into the resolution, and you should get the debate you want. The other side won’t win by merely showing prosecutors voted democrat, but you won’t win by showing something equally minor. It still favors you, but there’s work to be put in.
Certainly at fault, but he will take no responsibility 🤣
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkGK7bitav0
It was good facing you, and I hope you see more of your debates in future. If you'd ever like assistance with the setup for a debate, please don't hesitate to ask.
Have you seen The Good Place? The Trolly Problem episode ends with the perfect rebuttal on this topic. When a doctor is faced with being forced to murder one person to harvest organs for five (five who he ran over with the trolly earlier in the episode), he puts his foot down and refused no matter the consequences for him. As a doctor he took the Hippocratic Oath, and killing the one would be a harm even if it resulted in the net benefit of more people living.
That and morals are easy when there's no dilemma, if we back down from them every time sticking to them is the harder path, it proves the weakness of our convictions. While maybe efforts should be taken to force a doctor under rare circumstances, the doctor should not give in if being forced.
I've been a long supporter of more optional categories.
I’d say it depends on the level of responsibility, and if minimal due diligence applies.
I take no offense at that. My debating skills are good, but far from great.
Someone like RationalMadman who loses quite a bit, has slowly but steadily grown to become better than me.
IMO, I'd be in the lower range of A tier, so like an A-. Not even an A+, and certainly not S tier.
Wholly agreed.
There are tactical advantages to it, but for growing in skill being at a disadvantage is better.
On the other hand, instigating a debate without any easily exploitable loopholes is a lot of work. Then there’s no assurance anyone accepts the challenge.
> Airborne combat medics are movable between locations.
Only with great effort, but add the weight of an extra couple degrees (with frames we’re talking about as much as two pounds!) and I’m not sure it’d be possible without assistance of a crane.
Plus, as a lawyer I know pointed out, if someone adds value to a business, they are a fixture of that business and aren’t allowed to ever quit; and the 13th amendment doesn’t apply because the involuntary servitude is being forced…
(I didn’t say it’s a lawyer I respect; rather he’s one I’m going to crush)
I'm not sure if that can be applied to Doctors, since chattel is movable between locations... Doctors seem more like real property, which is to say buildings.
A funny stupid argument entered my head, so I suddenly can't resist!
👾
I can think of a couple exceptions.
Most likely, a 9-5 job...
Having literally been a slave, this has my attention.
Main is ambiguous?
So for biggest, are we talking main cause by weight?
Apparently Lucas refused to let Ewan and Hayden give us the full lightsaber battle they choreographed for Revenge of the Sith.
The description should probably mention the comedy angle.
Don't you know that it's neither a war nor an invasion. It's a "humanitarian operation" against Mecha Hitler or something.
/satire
Good luck on the competition!
You need to clarify a decent bit. Generally, explain in the description the spirit of what you wish to discuss; and include the word "approximate" to avoid kritiks focused on exactly 7 hours, with never a minute of varience; which could even go towards 7 hours per week instead of per day if it seems too long.
Interesting tactics...
It'd have to be weighted... Like if you give all three people in the comments 5 stars, and never anything else, those 5 should register as three (or maybe 3.something). Likewise if you rated us each as 1 star, and had not done any of those 5 star reviews, the 1s should be averaged to about 3.
It may have been "The Room" of Star Wars movies.
Something you may find useful:
tiny.cc/DebateArt
It has advise such as the following:
---
Speculation Debates
Something is true…
A quality opening should address Qualitative standards and Falsifiability.
* If it cannot be described, it cannot be proven.
* If non-falsifiable, it is meaningless.
---
Which for this debate is largely to say have metrics with which to weigh it by.
The obvious K to this topic is that Korea = Best; therefore nothing else can be. 🙃
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadmad // Mod action: Removed (or would be had the voting period not ended)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: Encouraging suicide and bullying instigted entirely by Pro on a shit tier rated debate about arbitrary diet choices. Vote goes to Con wholeheartedly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Overwhelming misconduct can spill into arguments; but sources and legibility are not merited to punish other categories than themselves.
I personally wholly agree with the sentiment of the vote. The removal would be a statement against the slippery slope of vote bombs which resemble it.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline and non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to con, 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. That said, there are issues with it, but in consideration of the lower standards and content of the vote (it references multiple parts of the debate, and gives points to both sides), I'm ruling it as borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
**************************************************