---R2 Impressions (modified from R1)---
Kettle:
+ electric, or stovetop
+ ease of use,
+ water cleaning (but not essential in developed areas with safe water) -> can clean dildo
- unpredictable for home defense (risk of burning self makes this a negative)
- very limited use in cooking
- dangerous to use for showers
+ weight lifting -> Not part of One Punch Man's workout routine.
- not all romantic partners like coffee/tea (sucks to be them)
- requires periodic cleaning (like everything else)
Pan:
+ stovetop only
- no electric
+ home defense -> but unlikely to be skilled -> skill not required
+ cooks meat and other larger items
+ collects rainwater
- possible teflon (feels like this meant to go into the dangers, but caught that those are outdated) -> non-stick are easier to cook with and clean
+ ultimate defense against crocodiles, which are a very serious threat to the average person!
+ easy to clean (I am only recording this due to there having been challenge on this front)
Dildo:
+ home defense (perhaps not as a shield... but I don't know the size and shapes available)
+ good hosting -> more good hosting and loyalty
- not everyone interested in relations (really seems to go against the grain of the self defense points raised just before this; bit of a cake and eat it too situation)
"Billions of people have lived and died without ever touching a dildo and they had no problems" that's tragic!
+ educational value
+ useful as toy
+ can vibrate (another cake and eat it too situation, since earlier there was talk of how they're better than vibrators) -> if vibrating then cannot be easily cleaned with kettle
- difficult to use (lol)
- Dildo might be made to shitty USA health standards (FYI, make sure the material is food grade).
Textbook:
- heavy
- poor hosting
+ assists w/ purchase of dildos and kettles. -> but unlikely to be in school to benefit, and if in school it's only good for one subject -> but textbook can be sold for ~$55, to then purchase cheap kettle and dildo (pro hasn't said it yet, but of course his counter will include that)
+ correlated to increased earnings
This round also gave us a couple true gems:
"family unity with a satisfied wife, pegged husband and lovely tea/coffee."
"who in their right minds would want to use a dildo while drinking coffee or tea. No, what you are going to want is a casket of nice beer and a steak"
Also a micro Ad Hominem, really? I hope it was intended as a lighthearted joke, but a silly face or some other indicator would have been nice. As is, it pulled me out of the debate.
Kettle:
+ electric, or stovetop
+ ease of use,
+ water cleaning (but not essential in developed areas with safe water)
- unpredictable for home defense (risk of burning self makes this a negative)
- very limited use in cooking
- dangerous to use for showers
Pan:
+ stovetop only
- no electric
+ home defense
+ cooks meat and other larger items
+ collects rainwater
Dildo:
+ home defense (perhaps not as a shield... but I don't know the size and shapes available)
+ good hosting
- not everyone interested in relations (really seems to go against the grain of the self defense points raised just before this; bit of a cake and eat it too situation)
"Billions of people have lived and died without ever touching a dildo and they had no problems" that's tragic!
Textbook:
- heavy
- poor hosting
+ assists w/ purchase of dildos and kettles.
It is an uphill battle, but I’ve been persuaded to vote for the pro-life side several times.
I’d say start with scope control. Just like I would not (seriously) argue for fourth trimester abortions, you should not argue against any means of birth control. Heck, start arguing against late term abortions, and as you win on those step it back a trimester at a time.
My all time favorite debater to read was strongly pro-life. Here’s one of his debates:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1109-resolved-abortion-should-remain-legal-in-the-us
--- RFD---
To start, I find that definition of personhood makes this debate a truism...
I completely disagree with pro about the concession, as much as he is right that it's a semantic kritik. Said kritik feels like it's beating a dead horse by the end. Other voters may feel different, but for me it's just too nitpicky over the smallest thing without justification for why that's necessary. Plus it seemed to be missing things, like pointing out that there are infinite moments in every second. The other tactic was fun, but ultimately distracted.
---
Harm Principle:
We consider if it violates the HP.
Humans as Persons:
Biologists mostly agree that conception is the earliest point we can call it a person.
Future Like Ours:
See HP.
Comparison to Infanticide:
HP with an expansion of pathos.
---
"At":
Conception is a period of time, to which we should wait until it's finished to consider it a person.
Pro counters that this is essentially a concession, then leans on his earlier appeal to authority.
Con reexplains and elaborates (I found his lists to be too far apart in timing to be easily applicable, but of course pro shot them down).
What is Conception?:
An extension to At, with his own words in block quote right after a source was named...
Pro misses the opportunity.
Genetic Change:
"in the wild west of DArt, you gotta toot all of your guns" lol
Oh gosh, morally a mutated offspring of humans shouldn't be considered human (my mind goes to gingers).
Pro argues they're still human regardless of how ugly they are (I know, regardless of ANY reason they might be unable to mate with humans), and calls that non-humans are off topic.
Conclusions:
I love the presence of this. I would just deepen the indenting on connected points.
And yes, I saw no reason to argue the soul point. In that it's like the human DNA point in so many of these, which IMO does not make a person.
Some points I allow without contest, to instead focus my efforts on areas which I find more interesting. As a tactic, this also shifts the audiences attention to be less on such a point.
Regarding pizza, I lied about it for the sake of comedy. Glad someone caught the joke.
What I find hilarious about people hating on Hawaiian pizza, is they're against it being in a mass pizza order, and then decide they each want just one little slice of it... You know, from the lone pizza for those who admit to liking Hawaiian; thereby preventing those people from having any.
I went to a Catholic university, so I know the bible far better than most Christians. The trick is that in any debate, I need not present it according to tradition; and I can cherry-pick. As an example, I once proved that the bible teaches that Jesus is not God; I would even disagree with that conclusion, but my biblical evidence was not sufficiently countered.
As for forgiveness, it should have stated eating Hawaiian pizza without then repenting (either because you don't know that it's a sin which must be repented, or because you die first). Granted, I wholly disagree with the notion of anyone going to hell for drinking almond milk (another Good Place reference) or whatever. What I argue inside any debate, can broadly differ from my actual opinions.
My actual opinion, which I formed at a damned young age while in prayer, is that almost everyone goes through a type of cleansing purgatory. Even knowing Jesus' name isn't required, even while following his moral lessons is extremely useful.
Make future resolutions single clause. In this case, either the murder or the healthcare.
Also you can lower your Burden of Proof with a less strong statement, such as "abortion ought to be regarded as murder."
Narrowing the scope can pre-refute many opposing arguments for being off topic. Like if you want to center the debate on the bible, you can make the resolution "Biblically, abortion is murder."
As for healthcare, the Hippocratic Oath is your best bet to argue that. There was a great episode of The Good Place where they explored that far into the Trolly Problem.
There's some more general advice at:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I'll admit I was somewhat pro-Israel until recently.
One thing I advise being careful of with this topic, is separating their crimes and justifications in the rest of Palestine from their crimes and justifications specifically in Gaza.
Before I post my round, I would like to say that you are going to be a force to be reckoned with. Sure some polishing is needed, but it's rare for someone to catch the mistakes I plant (if you'll pardon the pun) in my arguments.
Depending on who accepts this, they will likely miss the question at the end of the description. It's very easy to get lost on this broad topic, but just staying in scope may be enough for victory.
A decent tactic comes to mind of a bandwagon appeal. Due to this debate being on a political issue, the beliefs of those who make the choice should not be dismissed out of hand.
From there it should be simple enough to show that
IF God,
THEN M <= 0.5
ELSE M > 0.5
Another tactic would be focus on Plan B as if it were abortion (which many cultists argue is true), which is most clearly not premeditated killing, as there is no confirmation of a pregnancy when the pill is taken (same with IUDs).
Fun argument. It initially relied too much on pro’s stated beliefs which he was easily able to counter as off topic; and then an unfortunately common misunderstanding of BoP. When you present an idea which is not a commonly accepted truism, you should provide something to imply it’s real. As an example, the Bible, and of course abortion laws being instituted by religious fanatics.
If doing something like this again, I suggest using the following debate for some inspiration: https://www.debateart.com/debates/950-the-bible-teaches-that-jesus-christ-is-god
It’d be more like blaming the bullet as a defense of the gun… Or if you’re a certain type of person, claim there’s only correlation not causation between being murdered and dying (people seriously argue this).
Under the previous someone could just point to the laws of any non-theocracy; however, under the current it implies that this debate is just about if abortion terminates a pregnancy or not.
What I would expect to happen right now is either some noob accepts and forfeits, or someone to attack the human element kritiking that most abortions target non-humans. I admit I consider it implied that this is about humans, but if there is no other room for debate within the setup, then I'll accept an otherwise bastard tactic.
There was a decent live action trilogy. If memory serves, the first movie focused much on Light murdering police. The second wrapped things up in a much smarter way than the manga (L willingly sacrificed himself to win). The third was an extension of that ending, sharing nothing but themes with the original work.
There was also a terrible Netflix film, which might as well be called Emo Note.
If ever arguing this again, I suggest focusing on motives. Those people being saved was not the goal, being worshipped was. He was a religious terrorist.
Also, watching at least one episode would help a lot.
You’re still nitpicking a minor legibility issue. Sure, had it made the argument incomprehensible I’d have voted for you, but I had no such difficulties.
-> the argument itself he has given is a failure.
I agree, just not for the reason you argued. You argued that the sentence structure was off, but I as a reader had no significant difficulty understanding it. Had you caught that it failed to touch in the issue of aid, then you would have easily won.
-> Who in the fucktardation says "A people" usually?
It’s actually a common phrasing. And again, even taking it on face value that it’s a bad sentence structure, that would still be nitpicking legibility instead of challenging the ideas therein.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People#:~:text=A%20people%20is%20any%20plurality,of%20people%20of%20a%20polity.
Cool story bro, but it failed to undermine the opposing case.
At best you could say you should have been award legibility, but the rules for that explicitly spell out it’s not awarded for petty nitpicking
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#legibility-formerly-spelling-and-grammar
A baby drowning in a pond is common and basic test applied to ethical systems. What does X command someone to do about it…
So what would your opinion be of people who run away from the pond to petition the government to force someone else to rescue said baby, yet refuse to do it themselves because they’re too special to be inconvenienced?
If said people stood by and let babies drown in a pond for fear of getting their shoes wet, what would your opinion of them be?
Ethically it would be quite similar (basically identical in their opinion). The key difference is that much like the pregnant woman, they may opt for some future more willing person to carry the fetus to term.
There was a limit of 500 characters, which caused things to have to be presented in their most simple form.
While I failed to get it across properly, if anyone has their feelings hurt by abortions, then they should preserve cells from each fetus for their later use. Ideally we’ll find a way to convert men into baby incubators, allowing for all men who oppose abortion to know the joys of pregnancy and prevent any “murders” from having occurred in abortions.
Somehow I doubt any of the anti abortion politicians would be willing to endure pregnancy were it an option.
It's now a little sided against you, but as a voter I do get what you mean. Is their plan for safety good or bad? It's obviously bad if it outright makes them less safe than doing nothing; but doing nothing might be the absolute worst option... So maybe build a counter plan in your arguments which would most likely make them more safe. A lot of plans have been tried, and nothing has worked; but it's a good starting place to build an argument.
Trent0405
10.12.2023 03:06AM
Reason:
This debate would have benefited greatly from a comprehensive debate description outlining what constitutes a just war.
Nevertheless, there was one key point which crystallized Pro's victory in this debate, that being the dispute over the First Gulf War. Con had an issue with the idea that a country engaged in self-defence was also engaged in war. He points out in his third round that to think otherwise opens the door to every war being justified, as every war would have a just and unjust participant. However, Pro highlights the First Gulf War as an example of a war where the aggressing party (the coalition forces) were also the justified party. The Iraqis had no authority to take Kuwait, as Pro points out, thereby justifying the coalition forces in starting a war. Con never directly challenges this example, but he does tangentially combat the idea. After being faced with the Gulf War example, along with many other similar cases Pro brought up, Con seems to focus more on the moral character of humankind. Con argues that all war is unjustified because the very act of starting a war reflects a failure to exercise other alternative solutions. My main issue with a point like this is that Con doesn't do any of the legwork needed to make a point like this stick. Con is making a pretty broad and expansive point here, and simply stating the point does not make it convincing, especially when pushback is provided, which it was. In the end, Con did not elaborate as to how war as a can never, in practical terms, be an inevitability. Therefore, at the end of the debate, I am left with the impression that the First Gulf War was justified, and by extension, that a just war is possible.
---R2 Impressions (modified from R1)---
Kettle:
+ electric, or stovetop
+ ease of use,
+ water cleaning (but not essential in developed areas with safe water) -> can clean dildo
- unpredictable for home defense (risk of burning self makes this a negative)
- very limited use in cooking
- dangerous to use for showers
+ weight lifting -> Not part of One Punch Man's workout routine.
- not all romantic partners like coffee/tea (sucks to be them)
- requires periodic cleaning (like everything else)
Pan:
+ stovetop only
- no electric
+ home defense -> but unlikely to be skilled -> skill not required
+ cooks meat and other larger items
+ collects rainwater
- possible teflon (feels like this meant to go into the dangers, but caught that those are outdated) -> non-stick are easier to cook with and clean
+ ultimate defense against crocodiles, which are a very serious threat to the average person!
+ easy to clean (I am only recording this due to there having been challenge on this front)
Dildo:
+ home defense (perhaps not as a shield... but I don't know the size and shapes available)
+ good hosting -> more good hosting and loyalty
- not everyone interested in relations (really seems to go against the grain of the self defense points raised just before this; bit of a cake and eat it too situation)
"Billions of people have lived and died without ever touching a dildo and they had no problems" that's tragic!
+ educational value
+ useful as toy
+ can vibrate (another cake and eat it too situation, since earlier there was talk of how they're better than vibrators) -> if vibrating then cannot be easily cleaned with kettle
- difficult to use (lol)
- Dildo might be made to shitty USA health standards (FYI, make sure the material is food grade).
Textbook:
- heavy
- poor hosting
+ assists w/ purchase of dildos and kettles. -> but unlikely to be in school to benefit, and if in school it's only good for one subject -> but textbook can be sold for ~$55, to then purchase cheap kettle and dildo (pro hasn't said it yet, but of course his counter will include that)
+ correlated to increased earnings
This round also gave us a couple true gems:
"family unity with a satisfied wife, pegged husband and lovely tea/coffee."
"who in their right minds would want to use a dildo while drinking coffee or tea. No, what you are going to want is a casket of nice beer and a steak"
Also a micro Ad Hominem, really? I hope it was intended as a lighthearted joke, but a silly face or some other indicator would have been nice. As is, it pulled me out of the debate.
What did I write that was utilized in the final round?
I really was not trying to do anything sneaky. Quite the opposite with sharing my thought stream as it occurred.
---R1 Impressions---
Kettle:
+ electric, or stovetop
+ ease of use,
+ water cleaning (but not essential in developed areas with safe water)
- unpredictable for home defense (risk of burning self makes this a negative)
- very limited use in cooking
- dangerous to use for showers
Pan:
+ stovetop only
- no electric
+ home defense
+ cooks meat and other larger items
+ collects rainwater
Dildo:
+ home defense (perhaps not as a shield... but I don't know the size and shapes available)
+ good hosting
- not everyone interested in relations (really seems to go against the grain of the self defense points raised just before this; bit of a cake and eat it too situation)
"Billions of people have lived and died without ever touching a dildo and they had no problems" that's tragic!
Textbook:
- heavy
- poor hosting
+ assists w/ purchase of dildos and kettles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PftOxn4ANjc
I hope you’re able to come back. Your defenses would be great to see.
The title made me think this was a Wylted debate.
Your argument is due in less than a day.
It is an uphill battle, but I’ve been persuaded to vote for the pro-life side several times.
I’d say start with scope control. Just like I would not (seriously) argue for fourth trimester abortions, you should not argue against any means of birth control. Heck, start arguing against late term abortions, and as you win on those step it back a trimester at a time.
My all time favorite debater to read was strongly pro-life. Here’s one of his debates:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1109-resolved-abortion-should-remain-legal-in-the-us
I disagree with religious law being applied outside of the temple.
Plus, belief in the rights of others, may or may not correlate to personal practice.
Welcome to the site. A guide which may help you:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
--- RFD---
To start, I find that definition of personhood makes this debate a truism...
I completely disagree with pro about the concession, as much as he is right that it's a semantic kritik. Said kritik feels like it's beating a dead horse by the end. Other voters may feel different, but for me it's just too nitpicky over the smallest thing without justification for why that's necessary. Plus it seemed to be missing things, like pointing out that there are infinite moments in every second. The other tactic was fun, but ultimately distracted.
---
Harm Principle:
We consider if it violates the HP.
Humans as Persons:
Biologists mostly agree that conception is the earliest point we can call it a person.
Future Like Ours:
See HP.
Comparison to Infanticide:
HP with an expansion of pathos.
---
"At":
Conception is a period of time, to which we should wait until it's finished to consider it a person.
Pro counters that this is essentially a concession, then leans on his earlier appeal to authority.
Con reexplains and elaborates (I found his lists to be too far apart in timing to be easily applicable, but of course pro shot them down).
What is Conception?:
An extension to At, with his own words in block quote right after a source was named...
Pro misses the opportunity.
Genetic Change:
"in the wild west of DArt, you gotta toot all of your guns" lol
Oh gosh, morally a mutated offspring of humans shouldn't be considered human (my mind goes to gingers).
Pro argues they're still human regardless of how ugly they are (I know, regardless of ANY reason they might be unable to mate with humans), and calls that non-humans are off topic.
Conclusions:
I love the presence of this. I would just deepen the indenting on connected points.
Good point!
I’ll vote in the next few days. Curious what tactic con will use to handle those definitions.
Apparently this used to be hotly debated even after the mathematical proofs were devised.
There are of course kritiks, but pro is seeking someone who simply disagrees with the soundness of the math when applied in the real world.
Noted. If we debate again I shall strive to argue solely my opinions on whatever topic.
For abortion, my true opinions may be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024-should-abortion-be-made-illegal
Thank you for voting,
A fun thing about debates which get biblical, is how ripe for cherry-picking the bible is.
Thank you for voting,
And yes, I saw no reason to argue the soul point. In that it's like the human DNA point in so many of these, which IMO does not make a person.
Some points I allow without contest, to instead focus my efforts on areas which I find more interesting. As a tactic, this also shifts the audiences attention to be less on such a point.
Thank you for voting,
Regarding pizza, I lied about it for the sake of comedy. Glad someone caught the joke.
What I find hilarious about people hating on Hawaiian pizza, is they're against it being in a mass pizza order, and then decide they each want just one little slice of it... You know, from the lone pizza for those who admit to liking Hawaiian; thereby preventing those people from having any.
I went to a Catholic university, so I know the bible far better than most Christians. The trick is that in any debate, I need not present it according to tradition; and I can cherry-pick. As an example, I once proved that the bible teaches that Jesus is not God; I would even disagree with that conclusion, but my biblical evidence was not sufficiently countered.
As for forgiveness, it should have stated eating Hawaiian pizza without then repenting (either because you don't know that it's a sin which must be repented, or because you die first). Granted, I wholly disagree with the notion of anyone going to hell for drinking almond milk (another Good Place reference) or whatever. What I argue inside any debate, can broadly differ from my actual opinions.
My actual opinion, which I formed at a damned young age while in prayer, is that almost everyone goes through a type of cleansing purgatory. Even knowing Jesus' name isn't required, even while following his moral lessons is extremely useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32iCWzpDpKs
Some advice...
Make future resolutions single clause. In this case, either the murder or the healthcare.
Also you can lower your Burden of Proof with a less strong statement, such as "abortion ought to be regarded as murder."
Narrowing the scope can pre-refute many opposing arguments for being off topic. Like if you want to center the debate on the bible, you can make the resolution "Biblically, abortion is murder."
As for healthcare, the Hippocratic Oath is your best bet to argue that. There was a great episode of The Good Place where they explored that far into the Trolly Problem.
There's some more general advice at:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Looking forward to reading this one.
I'll admit I was somewhat pro-Israel until recently.
One thing I advise being careful of with this topic, is separating their crimes and justifications in the rest of Palestine from their crimes and justifications specifically in Gaza.
Oh my mind is long gone 🤯
Before I post my round, I would like to say that you are going to be a force to be reckoned with. Sure some polishing is needed, but it's rare for someone to catch the mistakes I plant (if you'll pardon the pun) in my arguments.
Depending on who accepts this, they will likely miss the question at the end of the description. It's very easy to get lost on this broad topic, but just staying in scope may be enough for victory.
Welcome, and good luck.
My planned arguments are straight forward and simple. Abortion is health care; regardless of if it is also murder (not that I think it is).
What kind of lame chicken soup doesn’t have any solids to chew?
Also…
https://youtu.be/TWhsjai-OVE?si=Owfo5_ZinrTVUd2p
A decent tactic comes to mind of a bandwagon appeal. Due to this debate being on a political issue, the beliefs of those who make the choice should not be dismissed out of hand.
From there it should be simple enough to show that
IF God,
THEN M <= 0.5
ELSE M > 0.5
Another tactic would be focus on Plan B as if it were abortion (which many cultists argue is true), which is most clearly not premeditated killing, as there is no confirmation of a pregnancy when the pill is taken (same with IUDs).
I might get around to voting on this today. I can't promise due to a busy schedule.
Fun argument. It initially relied too much on pro’s stated beliefs which he was easily able to counter as off topic; and then an unfortunately common misunderstanding of BoP. When you present an idea which is not a commonly accepted truism, you should provide something to imply it’s real. As an example, the Bible, and of course abortion laws being instituted by religious fanatics.
If doing something like this again, I suggest using the following debate for some inspiration: https://www.debateart.com/debates/950-the-bible-teaches-that-jesus-christ-is-god
It’d be more like blaming the bullet as a defense of the gun… Or if you’re a certain type of person, claim there’s only correlation not causation between being murdered and dying (people seriously argue this).
You're right!
Abortions are usually performed by poison pills, not people. Even surgical abortions, it's been ages since anyone made the tools out of humans. 😁
Definitions are a tough one for these.
Under the previous someone could just point to the laws of any non-theocracy; however, under the current it implies that this debate is just about if abortion terminates a pregnancy or not.
What I would expect to happen right now is either some noob accepts and forfeits, or someone to attack the human element kritiking that most abortions target non-humans. I admit I consider it implied that this is about humans, but if there is no other room for debate within the setup, then I'll accept an otherwise bastard tactic.
There was a decent live action trilogy. If memory serves, the first movie focused much on Light murdering police. The second wrapped things up in a much smarter way than the manga (L willingly sacrificed himself to win). The third was an extension of that ending, sharing nothing but themes with the original work.
There was also a terrible Netflix film, which might as well be called Emo Note.
If ever arguing this again, I suggest focusing on motives. Those people being saved was not the goal, being worshipped was. He was a religious terrorist.
Also, watching at least one episode would help a lot.
Would you like the title and description changed to reflect the agreed upon resolution?
Please don’t demean yourself by using the R word; especially with such little provocation.
You’re still nitpicking a minor legibility issue. Sure, had it made the argument incomprehensible I’d have voted for you, but I had no such difficulties.
-> the argument itself he has given is a failure.
I agree, just not for the reason you argued. You argued that the sentence structure was off, but I as a reader had no significant difficulty understanding it. Had you caught that it failed to touch in the issue of aid, then you would have easily won.
-> Who in the fucktardation says "A people" usually?
It’s actually a common phrasing. And again, even taking it on face value that it’s a bad sentence structure, that would still be nitpicking legibility instead of challenging the ideas therein.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People#:~:text=A%20people%20is%20any%20plurality,of%20people%20of%20a%20polity.
Cool story bro, but it failed to undermine the opposing case.
At best you could say you should have been award legibility, but the rules for that explicitly spell out it’s not awarded for petty nitpicking
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#legibility-formerly-spelling-and-grammar
A baby drowning in a pond is common and basic test applied to ethical systems. What does X command someone to do about it…
So what would your opinion be of people who run away from the pond to petition the government to force someone else to rescue said baby, yet refuse to do it themselves because they’re too special to be inconvenienced?
If said people stood by and let babies drown in a pond for fear of getting their shoes wet, what would your opinion of them be?
Ethically it would be quite similar (basically identical in their opinion). The key difference is that much like the pregnant woman, they may opt for some future more willing person to carry the fetus to term.
There was a limit of 500 characters, which caused things to have to be presented in their most simple form.
While I failed to get it across properly, if anyone has their feelings hurt by abortions, then they should preserve cells from each fetus for their later use. Ideally we’ll find a way to convert men into baby incubators, allowing for all men who oppose abortion to know the joys of pregnancy and prevent any “murders” from having occurred in abortions.
Somehow I doubt any of the anti abortion politicians would be willing to endure pregnancy were it an option.
That R2 was brutal!
Suriously, take a chill pill.
Thanks again for the debate.
If you’d ever like advice on strengthening any arguments, just ask.
Your arguments should provide a counter plan for what Israel should do in response to Hamas’ aggression.
You should also refute your opponents idea of surrendering, as in spell out for the audience why surrendering is a bad idea.
Right now a voter is likely to be forced to choose your opponent, simply because they’re the only one suggesting any course of action.
It's now a little sided against you, but as a voter I do get what you mean. Is their plan for safety good or bad? It's obviously bad if it outright makes them less safe than doing nothing; but doing nothing might be the absolute worst option... So maybe build a counter plan in your arguments which would most likely make them more safe. A lot of plans have been tried, and nothing has worked; but it's a good starting place to build an argument.
With that one sided of a resolution, expect to be Kritiked.
For starters, traditional ideas of defense and their current tactics are not mutually exclusive.
Removed by request
Trent0405
10.12.2023 03:06AM
Reason:
This debate would have benefited greatly from a comprehensive debate description outlining what constitutes a just war.
Nevertheless, there was one key point which crystallized Pro's victory in this debate, that being the dispute over the First Gulf War. Con had an issue with the idea that a country engaged in self-defence was also engaged in war. He points out in his third round that to think otherwise opens the door to every war being justified, as every war would have a just and unjust participant. However, Pro highlights the First Gulf War as an example of a war where the aggressing party (the coalition forces) were also the justified party. The Iraqis had no authority to take Kuwait, as Pro points out, thereby justifying the coalition forces in starting a war. Con never directly challenges this example, but he does tangentially combat the idea. After being faced with the Gulf War example, along with many other similar cases Pro brought up, Con seems to focus more on the moral character of humankind. Con argues that all war is unjustified because the very act of starting a war reflects a failure to exercise other alternative solutions. My main issue with a point like this is that Con doesn't do any of the legwork needed to make a point like this stick. Con is making a pretty broad and expansive point here, and simply stating the point does not make it convincing, especially when pushback is provided, which it was. In the end, Con did not elaborate as to how war as a can never, in practical terms, be an inevitability. Therefore, at the end of the debate, I am left with the impression that the First Gulf War was justified, and by extension, that a just war is possible.