#2
Reason:
'Anyone' is a different term to 'everyone'. Only Pro used a source.
Con just says not everyone, Pro didn't say everyone, he said anyone. Even if we go with the idea that anyone who is not Christian does mean everyone who is not Christian, 'on the path' doesn't mean has arrived at the destination.
What Pro does prove is not what Barney says or what Con says, it's not a small subset Pro is focusing on but a lot/majority of atheists. It suggests that they are all on that path and majority are wililngly walking down it.
Con's reply "So he loses instantly, even before I bring up other religions like Islam and Judaism that also walk the path of trying to avoid sin and who avoidf sodomy"
It is a sin in Christianity to worship any idol other than the Christian God, for starters and Islam especially has the reverse policy meaning there's a sin there alone.
Con's other reply "He even conceedes that some atheists do not walk, but avoid and condemn, the path of sodomy." Doesn't realise that 'sin and sodomy' can mean that if one is on the path of sin by happens to condemn sodomy, they still are matching Pro's definition. Also this is a lie, I am not sure where Con sees this in Pro's constructive at all. This is not there.
Con lies about concession but this is not really enough to give a conduct mark since Pro is using another source's words as his constructive.
All who are atheistic to the Christian god, could be taken to be on the path of sin by default as it's a sin in Christianity to be against the Christian God. However, Pro's argument is only about atheists, that's true. So the question is why does 'anyone' being on the path mean Pro has to prove 'everyone' has gone all the way down the path.
The default position is actually that you're on the path since Con hasn't stated what path they're on instead or clarified why they aren't on it. Pro has also not clarified what constituted the path, so both are making errors. However, Pro made a case as to why an atheist is on the path, Con's literal statement is that he doesn't want to bring up Islam and Judaism and that it's just a fact that not everyone is on the path. If Con doesn't want to bring it up, I will accept that and not buy into that sneaky way of going abou tthings because if Con did bring them up, Con would fail due to the sin of worshipping false idols.
This all doesn't make sense to me. Both sides don't clarify what 'anyone' refers to or what the path constitutes. Thus, since only Pro explores how some non-Christians walk that path, I assume Con is merely lying about the others not being on it, since Con has done absolutely zero constructive explanation.
> "Quran came from Allah's ass. Allah is a pig. Quran came from pig's ass. Those who read Quran read from pig's ass."
Wait, isn't Allah yo momma's name?
/joke
I'm cleaning up the reports backlog. I hate to agree with Best.Korea on anything, but insults against public figures are allowed.
That said, I'm really surprised no one turned his insults around into a Yo Momma joke. At least LogicalDebater turned a bit of it around into a Grammar Nazi joke.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
And great topic, as it is very much debatable… To me it’d really boil down to if it’s the same person or not, but to a lot of people it’s solely about human DNA regardless of if a brain is attached.
---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.
RationalMadman
03.03.2024 10:23AM
#2
Reason:
'Anyone' is a different term to 'everyone'. Only Pro used a source.
Con just says not everyone, Pro didn't say everyone, he said anyone. Even if we go with the idea that anyone who is not Christian does mean everyone who is not Christian, 'on the path' doesn't mean has arrived at the destination.
What Pro does prove is not what Barney says or what Con says, it's not a small subset Pro is focusing on but a lot/majority of atheists. It suggests that they are all on that path and majority are wililngly walking down it.
Con's reply "So he loses instantly, even before I bring up other religions like Islam and Judaism that also walk the path of trying to avoid sin and who avoidf sodomy"
It is a sin in Christianity to worship any idol other than the Christian God, for starters and Islam especially has the reverse policy meaning there's a sin there alone.
Con's other reply "He even conceedes that some atheists do not walk, but avoid and condemn, the path of sodomy." Doesn't realise that 'sin and sodomy' can mean that if one is on the path of sin by happens to condemn sodomy, they still are matching Pro's definition. Also this is a lie, I am not sure where Con sees this in Pro's constructive at all. This is not there.
Con lies about concession but this is not really enough to give a conduct mark since Pro is using another source's words as his constructive.
All who are atheistic to the Christian god, could be taken to be on the path of sin by default as it's a sin in Christianity to be against the Christian God. However, Pro's argument is only about atheists, that's true. So the question is why does 'anyone' being on the path mean Pro has to prove 'everyone' has gone all the way down the path.
The default position is actually that you're on the path since Con hasn't stated what path they're on instead or clarified why they aren't on it. Pro has also not clarified what constituted the path, so both are making errors. However, Pro made a case as to why an atheist is on the path, Con's literal statement is that he doesn't want to bring up Islam and Judaism and that it's just a fact that not everyone is on the path. If Con doesn't want to bring it up, I will accept that and not buy into that sneaky way of going abou tthings because if Con did bring them up, Con would fail due to the sin of worshipping false idols.
This all doesn't make sense to me. Both sides don't clarify what 'anyone' refers to or what the path constitutes. Thus, since only Pro explores how some non-Christians walk that path, I assume Con is merely lying about the others not being on it, since Con has done absolutely zero constructive explanation.
For better or worse, we're not overreacting so much anymore. As much as the words are gross.
> "Quran came from Allah's ass. Allah is a pig. Quran came from pig's ass. Those who read Quran read from pig's ass."
Wait, isn't Allah yo momma's name?
/joke
I'm cleaning up the reports backlog. I hate to agree with Best.Korea on anything, but insults against public figures are allowed.
That said, I'm really surprised no one turned his insults around into a Yo Momma joke. At least LogicalDebater turned a bit of it around into a Grammar Nazi joke.
You rest your case?
https://youtu.be/Sf5C24wP5Pk?si=yb9UfxCmahJdPSdO&t=130
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
Any particular reason you reported your own debate?
Yes. I find them to be odd, but odd doesn't make them violate any rules nor the spirit thereof.
Dildo is arguably the most valuable member of society! That said, frying plans are king of the kitchen.
Watch an episode of the TV show Upload.
And great topic, as it is very much debatable… To me it’d really boil down to if it’s the same person or not, but to a lot of people it’s solely about human DNA regardless of if a brain is attached.
Thankfully there’s a couple weeks of voting remaining, so I’ll plan on re-reading the debate when it’s not so late at night.
---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.