Total posts: 104
Posted in:
Regardless of ratings, who are some of the best debaters on this site and why. (I say regardless of ratings because at this point, Oramagi isn't being over taken, even if some have the potential to be as good, if not better)
Created:
Posted in:
I've seen many accomplished debaters of whom all seems to have remarkable analytical and debating skills. I'm interested to hear some of your "actual" achievements achieved outside of this cite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If for some reason you cannot defend your claim, don't make it
Just like how you are incapable of proving God is real.
These things are true and will remain true no matter how much you fuss and fume
But surely you have to look into why the things is considered true in the first place. Why was God even considered to be real? Can you provide any evidence? The only thing you seem capable of doing is shifting the BoP.
You are clearly a very confused individual. If you are accused of murder and are facing a court system, do you have to a) provide evidence that you are not a killer and risk being charged or b) rebut all allegations thrown at you and maintain the status quo. Perhaps the lawyer can help us out here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
When you may say with sincerity that something is wrong, you have already acknowledged that something else is right.
This doesn't address things such as murder. Surely, sending someone to death is not right on the basis that you believe it is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It most certainly is your profession that bothers him.
Do you not understand humour? The joke is that the lawyer doesn't understand the law, hence they cannot comprehend how the BoP works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The bible quite literally says that you need to bend your knees to God to beg for forgiveness or be sent to Hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Have you wondered why he needs to repeat himself so many times.
Because SOMEONE clearly isn't absorbing the information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
If you told a child they will burn for eternity with Satan for lying, I'm pretty sure that, instead of striving for excellence, they would be terrified. Watch the following if you need clarification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't understand how he is spamming. He only posts as a response to you...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Honestly, if you want my advice, stop replying to this guy. He clearly has nothing in store except for pretty threats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No one is stalking no one.The mods don't seem to agree with you.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on the situation.
Do those "flaws" involve what the person does for a living? Or ignoring what the person says and simply reposting your contention as spam?
No, it's just funny to know that a reverend lawyer is being bamboozled about religion and law. You would think that the professionals among us would have some sort of bearing on what they are saying.
I will not tolerate harassment and bullying.
Oh wow, thanks, this is a massive case of bullying we have on our hands isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No one is stalking no one. Stephen is simply pointing out flaws in someone's argument, which is the whole point of this website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Lmao stop being that one person who joins the conversation with nothing to add.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
So how would you teach ur child that they can burn for eternity for lying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
TS has been correct and consistent on the matter of the BoP.
Nope. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Stephen seems greatly interested in TS. Perhaps you and he can start a TS thread where you 2 can obsess about him without "interference". Does that appeal to you?
Why don't obsess, we're just having a chuckle at a confused lad of whom's PoV has been cleanly dissected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Haha, at least I don't spend the night dreaming about an invisible man who I hope loves me.
Created:
Posted in:
Laroi - Always do
Stomzy - Audacity
Ariana Grande - pov
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If TS stopped with his hilariously poor and incoherent attempts at arguments from authority, maybe he won't keep us awake. Staring at the ceiling at night is a perfect time to reflect on your day, and when you encounter someone as comedic as TS, it's hard not to have a chuckle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
According to www.logicallyfallacious.com,
Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
You attempted to redirect the issue of abortion and justify it with a small population.
Now, rape consists of less than 1 percent of abortions in 2004. Notably, the top 3 reasons for abortion include, "not ready for a child, can't afford a child, don't want children", all three of which I have already debunked. In case you didn't see, here's why these three reasoning are poor.
Not ready for a child.
If you can kill a fetus because you're not ready for a child, can I kill a baby because I'm not ready for a teen?
Can't afford a child.
If I went to a poverty stricken community and shot up their public school, would I be simply saving a child and praised for getting these poor kids out of their terrible lives?
Don't want a child.
I don't want a teen. Can I kill him?
It is very poor for one to mention rape as though it justifies all abortions. If you want to talk about abortion, let's talk about the vast majority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
@Theweakeredge
Then mentioning rape was simply a red herring as I expected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I see right through you. Now you're trying to use the marginal case to justify the majority. Before we begin to discuss rape, can we agree that the majority of cases of abortion where no one is in harm is wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
But if the contraceptives fail, it will not be acceptable for them to abort the baby, after taking the willing risk of having a baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
The natural purpose of sex is to have babies.The main purpose of sex is yes, procreation, but for social creatures it’s also for strengthening social bonds.
But that's just like saying "oh I've become this way don't judge me it's in my blood". Men being violent is in their blood, but I certainly don't think you would condone a man beating their wife up because it is in their blood. Saying "we are social creatures and require sex" doesn't take away the fact that abortion kills a baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
On "Average" the child does not even have potential to become child (low success rate). So it is not wrong.
This is poor reasoning. I can say the average child does not become a successful contributor of society therefore allowing me to kill them. The point is that abortion involves the slaughter of a child.
When do you believe life begin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'll be keenly awaiting the lawyers reply, though I can imagine it will consist of denying, deflecting and discrediting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I obviously did not get the memo.
Not surprised.
how Stephen's post ripped my belief to shreds.
- The fact that you, someone who has shown to have lots to say, did not reply with your usual fruitful rebuttals, shows that you were stumped.
- Stephen dismantled your argument in a way which was clear for everyone to see. They took quotes from what you said, and successfully proved your point to be weak and pull of holes.
- Your argument was "God is the default answer", to which Stephen demonstrated was poor logic and unacceptable in both discussions and legal cases.
- You then replied with "But isn't that the entire point of your little petty post", essentially dropping all points and admitting defeat.
Either a) You admit that you bear the BoP for proving God, b) you continue to fight for your belief or c) you forfeit this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
AAHAHA. You know it's lost when you have to call the post petty to ignore the points made. I was actually very excited for your response towards Stephen, but to be fair, I didn't expect much from you.
You quite literally got your little belief that atheists bear the BoP ripped to shreds.
The least you could do is admit defeat and say "yes I do bear the BoP," instead of weasling away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
AAHAHA. You know it's lost when you have to call the post petty to ignore the points made. I was actually very excited for your response towards Stephen, but to be fair, I didn't expect much from you.
You quite literally got your little belief that atheists bear the BoP ripped to shreds.
The least you could do is admit defeat and say "yes I do bear the BoP," instead of weasling away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
What you are doing is using the marginal cases to justify the majority. I will not answer your question unless you believe the average abortion, where no one is in harm, is wrong .
Created:
Posted in:
lowering doesn't matter?
Lowering is just that. Lowering. You take contraceptives because you want to lower the chances of having a child, but it is in no way a perfect method, and that is a known fact. Having sex is like taking a gamble. Using contraceptives is like tweaking the odds into your favour. What you can’t do is tweak the odds into your favour and then expect to win 100% of the time. If you don’t want a baby, stop having sex for gods sake.
So what's the difference between Contraceptive being 98% effective vs abortion being 100% effective?
Because abortion ends with a dead baby. You’ve made the wrong comparison. It should be “what’s the difference between contraceptives being 98% effective and not having sex which is 100% effective”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Are you telling me we should not use contraceptives at all?
I'm saying you should use it if you want to lower the chances of having a baby, but if you do end up having a baby, you can't just say "oh well it is what it is".
Or that, when something is created for one purpose, we should not innovate and find new ways to use it?
The purpose of contraceptives is not to full proof you from having children. It simply lowers the chance. And as I mentioned above, lowering the chances doesn't really matter when the result includes a dead baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
A complete false equivalence. In no way is sex and aborting comparable with driving a car and crashing.There is a fundamental point you have failed to mention. The purpose of driving is to get around. The purpose of having sex is to have a baby. The difference between the two is that crashing is an unfortunate and unintended part of driving, while having a baby is the whole point of sexual interaction.
Here is a clearer example. Pretend you have a gun and point it at your child. To make this activity safer, you decide to take out 3 bullets, making this russian roulette with your child. If you then shoot and kill your child, you cannot expect saying “but I tried my best to keep it safe” is a valid argument, as the whole point of the game is to shoot your child. This is exactly the same with sex and abortion. You cannot just slip on a piece of rubber and say “well I’ve done what I can, that’s a pity”, as the whole point of sex is to have a child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stated by TS a few posts back in this forum.
My logic is not that a lot of people have agreed therefore it must be right. It is that the default position is in place for a reason, and just because someone comes along who disagrees with it - does not mean that suddenly the tradition has to prove itself. Why should the newcomer get the right to question the tradition without first putting up their reasons for why the tradition should be challenged?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
The natural purpose of sex is to have babies. If you are participating in sex, you have acknowledged the possibility of a baby. No one says contraception is perfect, but it is used if people want to lower the chances of having a baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
In 2014, about 37.8 million U.S. women aged 15–44 were using a contraceptive method. In contrast, only 471,000 abortions were provided to patients who reported they were using contraception in the month they became pregnant
Same article. I'm not sure what you make of this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
It’s not really that good of an argument. First of, the difference between a foetus and a slave is that the foetus is a result of the mothers direct and conscious action (not taking into account marginal cases). So to rephrase Ragnar's point with more accuracy, the mother creates a baby of whom they are obliged to carry.
To lay out this slave analogy, I must first define and describe the situation involving slavery and compare it to the situation of an abortion.
Slavery usually involves a slavetrader seizing another free individual and forcing them into labour.
Abortion usually involves a mother creating another free individual and murdering them.
Upon closer inspection, slavery is very much like abortion, but not like how you think. It is the baby who is created (without consent, one might add), and it is their free will which is breached when they are mercilessly killed. It seems like it is the mother who is the slave trader, who forcibly brings this human into the world, gives it no choice to be free and finish off by killing them.
The mother is in no way the slave in this analogy. The mother had a choice to have this baby and it is irresponsible to go back on your word, especially when a babies life is on the line.
Secondly, Ragnar uses the word “painlessly” to justify the murder of a fetus. To that I direct you to 14:06 of the following video.
Created:
Posted in:
Something I've already typed on this matter that you may all have already seen.
The following are very summarised responses to common arguments Pro-Choice individuals use.
I have no obligation to them. You can say that about your 3 year old child.
The unborn are clump of cells. So are you, you're reducible to cellular structures. Also, this does not excuse 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, which involve much more than an unrecognisable clump of cells.
The unborn don't feel pain. Does this mean painlessly gassing people to death is moral?
Women have a right to comfort. Does this mean a murder is allowed to burn a village down for their personal comfort?
They are dependent on the mother to live. Babies are dependent on their mothers outside of the womb. The elderly are dependent on their caretakers outside of the womb.
Abortion is deeply personal. Murder can also be deeply personal.
I can't afford them or I don't think they will have a good life without me. Does this mean I will be doing good if I murder starving African children? Does this mean I will be doing good if I murder homeless people?
They will be born with terrible disabilities. Does this mean I can go to a disability learning center mow all the disabled kids down?
They are not alive yet. Not according to the science of embryology. Nevertheless, when do you believe human life begins then?
Banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists. That’s like saying “banning cocaine means I have to get impure cocaine of the streets, you should legalise it so I can get access to the real and pure columiun stuff.
Women have a right to abort their baby to reach their full potential. Abortion is not something which happens spontaniously, you don’t wake up with a baby in your womb. If a women really cares about reaching their full potential, maybe they should use contraception or just walk away from sex.
Men cannot have opinions of a womanly matter. Does this mean doctors cannot have opinions on womanly matters? Does this mean a commentator cannot have an opinion on a game which he is not playing? Does this mean I am not allowed to intervene when my neighbor kicks their dog, which doesn’t affect me what so ever?
Women have a right to their bodies. This is completely true. However, the fetus is a different body unless you believe a pregnant woman has 20 fingers and 2 brains.
I can debunk any pro-choice argument on the basis that they believe murder is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Exactly!! That’s what I was trying to sy and the only thing I got back was “well who are you to question this old belief”
Created: