I'm more than prepared for the mental condition argument. I have way more data (from pew research) with even more sophisticated graphs (which consider everything which may have been left out in my first round argument). No stones will be left unturned. Republicans may not want to regulate food as much as Democrats, but this may be due to the fact that they will get off their asses and go to the gym more frequently. All you really point out is the exact same mentality as why communists are losers to begin with. Trying to regulate others' behaviour instead of their own. Of course i believe a synthesis of these two ideologies must be where the truth exists. Yet communists are just as bad as hardcore conservatives.
I don't think your vote is illogical or misconstrued in the least, at least based on what you viewed us both as arguing about. I just thought the debate was about something completely different, i suppose. I'm unsure if my interpretation or yours is correct. I suppose only kritikal knows.
There's something deceptive about someone's problem being with the DSM but then opening a debate in which he aims his arguments against ODD yet refuses to comment on other mental conditions in the DSM? if he wanted a discussion on the DSM itself, as i said, he opened up the wrong debate. Or at the very least he needs to state as much that stuff in the description without at best (being super generous) vaguely implying it.
the potential application problems aren't problems just related to ODD. They're problems of most mental conditions in the DSM. This is why i kept telling him he has to attack the DSM itself. He didnt do it. He also ignored my prompts when i compared ODD to other mental disorders. You essentially just assumed what he intended to state, in places where its on him to state this stuff instead of assuming it for him. Anyone could win any debate if we simply assume what someone intended to argue for without directly stating it.
I see. I understand now. I didn't go down that route as I took too it that we were strictly talking about ODD and not the DSM itself being the problem. My logic told me if his problem was with the DSM, he would open up a debate about the DSM itself and its loose interpretations, not specifically ODD and its loose interpretations. This led me to work within the framework of assuming he didn't think the DSM itself was the problem. I still think this is the case. He never directly called out the DSM for being vague, and this is why I contrasted the potential vagueness of ADHD to ODD. If he has a problem with ODD, he too should have ADHD. He dodged this. If he hadn't dodged this or simply put it in the description of his view of the DSM itself, this could have been avoided.
-
I think you've been extremely generous and seen something he himself didnt either.
Isn't the debate about whether ODD should exist in the DSM? I don't see why it is relevant if there could be perceived overlap between ODD and other mental disorders/categories. It wasn't necessary at all for me to engage with his checklist if I could show it currently meets the DSM's conditions to be considered a mental condition. It is on pro to posit his view on why this mode of categorisation is wrong to begin with. I understand voting for pro for the forfeit. I think you wanted me to engage in a lot of things which I just didn't need to though.
the current prison system. not a slave labour program. The slave labour program could bring in profits but the overall prison system could still be ran at a deficit if its only a small sector of prisoners being used as slave labour. I should have brought up the gulags. They certainly weren't run at a deficit. I'm not going to continue though. It's a troll debate, so I don't particularly care about the vote or anything of the sort.
-
"The main point that didn't come up imo is that maxsec prisoners are maxsec for a reason. Usually they aren't placed there for their crimes, but to prevent more violence in the prison itself."
-
That's on con to point out. If that's the case, why would I build his argument for him? It sounds more like you voted based on what you would have done and the flaws in my argument that you think you could have countered as opposed to what actually happened. All you really point out is the fact that you already agreed with Con before reading the debate and debated vicariously through him.
"The main point that PRO brings up is that the prison system runs at a massive deficit and this could be alleviated by slave labor. The most relevant counterargument in my opinion on the part of CON as this is a economically motivated argument was that of COST. Through a quote, CON brings up that there are costs associated with employing prison inmates in addition to the regular costs of just keeping them in prison, such as transportation and training. Pro mainly dismisses this argument saying that without statistics it doesn't prove anything."
Well yeah, he didn't prove anything. He didn't prove it would now be run at a deficit. The debate, as you said, was simply speculation. I cant combat the point as it's literally impossible to find statistics on it. Same for him. Its not like that information is laying around on the net and i intentionally ignored it, it simply isn't. He was doing guesswork like me too but my guess work is unjustified and his isn't?
If you give me the heavier burden of proof (understandably) then i admittedly lost the debate. If you don't, i cant see a loss as being justified.
"You can say you like Bernie (I like him too) but unless you support raising your taxes 35-50% on day one of his administration, you can't say that you support his political plan because everything Bernie wants to do depends on that transfer of funds to the state."
Its evident to me that America needs to modernise a bit, take on a social democracy type economic policy (seen in Europe with higher taxes). It seems inevitable.
40% of democrats have a mental illness compared to 12% of republicans, that's a massive difference. Its on con to show this difference is caused through a stigma against mental health.
I disagree. We can, of course, debate the topic one day, if you want. You can have immoral dispositions and I'd hold true to that. To deny it, you would have to go into communist absolute skeptic mode.
I'm not a communist. But I'm on the left, and from reading your debates it seems like you are too. Bernie is based ASF, best American politician. I completely disagree that leftists have a good view of human nature. Have you ever spoken to literal communists? they're ultimate sceptics. They deny everything.
I'm very much on the left. Since you're so much into politics. Do you want to accept my current right vs left debate? I think most republicans would say most humans have a sinful nature. I think most leftists would too, I don't think its a political thing. Most leftists would argue its actually a benefit to the self to be in a communist society. They're well aware most bourgeoise will reject it.
To argue humans don't have immoral desires (like a hamster or spider) is akin to arguing we cannot do moral wrong. If we had no immoral desires, it should be impossible to do evil.
Maybe it's not directly in our genetics to eat our children. Yet other things we definitely wouldn't consider virtuous, such as greed, envy, and hate. Certainly they are, and are all things that lead to harm. Paedophilia seems to have strong genetic links, as does depression. Being natural doesn't make them morally neutral. Although we see ageing as a natural part of life, we still may deem it "incorrect" or "unjust" that this is the case. I still cried when my grandad died, despite knowing it would one day happen and it is natural.
-
I think it's common sense to say most humans will be far more immoral if they can get away with it. This was discussed in Socrates's republic, actually. Just looking at history, we can see that during times of war, men DO rape. Look at the Japanese in China, the soviets in Germany. The Russians currently in Ukraine. Humans are slightly more malleable to the environment due to being a more social species. Yet, its evident we have "immoral" desires.
As long as you cant prove the foetus isn't a human. All you point out is the idea that people can be insensitive to another human life if it doesn't benefit them in some form. I would argue that natural fact doesn't make it moral or acceptable.
Why is rape not a naturally evolutionary form of conduct? We see it within the animal kingdom. Male geese literally have a penis like a padlock opener so they can rape female geese.
What does something have to be to be quantified as "natural" for you? what does something being natural look like?
It could be argued that it is human nature for most men to rape in times of war, when they know they can get away with it. Hate, which leads to killing others, is not one would say is virtuous, yet it remains part of the nature of being a human. It is evident we are in constant war with ourselves, constantly monitoring and judging if an action is acceptable, natural or not. Paedophilia and psychopathy seem to have genetic ties, and therefore are "natural". That doesn't mean we find such things morally permissible.
-
The fact mothers grief over their miscarried children shows they view it as an injustice that their child had to be hurt in such a cruel manner.
Something can be natural while being immoral. Calling a miscarriage an abortion feels like a strawman too. Although technically correct, no one says they "had an abortion" when they had a miscarriage. It's like someone saying gay people are bad and someone goes, "Actually, gay just means happy!"
My intention was never to argue beauty exists outside any observer. Simply that it is mostly innate, although as you already know I've not been motivated at all to do debates.
I was thinking before, about how Bones could have beat you. How would you respond to the argument that, although anti-abortion laws create structural violence against women, pro-abortion laws also create structural violence against unborn babies?
-
I feel like this spins your own argument against you. He could of argued that if the murder of a fetus is legally permissible if they create structural violence. Would you then also concede that it should be legally permissible to murder criminals and politicians who create structural violence?
-
It seems that this is the argument that bones needed to force you to argue on bone's terms, to argue the morality before the policy is in question. Unless you think my analysis is incorrect?
Some things. I don't even deny that within my debate. We're strictly talking about genetic beauty for humans, even then both humans and animals agree on some things being beautiful (such as symmetry and health). Simplicity and averageness is always beautiful. Thats enough in my worldview to account for most of human "beauty" as you can have the best jawline but if its lopsided or one eye is on your forehead and the other on your nose, you're ugly no matter how nice your jaw.
Although you're technically correct. Your argument feels like a strawman. You refuse to partake in showing him there's more effective moral frameworks (depending on what you want to accomplish). It feels more like you just refused to play the game and tipped the board.
"Me: How do you know the laws of logic are constant and hold true?"
This is an interesting philosophical debate to be had. Although not many philosopher say it ends in "hmmm idk"
It is more accurate to say that logic works along the lines of pattern detection, necessity (via contradictions) aka a priori, and order. Without said pattern recognition, there would be no order, no patterns, and then no observation nor life. It's directly contradictory to question the legitimacy of logic while using logic. It is like trying to disprove the legitimacy of maths using maths.
Seeing this debate has given me flashbacks to the fact that you don't debate ideas but definitions. I'm going to have to block you whenever i open a new debate and unblock you when someone accepts. I have little time to argue the definitions of words for hours each day instead of discussing the ideas i present in themselves. I've never had these semantic games with anyone but you.
Would you support certain 12 year olds being coal miners then? would you trust a 13 year old being your delivery driver? come on. It doesn't even matter if they're capable of such a thing, they should be focusing on beings kids and getting an education, instead of coming into adulthood so early. I cant imagine such a thing is good for ones mental health.
Whiteflame could have made an argument for independent viability (from another's body) determining lawful personhood. Most fetuses are not independently viable (unlike a newborn baby). This also avoids any argument bones could of used to the mentally disabled and physically handicapped and those hooked up to machines for life support. It must be remembered that there is a distinction between personhood and humanhood.
I'd disagree. If whiteflame made a bodily autonomy argument (not using analogies, but real world examples). He would of won. Bones's analogies on bodily autonomy are all speculative, they can fail to be applicable to real world examples, people who are anti-abortion tend to fall in this pitfall. While with those pro-abortion, there's many real-world examples of bodily autonomy court rulings to choose from, all in favour of their side. Bones's argument to the lack of independence of a new born, compared to a fetus is faulty to say the least.
Conclusion
Although I got lazy at the end and left a lot of important stuff out (it's such a good debate I couldn't put everything into it even if I wanted to without taking hours). Bones’s argument rests in the idea that if fetuses don't have rights no one does. Whiteflame never really argued back against this. Yet even if whiteflame concedes this point, im unsure how that translates to abortion OUGHT to be illegal. Whiteflames argument was evidently based on deontology and pragmatic utility (as opposed to anyone having rights). While bones had a deontological argument in round 1 it did feel more like utilitarianism, especially in later rounds. Bones was willing to bear the potential consequences of abortion “for the greater good”.
In conclusion, I'm still left not being sure whether abortion should be illegal or not. In that regard, I consider the debate a draw. Whiteflame failed to point out when people should gain rights in clear language (which is disastrous and allows the ceding of rights at any moment). In the case of whiteflame, if he intended to assign personhood to someone depending on whether they create structural violence or not, I imagine there could be some really big problems with that. Bones’ essentially make a section of the population invisible and neglected and makes life harder for the functions of everyday society, for some sort of "greater good". All in all whiteflames argument was an argument to pragmatic societal utility/functioning and health, while bones’s felt like an argument to principle and utilitarianism. Bones ended up looking like he has no idea how his abortion laws would affect society and was just praying it would work out, and the entire reason he wants them is on principle. The same could be said for whiteflame and failing to give a clear statement to when someone should gain rights. Overall, if bones has the larger burden of proof (like I believe) he lost. If he didnt, he drew.
Since there was no shared consensus on whether I'm correct in my interpretation of the burden of proof. I then have to give the debate a draw. I believe bones won the debate on principle, while whiteflame won the debate on what provides the most societal health/utility.
Bones states the burden of proof within this debate is shared. Although the burden of proof is shared, it cannot be reasonably denied that bones has a heavier burden of proof than whiteflame does. After all, the titling of the debate is "On balance, the US ought to make abortion illegal." if i leave this debate believing abortion ought to be illegal, i ought to vote for bones. If not, my vote should naturally be casted in the direction of whiteflame simply through Bones possessing a heavier burden of proof and failing to fulfill it (based on the title).
Round 1
Bones begins his round 1 argument through a number of syllogisms as to when a person becomes a person (he states it should be at conception). He also makes a number of syllogisms as to why abortion is immoral or unjustifiable if personhood begins at conception. I imagine Bones was hoping for a debate on the nature of personhood. If Whiteflame had played into Bones’s syllogisms and debated him on personhood, he would have lost and the debate would have become unrecoverable. He dodged this pitfall and instead created an argument for why abortion should be legal regardless of when personhood starts (an argument through the necessity to not allow structural violence). This maneuver from Whiteflame was excellent, it took the flow and control of the debate away from Bones' court and forced the burden of proof onto Bones. This was the turning point for Whiteflame to control the debate. Whiteflame dictated where the debate went and when.
Round 2
Bones begins his round 2 by pointing to authority figures, pointing out that 95% of biologists believe that a human's life begins at conception. I wont say much on this argument, there must evidently be a strong reason as to why so many biologists agree on this position. Yet it means nothing if bones cannot provide any substance to why this is relevant to anything Whiteflame has said in the first round (after all, Whiteflame has conceded it doesn't matter when personhood begins for his argument). This was therefore a null point.
Bones’s second argument was much better, much more clever. Bones states that all laws have reasonable exceptions. (theft being one of them).This was a very strong argument for bones within this round, and through this argument alone essentially secured him his share of (percieved) the burden of proof.
Bones also creates a strong argument within this round to the fact that if fetuses don't have personhood, no one does. Therefore, bones is prompting Whiteflame to the fact that he's failed to outline when a person becomes a person (a strong argument in my mind, one in the ideal world Whiteflame should address). However, it seems like Whiteflame wasn't confident in arguing personhood, so he avoided it. which, in my mind, was the best decision to not get railed into a personhood discussion.
I can't be bothered writing all this out, so I'm going to be less detailed. Bones then begins to talk about anti-abortion laws in the UK and Ireland, which have had success. I believe Whiteflame efficiently combats these points within the next round.
Bones and utilitarianism
Bones then goes on to say Whiteflame's argument is based on utilitarianism (something Whiteflame denies and reasonably defends against) in fact, Whiteflame showed Bones to be a hypocrite on this point. He demonstrates that bones makes a small sector of the population essentially faceless for the rights of the majority (the fetus’s). This alone denies bones’s own slavery analogy, which he uses against whiteflame, as he's contradicted himself.
I'm more than prepared for the mental condition argument. I have way more data (from pew research) with even more sophisticated graphs (which consider everything which may have been left out in my first round argument). No stones will be left unturned. Republicans may not want to regulate food as much as Democrats, but this may be due to the fact that they will get off their asses and go to the gym more frequently. All you really point out is the exact same mentality as why communists are losers to begin with. Trying to regulate others' behaviour instead of their own. Of course i believe a synthesis of these two ideologies must be where the truth exists. Yet communists are just as bad as hardcore conservatives.
I don't think your vote is illogical or misconstrued in the least, at least based on what you viewed us both as arguing about. I just thought the debate was about something completely different, i suppose. I'm unsure if my interpretation or yours is correct. I suppose only kritikal knows.
There's something deceptive about someone's problem being with the DSM but then opening a debate in which he aims his arguments against ODD yet refuses to comment on other mental conditions in the DSM? if he wanted a discussion on the DSM itself, as i said, he opened up the wrong debate. Or at the very least he needs to state as much that stuff in the description without at best (being super generous) vaguely implying it.
the potential application problems aren't problems just related to ODD. They're problems of most mental conditions in the DSM. This is why i kept telling him he has to attack the DSM itself. He didnt do it. He also ignored my prompts when i compared ODD to other mental disorders. You essentially just assumed what he intended to state, in places where its on him to state this stuff instead of assuming it for him. Anyone could win any debate if we simply assume what someone intended to argue for without directly stating it.
I see. I understand now. I didn't go down that route as I took too it that we were strictly talking about ODD and not the DSM itself being the problem. My logic told me if his problem was with the DSM, he would open up a debate about the DSM itself and its loose interpretations, not specifically ODD and its loose interpretations. This led me to work within the framework of assuming he didn't think the DSM itself was the problem. I still think this is the case. He never directly called out the DSM for being vague, and this is why I contrasted the potential vagueness of ADHD to ODD. If he has a problem with ODD, he too should have ADHD. He dodged this. If he hadn't dodged this or simply put it in the description of his view of the DSM itself, this could have been avoided.
-
I think you've been extremely generous and seen something he himself didnt either.
Isn't the debate about whether ODD should exist in the DSM? I don't see why it is relevant if there could be perceived overlap between ODD and other mental disorders/categories. It wasn't necessary at all for me to engage with his checklist if I could show it currently meets the DSM's conditions to be considered a mental condition. It is on pro to posit his view on why this mode of categorisation is wrong to begin with. I understand voting for pro for the forfeit. I think you wanted me to engage in a lot of things which I just didn't need to though.
"It already runs at a deficit?"
the current prison system. not a slave labour program. The slave labour program could bring in profits but the overall prison system could still be ran at a deficit if its only a small sector of prisoners being used as slave labour. I should have brought up the gulags. They certainly weren't run at a deficit. I'm not going to continue though. It's a troll debate, so I don't particularly care about the vote or anything of the sort.
-
"The main point that didn't come up imo is that maxsec prisoners are maxsec for a reason. Usually they aren't placed there for their crimes, but to prevent more violence in the prison itself."
-
That's on con to point out. If that's the case, why would I build his argument for him? It sounds more like you voted based on what you would have done and the flaws in my argument that you think you could have countered as opposed to what actually happened. All you really point out is the fact that you already agreed with Con before reading the debate and debated vicariously through him.
Pokémon is for geeks. Are you calling Andrew Top G Tate a geek?
I guess ill see Andrew Tate there.
Where did I say that?
1,000 character limit? con just has to bring up the fact andrew tate is an empirical evidence denier.
"The main point that PRO brings up is that the prison system runs at a massive deficit and this could be alleviated by slave labor. The most relevant counterargument in my opinion on the part of CON as this is a economically motivated argument was that of COST. Through a quote, CON brings up that there are costs associated with employing prison inmates in addition to the regular costs of just keeping them in prison, such as transportation and training. Pro mainly dismisses this argument saying that without statistics it doesn't prove anything."
Well yeah, he didn't prove anything. He didn't prove it would now be run at a deficit. The debate, as you said, was simply speculation. I cant combat the point as it's literally impossible to find statistics on it. Same for him. Its not like that information is laying around on the net and i intentionally ignored it, it simply isn't. He was doing guesswork like me too but my guess work is unjustified and his isn't?
If you give me the heavier burden of proof (understandably) then i admittedly lost the debate. If you don't, i cant see a loss as being justified.
"You can say you like Bernie (I like him too) but unless you support raising your taxes 35-50% on day one of his administration, you can't say that you support his political plan because everything Bernie wants to do depends on that transfer of funds to the state."
Its evident to me that America needs to modernise a bit, take on a social democracy type economic policy (seen in Europe with higher taxes). It seems inevitable.
40% of democrats have a mental illness compared to 12% of republicans, that's a massive difference. Its on con to show this difference is caused through a stigma against mental health.
sorry, i completely misread what you said.
I disagree. We can, of course, debate the topic one day, if you want. You can have immoral dispositions and I'd hold true to that. To deny it, you would have to go into communist absolute skeptic mode.
Leftists are also far more likely to be mentally ill (as I've noticed).
Oh man, you're going to have so many studies coming your way.
You can bring up anecdotes all you want and extremes. We're simply talking about the average.
"Why are all Islamic Terrorists practically Fascist and far-right in outlook?"
you must not know of the Ba'athist ideology.
Do you want it? or do you agree with me?
edited. Leftists in the west are soy asf.
Leftists are usually loser nihilists/absurdist's who believe there's no meaning to existence and that everything is atheism.
I'm not a communist. But I'm on the left, and from reading your debates it seems like you are too. Bernie is based ASF, best American politician. I completely disagree that leftists have a good view of human nature. Have you ever spoken to literal communists? they're ultimate sceptics. They deny everything.
I'm very much on the left. Since you're so much into politics. Do you want to accept my current right vs left debate? I think most republicans would say most humans have a sinful nature. I think most leftists would too, I don't think its a political thing. Most leftists would argue its actually a benefit to the self to be in a communist society. They're well aware most bourgeoise will reject it.
To argue humans don't have immoral desires (like a hamster or spider) is akin to arguing we cannot do moral wrong. If we had no immoral desires, it should be impossible to do evil.
Maybe it's not directly in our genetics to eat our children. Yet other things we definitely wouldn't consider virtuous, such as greed, envy, and hate. Certainly they are, and are all things that lead to harm. Paedophilia seems to have strong genetic links, as does depression. Being natural doesn't make them morally neutral. Although we see ageing as a natural part of life, we still may deem it "incorrect" or "unjust" that this is the case. I still cried when my grandad died, despite knowing it would one day happen and it is natural.
-
I think it's common sense to say most humans will be far more immoral if they can get away with it. This was discussed in Socrates's republic, actually. Just looking at history, we can see that during times of war, men DO rape. Look at the Japanese in China, the soviets in Germany. The Russians currently in Ukraine. Humans are slightly more malleable to the environment due to being a more social species. Yet, its evident we have "immoral" desires.
but this isn't my debate, you do you.
As long as you cant prove the foetus isn't a human. All you point out is the idea that people can be insensitive to another human life if it doesn't benefit them in some form. I would argue that natural fact doesn't make it moral or acceptable.
Why is rape not a naturally evolutionary form of conduct? We see it within the animal kingdom. Male geese literally have a penis like a padlock opener so they can rape female geese.
What does something have to be to be quantified as "natural" for you? what does something being natural look like?
It could be argued that it is human nature for most men to rape in times of war, when they know they can get away with it. Hate, which leads to killing others, is not one would say is virtuous, yet it remains part of the nature of being a human. It is evident we are in constant war with ourselves, constantly monitoring and judging if an action is acceptable, natural or not. Paedophilia and psychopathy seem to have genetic ties, and therefore are "natural". That doesn't mean we find such things morally permissible.
-
The fact mothers grief over their miscarried children shows they view it as an injustice that their child had to be hurt in such a cruel manner.
Something can be natural while being immoral. Calling a miscarriage an abortion feels like a strawman too. Although technically correct, no one says they "had an abortion" when they had a miscarriage. It's like someone saying gay people are bad and someone goes, "Actually, gay just means happy!"
My intention was never to argue beauty exists outside any observer. Simply that it is mostly innate, although as you already know I've not been motivated at all to do debates.
I was thinking before, about how Bones could have beat you. How would you respond to the argument that, although anti-abortion laws create structural violence against women, pro-abortion laws also create structural violence against unborn babies?
-
I feel like this spins your own argument against you. He could of argued that if the murder of a fetus is legally permissible if they create structural violence. Would you then also concede that it should be legally permissible to murder criminals and politicians who create structural violence?
-
It seems that this is the argument that bones needed to force you to argue on bone's terms, to argue the morality before the policy is in question. Unless you think my analysis is incorrect?
Some things. I don't even deny that within my debate. We're strictly talking about genetic beauty for humans, even then both humans and animals agree on some things being beautiful (such as symmetry and health). Simplicity and averageness is always beautiful. Thats enough in my worldview to account for most of human "beauty" as you can have the best jawline but if its lopsided or one eye is on your forehead and the other on your nose, you're ugly no matter how nice your jaw.
Some things may be conflated. Yet i hold true that its both inborn and universal that no one is turnt off by clear skin.
lol mall you're so funny
You should be charged with criminal offenses if you genuinely think pixel art is bad, rational madman.
Although you're technically correct. Your argument feels like a strawman. You refuse to partake in showing him there's more effective moral frameworks (depending on what you want to accomplish). It feels more like you just refused to play the game and tipped the board.
"Me: How do you know the laws of logic are constant and hold true?"
This is an interesting philosophical debate to be had. Although not many philosopher say it ends in "hmmm idk"
It is more accurate to say that logic works along the lines of pattern detection, necessity (via contradictions) aka a priori, and order. Without said pattern recognition, there would be no order, no patterns, and then no observation nor life. It's directly contradictory to question the legitimacy of logic while using logic. It is like trying to disprove the legitimacy of maths using maths.
Seeing this debate has given me flashbacks to the fact that you don't debate ideas but definitions. I'm going to have to block you whenever i open a new debate and unblock you when someone accepts. I have little time to argue the definitions of words for hours each day instead of discussing the ideas i present in themselves. I've never had these semantic games with anyone but you.
putting lyrics is inappropriate after the debate is over, ok. How exactly is that offensive to anybody?
Would you support certain 12 year olds being coal miners then? would you trust a 13 year old being your delivery driver? come on. It doesn't even matter if they're capable of such a thing, they should be focusing on beings kids and getting an education, instead of coming into adulthood so early. I cant imagine such a thing is good for ones mental health.
well, i think you should of. It seems bones is really contemplating them in DM's (with a lot of resistance).
Whiteflame could have made an argument for independent viability (from another's body) determining lawful personhood. Most fetuses are not independently viable (unlike a newborn baby). This also avoids any argument bones could of used to the mentally disabled and physically handicapped and those hooked up to machines for life support. It must be remembered that there is a distinction between personhood and humanhood.
"I doubt that anyone who thought abortion was murder would really think the government should allow it"
That's true, yet there was never really any truly concrete evidence that abortion laws stop abortion anyways.
I'd disagree. If whiteflame made a bodily autonomy argument (not using analogies, but real world examples). He would of won. Bones's analogies on bodily autonomy are all speculative, they can fail to be applicable to real world examples, people who are anti-abortion tend to fall in this pitfall. While with those pro-abortion, there's many real-world examples of bodily autonomy court rulings to choose from, all in favour of their side. Bones's argument to the lack of independence of a new born, compared to a fetus is faulty to say the least.
Would you disagree?
Its very generous for me to give bones a draw here, to be honest.
Conclusion
Although I got lazy at the end and left a lot of important stuff out (it's such a good debate I couldn't put everything into it even if I wanted to without taking hours). Bones’s argument rests in the idea that if fetuses don't have rights no one does. Whiteflame never really argued back against this. Yet even if whiteflame concedes this point, im unsure how that translates to abortion OUGHT to be illegal. Whiteflames argument was evidently based on deontology and pragmatic utility (as opposed to anyone having rights). While bones had a deontological argument in round 1 it did feel more like utilitarianism, especially in later rounds. Bones was willing to bear the potential consequences of abortion “for the greater good”.
In conclusion, I'm still left not being sure whether abortion should be illegal or not. In that regard, I consider the debate a draw. Whiteflame failed to point out when people should gain rights in clear language (which is disastrous and allows the ceding of rights at any moment). In the case of whiteflame, if he intended to assign personhood to someone depending on whether they create structural violence or not, I imagine there could be some really big problems with that. Bones’ essentially make a section of the population invisible and neglected and makes life harder for the functions of everyday society, for some sort of "greater good". All in all whiteflames argument was an argument to pragmatic societal utility/functioning and health, while bones’s felt like an argument to principle and utilitarianism. Bones ended up looking like he has no idea how his abortion laws would affect society and was just praying it would work out, and the entire reason he wants them is on principle. The same could be said for whiteflame and failing to give a clear statement to when someone should gain rights. Overall, if bones has the larger burden of proof (like I believe) he lost. If he didnt, he drew.
Since there was no shared consensus on whether I'm correct in my interpretation of the burden of proof. I then have to give the debate a draw. I believe bones won the debate on principle, while whiteflame won the debate on what provides the most societal health/utility.
Bones states the burden of proof within this debate is shared. Although the burden of proof is shared, it cannot be reasonably denied that bones has a heavier burden of proof than whiteflame does. After all, the titling of the debate is "On balance, the US ought to make abortion illegal." if i leave this debate believing abortion ought to be illegal, i ought to vote for bones. If not, my vote should naturally be casted in the direction of whiteflame simply through Bones possessing a heavier burden of proof and failing to fulfill it (based on the title).
Round 1
Bones begins his round 1 argument through a number of syllogisms as to when a person becomes a person (he states it should be at conception). He also makes a number of syllogisms as to why abortion is immoral or unjustifiable if personhood begins at conception. I imagine Bones was hoping for a debate on the nature of personhood. If Whiteflame had played into Bones’s syllogisms and debated him on personhood, he would have lost and the debate would have become unrecoverable. He dodged this pitfall and instead created an argument for why abortion should be legal regardless of when personhood starts (an argument through the necessity to not allow structural violence). This maneuver from Whiteflame was excellent, it took the flow and control of the debate away from Bones' court and forced the burden of proof onto Bones. This was the turning point for Whiteflame to control the debate. Whiteflame dictated where the debate went and when.
Round 2
Bones begins his round 2 by pointing to authority figures, pointing out that 95% of biologists believe that a human's life begins at conception. I wont say much on this argument, there must evidently be a strong reason as to why so many biologists agree on this position. Yet it means nothing if bones cannot provide any substance to why this is relevant to anything Whiteflame has said in the first round (after all, Whiteflame has conceded it doesn't matter when personhood begins for his argument). This was therefore a null point.
Bones’s second argument was much better, much more clever. Bones states that all laws have reasonable exceptions. (theft being one of them).This was a very strong argument for bones within this round, and through this argument alone essentially secured him his share of (percieved) the burden of proof.
Bones also creates a strong argument within this round to the fact that if fetuses don't have personhood, no one does. Therefore, bones is prompting Whiteflame to the fact that he's failed to outline when a person becomes a person (a strong argument in my mind, one in the ideal world Whiteflame should address). However, it seems like Whiteflame wasn't confident in arguing personhood, so he avoided it. which, in my mind, was the best decision to not get railed into a personhood discussion.
I can't be bothered writing all this out, so I'm going to be less detailed. Bones then begins to talk about anti-abortion laws in the UK and Ireland, which have had success. I believe Whiteflame efficiently combats these points within the next round.
Bones and utilitarianism
Bones then goes on to say Whiteflame's argument is based on utilitarianism (something Whiteflame denies and reasonably defends against) in fact, Whiteflame showed Bones to be a hypocrite on this point. He demonstrates that bones makes a small sector of the population essentially faceless for the rights of the majority (the fetus’s). This alone denies bones’s own slavery analogy, which he uses against whiteflame, as he's contradicted himself.