Yeah I knew I was going to lose; I was certainly messiest and just didn't do a good job. I'm going to do this debate again when I have more time in a few months with whoever and I'll do better and make clearer and by far better arguments (though generally the same thing I tried to argue this debate in a way but the right way)..
Yeah I knew I was going to lose; I was certainly messiest and just didn't do a good job. I'm going to do this debate again when I have more time in a few months with whoever and I'll do better and make clearer and by far better arguments (though generally the same thing I tried to argue this debate in a way but the right way)..
P.S. I may have been a bit extra repetitive, but I still felt like that character limit was way too restrictive for my taste. Sometimes I get a bit wordy. And I might've could've edited it better, but I've had to delete a bit this round.
Wanted to make it more rebuttal-ish feel as if I was going to say something else wonder if checking that spot I wrote all those notes will shed light on if was going to say more or not felt like I couldn't make this more rebuttal-ish because low time and low personal time anyway would've waited until felt like had time which is never and also low char. limit etc. idk ...
I guess my argument's fine and good enough and all IDK if could make it better and I probably feel like it's worse than it is spent a lot of time brainstorming little time reading what I brainstormed Idk if I could really make it that much better but I still just don't like how my life's going right now effin' thing Just wanted say that. IDK.
Fourthly, I haven't expanded my arguments as much as I'd like and am planning to enhance many of them this upcoming round. There’s a bit more I’d like to say.
And fifthly,
"Now, this does not mean all parents make the most rational decisions. But, trusting either the parent or the child for what’s best for the child, the parent more often than not will know best. A parent might make a decision over a deeply-held political belief, as you were referencing, something that is controversial. But keeping politics aside, as well as parental rights over their child, this would not imply to give children the right to decide, but the government."
seems unclear, and I would like to mention that I will better-clarify this in the next round of the debate. I had written the argument out and was going to add it to this comment, but it ended up getting really long (longer than my round 1 argument) and off-topic to vaccinations themselves, and it's mostly a counter-argument, anyway.
Here are some mistakes I plan to make right in the next round of the debate:
First of all, the first link in the 7th paragraph of 9 was, mistakenly, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/04/09/mobile-access-shifts-social-media-use-and-other-online-activities/; however, it was meant to be https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/01/07/how-parents-monitor-their-teens-digital-behavior/. I had a list of citations in a word document, and accidentally copied the unneeded one below the one I wanted instead.
It seems as if you did that with your second link, so I guess I don't have to feel as bad.
Secondly, and this is not really important, but I had copied two links at once when pasting the fourth link in the second paragraph, and I had used the wrong link of the two for the third link in the second paragraph, all mistakenly.
The fourth link in the second paragraph was supposed to be https://www.raisingchildren.net.au/teens/behaviour, and the third link in the second paragraph was supposed to be https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3468907/. These do not really matter or affect the debate, however.
Thirdly, and this does not affect the debate either, but I was going to add formatting and headers.
P.S. I will add commentary tomorrow, providing notes on a few things I rushed through. I will also clarify them in the next round of the debate to make it official, but there are a few leaps of logic or odd citations or something of the such I would like to clarify.
Also, some of the links almost have hidden meanings as rebuttals, but I didn't have time to spell them out so I just hid them. Some of the links I think also imply more than what I had merely written. So it would be cool if you guys checked them.
So you do believe the law may still limit one's Medical choices, but just not the parents. Hmmm...
This is a good debate! I'm leaning towards Con myself, might accept, 'll have to think about it...
Not 100% sure yet. But if I am against this proposition, I might make this each of our first debates!
I oughtta think more about how and what this would mean realistically.
My biggest problems would be (1) making this not overly philosophical and (2) fully covering and thinking about what this truly might mean/do/affect in the real world.
Could drugs be "Medical?" What about drugs taken legally, but prescribed illegally? I think that exists. Or drugs taken illegally, but for medical reasons?
And does trans surgery count as a "surgery?" Even blatant self-mutilation, performed by themself? Would any or all of these count?
Also, just to clarify, they would have the freedom to act independently, but would they always have the freedom to act, to do absolutely anything they desire (as far as medicine is concerned), just so long as they could pay for it independently?
Btw I never read your comment "We can do a rematch after this debate then. To the voters, compare arguments as if Speedrace never forfeited." but I figured that it wouldn't really matter anyway, unless there was something else he needed to say.
Yeah I knew I was going to lose; I was certainly messiest and just didn't do a good job. I'm going to do this debate again when I have more time in a few months with whoever and I'll do better and make clearer and by far better arguments (though generally the same thing I tried to argue this debate in a way but the right way)..
Yeah I knew I was going to lose; I was certainly messiest and just didn't do a good job. I'm going to do this debate again when I have more time in a few months with whoever and I'll do better and make clearer and by far better arguments (though generally the same thing I tried to argue this debate in a way but the right way)..
Thank you!
P.S. The first sentence was just an FYI relatively relevant to something I cut out.
Btw I was like 1 min. 20 seconds away from the deadline again.
P.S. I may have been a bit extra repetitive, but I still felt like that character limit was way too restrictive for my taste. Sometimes I get a bit wordy. And I might've could've edited it better, but I've had to delete a bit this round.
Wanted to make it more rebuttal-ish feel as if I was going to say something else wonder if checking that spot I wrote all those notes will shed light on if was going to say more or not felt like I couldn't make this more rebuttal-ish because low time and low personal time anyway would've waited until felt like had time which is never and also low char. limit etc. idk ...
I guess my argument's fine and good enough and all IDK if could make it better and I probably feel like it's worse than it is spent a lot of time brainstorming little time reading what I brainstormed Idk if I could really make it that much better but I still just don't like how my life's going right now effin' thing Just wanted say that. IDK.
Fourthly, I haven't expanded my arguments as much as I'd like and am planning to enhance many of them this upcoming round. There’s a bit more I’d like to say.
And fifthly,
"Now, this does not mean all parents make the most rational decisions. But, trusting either the parent or the child for what’s best for the child, the parent more often than not will know best. A parent might make a decision over a deeply-held political belief, as you were referencing, something that is controversial. But keeping politics aside, as well as parental rights over their child, this would not imply to give children the right to decide, but the government."
seems unclear, and I would like to mention that I will better-clarify this in the next round of the debate. I had written the argument out and was going to add it to this comment, but it ended up getting really long (longer than my round 1 argument) and off-topic to vaccinations themselves, and it's mostly a counter-argument, anyway.
Here are some mistakes I plan to make right in the next round of the debate:
First of all, the first link in the 7th paragraph of 9 was, mistakenly, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/04/09/mobile-access-shifts-social-media-use-and-other-online-activities/; however, it was meant to be https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/01/07/how-parents-monitor-their-teens-digital-behavior/. I had a list of citations in a word document, and accidentally copied the unneeded one below the one I wanted instead.
It seems as if you did that with your second link, so I guess I don't have to feel as bad.
Secondly, and this is not really important, but I had copied two links at once when pasting the fourth link in the second paragraph, and I had used the wrong link of the two for the third link in the second paragraph, all mistakenly.
The fourth link in the second paragraph was supposed to be https://www.raisingchildren.net.au/teens/behaviour, and the third link in the second paragraph was supposed to be https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3468907/. These do not really matter or affect the debate, however.
Thirdly, and this does not affect the debate either, but I was going to add formatting and headers.
P.S. I will add commentary tomorrow, providing notes on a few things I rushed through. I will also clarify them in the next round of the debate to make it official, but there are a few leaps of logic or odd citations or something of the such I would like to clarify.
Also, some of the links almost have hidden meanings as rebuttals, but I didn't have time to spell them out so I just hid them. Some of the links I think also imply more than what I had merely written. So it would be cool if you guys checked them.
I was literally 1 minute and about 20 seconds from the deadline.
Okay, cool, thanks.
Anyway, I've accepted, and will be happy to debate! I'll start writing my argument maybe like tomorrow if I can.
What are you guys saying? What was it that happened on that date?
So you do believe the law may still limit one's Medical choices, but just not the parents. Hmmm...
This is a good debate! I'm leaning towards Con myself, might accept, 'll have to think about it...
Not 100% sure yet. But if I am against this proposition, I might make this each of our first debates!
I oughtta think more about how and what this would mean realistically.
My biggest problems would be (1) making this not overly philosophical and (2) fully covering and thinking about what this truly might mean/do/affect in the real world.
Could drugs be "Medical?" What about drugs taken legally, but prescribed illegally? I think that exists. Or drugs taken illegally, but for medical reasons?
And does trans surgery count as a "surgery?" Even blatant self-mutilation, performed by themself? Would any or all of these count?
Also, just to clarify, they would have the freedom to act independently, but would they always have the freedom to act, to do absolutely anything they desire (as far as medicine is concerned), just so long as they could pay for it independently?
Oh yeah I just looked Keynes up and you were right. He's pretty bad, so I guess Keynes isn't necessarily right about the capitalism and such.
Probably Capitalism.
Yeah what's that about
Isn't that what forum could be for, anyway?
Oh, sorry. I had looked up how to go about voting on debates and all, but I didn't know there were requirements first.
Btw I never read your comment "We can do a rematch after this debate then. To the voters, compare arguments as if Speedrace never forfeited." but I figured that it wouldn't really matter anyway, unless there was something else he needed to say.