" It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being. "
First of all, the prostitute would give consent this is an absurd argument.
Secondly, if you really want to have a discussion about treating people badly, then why are you pro-death penalty, against euthanasia, and Pro-Torture?
If it protects minority's so much than again, explain how the smaller states almost have no voice at all and the stronghold states almost have no power.
This is why midwest states and stronghold states almost get no representative at all. Literally everything single state gets thrown aside and the only states that actually get representation are the swing states.
I do not know of a good alternative to this problem yet, although as of right now i'd prefer a well regulated popular vote to the electoral college since in that system nobody gets silenced and everyone gets a voice.
The electoral college silences more than it voices. For example conservative voters in california almost have no voice at all, or Democrats in texas.
Secondly the electoral college puts too much power into the hands of the swing states. Why do you think the majority of candidates don't bother visiting stronghold states too often and instead focus all of their attention to the swing states?
I don't know how your high school is however at my high school in northern California we have various career pathways with classes for that pathway. For instance my junior and senior, I'll be taking Mock Trials, Foundations of Law and Public Service, and public service career core.
Honestly, I'm kinda burnt out on debating and having conversations at the moment. I'll probably take a break from debating for a while. I hope you don't think I'm just making up excuses to weasel my way out of a discussion. I've just done it so often I no longer have a passion for it anymore sadly.
This is absolutely ridiculous, the justification is really simple. All you have to do is name a trait. Since you are unable to do so, this conversation can serve no further purpose since you are dodging the question, playing word games, and pulling red herrings.
" Con concedes. Con argues its sometimes okay to eat meat. This is a massive blow to his position. The only reason that I didn’t award the debate on the spot, is that pro didn’t call him on it."
- Stating that it is sometimes ok to do something is not a concession, this is simply not true. For example, sometimes murder is ok whether it be for self-defense, however in the vast majority of scenarios murder is wrong. Case and point, me stating that it is sometimes ok to eat meat is not a concession nor is it a blow to my position. I never made a statement that stated that eating animals is wrong in ALL scenarios, I made it clear in the description that we are going to be talking about eating meat in first world countries and not in more poorer countries.
You have yet to present a good enough reason to value the fetus. All you've said is easily debunkable existence and potentially arguments. Both of which I debunked several times.
If it doesn't have value, than I have a right to terminate it. Answer the question, I am sick of you guys pulling red herrings and avoiding the question so just answer the question.
Why should I value something that simply exists without sentience nor intelligence? Do you value micro bacteria? Or sperm? Or unfertilized eggs not being fertilized? Or non-sentient bugs?
From what I've gathered from researching articles from scientists, it is not 100 % confirmed or not whether ants are sentient. However, assuming that ants are sentient than they do have a right to life. Although since the majority of the time ants are killed unintentionally from people stepping on them or them being invading species, it would be fine in those scenarios to kill them. Killing invading species to maintain an ecosystem while is sad, is justified. Killing them for no reason is immoral, however.
I'm going to say this nicely, Cons value in life is existence. I value sentience and partially intelligence. Existence has value, however again by this same logic, there is no difference in the killing of micro bacteria cells, men masturbating which terminates sperm, and women not fertilizing their eggs. Or perhaps people stepping on bugs.
"Stating that something is immoral does not make it so and it's a topic I'm concerned with understanding. "
I've already stated why it is immoral, essentially eating meat when we don't need to is immoral since the animals are sentient with the ability to feel and perceive pain, and therefore have a right to life the same way humans do.
" Cows, for instance, do not endure this because of their limited awareness. It's that simple. That's why this is not generally considered immoral."
- Cows have sentience, and sentience is essentially consciousness.
"Con make it clear the potential and value of life whereas pro seemed to dismiss intelligence and sentience in upholding the ideal of life."
When did I ever dismiss intelligence and sentience? I literally framed my entire argument around sentience and partially intelligence. In fact Con was the one who dismissed intelligence and sentience, not me.
If you send another response, I won't be able to answer it until after school, so around 2-3 hours. Currently study hall is about to end so again sorry if I don't respond to it until later.
An animals death whether quick or not, is still not moral. What about the animals family members or friends? By this same logic I could just kill a human if the death would be painless and quick.
So here you are making an appeal to tradition, this same argument can be used to justify slavery, imperialism, and genocide. Also please name me a trait that makes animals not have a right to life. My position is that animals are not equivalent to us since they lack the ability to have basic intelligence that we have, however since animals are sentient, I believe that animals at the very least should have a right to life. Especially when killing and eating them in the first place is not needed for our survival.
Sorry I made a mistake, I meant before sentient. My bad. Well if you disagree with me, I would love for you to accept the debate than. Although if this is your only issue I can address it if you want?
So what your stating is that I have to move the vote to the argument category and not the conduct if the person didn't ff half of the rounds?
Oh aright good.
" It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being. "
First of all, the prostitute would give consent this is an absurd argument.
Secondly, if you really want to have a discussion about treating people badly, then why are you pro-death penalty, against euthanasia, and Pro-Torture?
" Prostitution is illegal, which is why I am against it."
Ok so if theoretically Abortion was legal and Guns were illegal you'd support that?
Also, this logic can be used to justify slavery, the Holocaust, and discrimination.
Oh lol my bad
If it protects minority's so much than again, explain how the smaller states almost have no voice at all and the stronghold states almost have no power.
This is why midwest states and stronghold states almost get no representative at all. Literally everything single state gets thrown aside and the only states that actually get representation are the swing states.
I do not know of a good alternative to this problem yet, although as of right now i'd prefer a well regulated popular vote to the electoral college since in that system nobody gets silenced and everyone gets a voice.
The electoral college silences more than it voices. For example conservative voters in california almost have no voice at all, or Democrats in texas.
Secondly the electoral college puts too much power into the hands of the swing states. Why do you think the majority of candidates don't bother visiting stronghold states too often and instead focus all of their attention to the swing states?
Who tried to report my vote?
I don't know how your high school is however at my high school in northern California we have various career pathways with classes for that pathway. For instance my junior and senior, I'll be taking Mock Trials, Foundations of Law and Public Service, and public service career core.
Honestly, I'm kinda burnt out on debating and having conversations at the moment. I'll probably take a break from debating for a while. I hope you don't think I'm just making up excuses to weasel my way out of a discussion. I've just done it so often I no longer have a passion for it anymore sadly.
For some reason debateisart is blocking my comment, ill try to post it soon
I don't see it
hmmm, interesting topic can't wait to see your opponents response.
Thanks and I would be fine if you added me.
Thanks for the vote
Hey thank you for the vote.
Hey thank you for the vote.
lol dylan kleboid. Nice name and welcome to DART!
*round 3
This is absolutely ridiculous, the justification is really simple. All you have to do is name a trait. Since you are unable to do so, this conversation can serve no further purpose since you are dodging the question, playing word games, and pulling red herrings.
Seeing as how pro is going to ff in 42 minutes, Con pretty much won the debate on all levels minus spelling and grammar
All you keep doing is pulling up red herrings and trying to dodge the question
You never provided any justification for the less than 5 month old fetus that I didn't debunk in the debate. So just answer the question.
Answer the question. Stop pulling red herrings and unrelated topics. Just answer the question.
Sorry I meant my opening argument and not the description
" Con concedes. Con argues its sometimes okay to eat meat. This is a massive blow to his position. The only reason that I didn’t award the debate on the spot, is that pro didn’t call him on it."
- Stating that it is sometimes ok to do something is not a concession, this is simply not true. For example, sometimes murder is ok whether it be for self-defense, however in the vast majority of scenarios murder is wrong. Case and point, me stating that it is sometimes ok to eat meat is not a concession nor is it a blow to my position. I never made a statement that stated that eating animals is wrong in ALL scenarios, I made it clear in the description that we are going to be talking about eating meat in first world countries and not in more poorer countries.
You have yet to present a good enough reason to value the fetus. All you've said is easily debunkable existence and potentially arguments. Both of which I debunked several times.
If it doesn't have value, than I have a right to terminate it. Answer the question, I am sick of you guys pulling red herrings and avoiding the question so just answer the question.
Explain WHY they have value. They have no sentience nor intelligence, the existence and potential argument I debunked, so then what gives them value.
I have already explained why a fetus before 5 months does not have sentience. A child 5 months old has sentience. It's as simple as that.
Besides again which would you rather see " suffer", a sentient and intelligent women, or a non-sentient non-intelligent fetus.
Why should I value something that simply exists without sentience nor intelligence? Do you value micro bacteria? Or sperm? Or unfertilized eggs not being fertilized? Or non-sentient bugs?
From what I've gathered from researching articles from scientists, it is not 100 % confirmed or not whether ants are sentient. However, assuming that ants are sentient than they do have a right to life. Although since the majority of the time ants are killed unintentionally from people stepping on them or them being invading species, it would be fine in those scenarios to kill them. Killing invading species to maintain an ecosystem while is sad, is justified. Killing them for no reason is immoral, however.
I'm going to say this nicely, Cons value in life is existence. I value sentience and partially intelligence. Existence has value, however again by this same logic, there is no difference in the killing of micro bacteria cells, men masturbating which terminates sperm, and women not fertilizing their eggs. Or perhaps people stepping on bugs.
"Stating that something is immoral does not make it so and it's a topic I'm concerned with understanding. "
I've already stated why it is immoral, essentially eating meat when we don't need to is immoral since the animals are sentient with the ability to feel and perceive pain, and therefore have a right to life the same way humans do.
" Cows, for instance, do not endure this because of their limited awareness. It's that simple. That's why this is not generally considered immoral."
- Cows have sentience, and sentience is essentially consciousness.
"Con make it clear the potential and value of life whereas pro seemed to dismiss intelligence and sentience in upholding the ideal of life."
When did I ever dismiss intelligence and sentience? I literally framed my entire argument around sentience and partially intelligence. In fact Con was the one who dismissed intelligence and sentience, not me.
If you send another response, I won't be able to answer it until after school, so around 2-3 hours. Currently study hall is about to end so again sorry if I don't respond to it until later.
An animals death whether quick or not, is still not moral. What about the animals family members or friends? By this same logic I could just kill a human if the death would be painless and quick.
So here you are making an appeal to tradition, this same argument can be used to justify slavery, imperialism, and genocide. Also please name me a trait that makes animals not have a right to life. My position is that animals are not equivalent to us since they lack the ability to have basic intelligence that we have, however since animals are sentient, I believe that animals at the very least should have a right to life. Especially when killing and eating them in the first place is not needed for our survival.
Thanks for the vote!
I will try to get to it either tomorrow or today.
Oh ok then. Thanks.
Sorry I made a mistake, I meant before sentient. My bad. Well if you disagree with me, I would love for you to accept the debate than. Although if this is your only issue I can address it if you want?
Interesting topic, hope someone accepts
*before
Up until the baby becomes sentient, which normally occurs after 5 months. Or in other certain situations, IE rape, broken condoms, ETC.
@That1User
Thank you