Are you wanting to debate a public ban or a private ban? e.g. Are we debating that parents should be able to ban books from the library proper, or just from their children?
If we're doing 25k characters, I'll need a month to respond haha. I work full-time and my weekends are always busy.
Also, I'd like to propose rewording it to: "On Balance, Trans Women Should Be classified As Women" I'd obviously be CON.
Saying things like "more sense" are extremely subjective. Classified is subjective, too. But at least this way we can use objective metrics and such to state our cases.
If you'd like to be CON, then we can reword it by simply adding "not" between "should" and "be."
I usually like to put "IID:" for "it is decided" before debates if I make them.
Some other ground rules, if you're ok with them.
We'll use a medical dictionary and common dictionary that we both agree upon for definitions. That way we don't get into a "war of dictionary definitions."
I'd also like to ban ignoratio elenchis from usage and one forfeit equals an auto-loss.
You did good work here, imho. I'd like to challenge you to this debate, if you're willing. I'd take the stance that trans women are not real women, because I believe they aren't. You game?
Not to editorialize the debate, but I think the least racist time in American history was the 2000s-2012.
All the "blackness" and "whitness" stuff didn't exist. Nobody told people their color mattered. Inter-ethnic relationships were at all-time highs.
But then again, Americans really shat on Mexicans and Muslims a lot then. So who knows lol. I just know that America is becoming the 1960s again, but now it is white people who aren't represented and black people who get all the jobs. Not good stuff.
That's your presupposition. Which I agree with. However, many would argue that a human doesn't start as a human. And they look at the same developmental process. They argue a human isn't a human until birth when it is fully developed. This is bullshit, but it has been argued. And it can he argued using this definition. I did this on purpose.
You are importing your presuppositions onto the statement. The statement says "developmental plan of its kind." Which means it follows the developmental plan. It doesn't state "human development." Which is altogether a different meaning.
It is up to the debater to prove this developmental plan is ALWAYS human life, and does not TURN INTO human life later, like with a tadpole turning into a frog
I set it up such that it is up to the most convincing argument to prove whether a fetus is a human. That is part of this debate. I win if I can convince the voters that a baby is a human being who is alive. Intelligence wins if he can prove the opposite.
Once again this makes the assumption that the person I'm debating already agrees to either one of two things:
1. It is a human being in the womb and alive.
2. That it is impossibly difficult to debunk the above claim.
While Barney is a fantastic debater, I have found that the debates I've tended to win, both IRL and on DebateArt, are the ones where I let the sources say my points for me.
It just goes to show there's more than one way to skin a cat.
I mean, I probably would have figured it out. I'm not one of those word nazis who will automatically deduct points because you switched pro with con. You're good.
Thou shalt not murder - 10 Commandments.
God doesn't murder. Therefore neither do I.
Just a reminder that your argument is due in 3 days.
This assumes Russia and North Korea would not want to get involved.
Additionally, China has nukes, too.
However, I don't live in China so I have no idea how military capable the CCP truly is.
For next time... make sure you use the description for things like definitions, who will be arguing what, and how the debate is structured.
Without that stuff people will just do whatever they want without warning and leave it up to the voters to decide.
No worries, man. I wasn't even bothered that you hadn't posted anything.
I just want to clarify that my first round post is not a rebuttal but an establishment of my own position, right?
I figured I was arguing in favor of banning.
And now I know it is from the library proper. Thanks.
I am awaiting your opening argument.
And I will be arguing against banning?
I'm back I suppose 😂
Eh. screw it. I'll accept.
I think you are talking about at the library itself for all kids, not just kid-specific bans. But I can argue either case.
Are you wanting to debate a public ban or a private ban? e.g. Are we debating that parents should be able to ban books from the library proper, or just from their children?
Which society?
Riveting debate.
I think these should be videos instead of responses.
I'll try to vote on this one if I have enough downtime.
If I'm setting it up, I can write a draft description and make a forum post for it where we can hash out the rest and make changes to it, etc.
I'd like to add Whiteflame to the list of judges if he wants to participate.
If you're really fine with giving up a predetermined set of definitions then I'm fine with that, it's your choice.
So the final prompt (I'm assuming you're setting everything up) is " On Balance, Classifying Transgender Women As Women Makes Sense", right?
And did we want to eliminate ignoratio elenchis and do the forfeit one round equals auto-loss? Or did we want no added rules?
The 1 month is kind of a dealbreaker, but I can do 10k characters for 2 weeks response time if that works.
We need the ability to respond with emotions to debate comments. I wanted to "lol" your comment but realized I couldn't.
I apologize for misgendering you. I don't check profiles that often.
If we're doing 25k characters, I'll need a month to respond haha. I work full-time and my weekends are always busy.
Also, I'd like to propose rewording it to: "On Balance, Trans Women Should Be classified As Women" I'd obviously be CON.
Saying things like "more sense" are extremely subjective. Classified is subjective, too. But at least this way we can use objective metrics and such to state our cases.
If you'd like to be CON, then we can reword it by simply adding "not" between "should" and "be."
I usually like to put "IID:" for "it is decided" before debates if I make them.
Some other ground rules, if you're ok with them.
We'll use a medical dictionary and common dictionary that we both agree upon for definitions. That way we don't get into a "war of dictionary definitions."
I'd also like to ban ignoratio elenchis from usage and one forfeit equals an auto-loss.
Do you agree?
You did good work here, imho. I'd like to challenge you to this debate, if you're willing. I'd take the stance that trans women are not real women, because I believe they aren't. You game?
Yeah I forgot to respond... Thanks for the extension
It's to give the other person an extended round to respond.
Yeah. Why not have conditions placed on rights. Sounds like a greeeeeeat plan...
Man I gotta check in more often... barney is actually debating a good debater.
Thanks guys!
If it was a full forfeiture I would have. I just don't know enough about boxing to be a good judge.
Full forfeiture. Please vote if able.
I mean... There's a reason I defined murder in the description... So that people can't just make up their own jacked up definitions.
If it is possible to commit fetal homicide when a pregnant woman is shot, then a fetus doesn't have to be born to be murdered:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841
But, being a police officer for as many years as you claim to have been, you should be perfectly cognizant of that fact.
Ah. I see.
I'm lost... When did I flatter anyone?
Not to editorialize the debate, but I think the least racist time in American history was the 2000s-2012.
All the "blackness" and "whitness" stuff didn't exist. Nobody told people their color mattered. Inter-ethnic relationships were at all-time highs.
But then again, Americans really shat on Mexicans and Muslims a lot then. So who knows lol. I just know that America is becoming the 1960s again, but now it is white people who aren't represented and black people who get all the jobs. Not good stuff.
"Yes, but the subject focuses on abortion, which logically indicates that the fetuses to which you refer are human fetuses."
Only if you presuppose a fetus is a human being.
No. A tadpole is a tadpole.
That's your presupposition. Which I agree with. However, many would argue that a human doesn't start as a human. And they look at the same developmental process. They argue a human isn't a human until birth when it is fully developed. This is bullshit, but it has been argued. And it can he argued using this definition. I did this on purpose.
You are importing your presuppositions onto the statement. The statement says "developmental plan of its kind." Which means it follows the developmental plan. It doesn't state "human development." Which is altogether a different meaning.
It is up to the debater to prove this developmental plan is ALWAYS human life, and does not TURN INTO human life later, like with a tadpole turning into a frog
Do frogs have a developmental plan of its kind?
But we certainly don't call a tadpole a frog.
Eh. Why not lol
Did I define fetus or not?
I set it up such that it is up to the most convincing argument to prove whether a fetus is a human. That is part of this debate. I win if I can convince the voters that a baby is a human being who is alive. Intelligence wins if he can prove the opposite.
I'm strictly speaking to the definitions I've written here. Nothing in them states the fetus is alive or even a human.
"the fetus's being human is tautologically true"
Only on a presupposition. You are making a presupposition.
Just to be clear here. In this one you are arguing that abortion IS murder.
Great to debate you again. Thanks for accepting.
Intelligence is right. There are multiple routes as CON.
Once again this makes the assumption that the person I'm debating already agrees to either one of two things:
1. It is a human being in the womb and alive.
2. That it is impossibly difficult to debunk the above claim.
While Barney is a fantastic debater, I have found that the debates I've tended to win, both IRL and on DebateArt, are the ones where I let the sources say my points for me.
It just goes to show there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Oh. Okie dokie.
Idk why I couldn't comment on the other one, but you made me CON by accident I think.
I mean, I probably would have figured it out. I'm not one of those word nazis who will automatically deduct points because you switched pro with con. You're good.
Thanks.
But if it isn't possible to lower the rating, then I'll make a new debate when I can. I'm at work lol.
Someone else lowered the rating limit once.