Semantically trying to argue that your opponent broke his own rules while essentially admitting that your arguments are semantic are the definition of unsportsmanlike
In that case I apologize - I've been a tad stressed with people who aren't quite as substantive as you are -*cought* Coal *cough* they just like citing experts and expecting that to convince me... and then calling me "opinated" for not instantly agreeing, a tad frustrating I'm sure you might agree
Indeed - however, that's already tried to be implemented.... several times, and across a literal century - in fact - there were three very distinct times of changing the police force - and it hasn't reduced the effect - the entire concept of a police force is a bit too corruptable, and the concept focused on punishing, whenever the best thing for the country is rehabilitating and separation - those are the most empirically sound method of defeating crime (aside from education and equity of income), and the police fundamentally miss that
Just... no - that isn't emprically true - MOST criminals aren't violent, thats just a fact of the matter, in fact they are scared of being violent; however, those who have had more interactions with police become more violent - because they are treated no differently from criminals who are violent - its a very direct relationship - even if these cops were all traumatized (which, they aren't that's a very blatant broad stroke) that's not an excuse to be increasingly violent - they should either get help or not be permitted with the safety of others - its that simple
no.. the FBI "CAN" interact with the public, but would you disagree that the public deals with the police force much much more prevalently? Furthermore, the police departments DONT have specialized units for some of the most commonly occurring crime, and treat every shoplifter as if they are a violent criminal - even though criminology teaches you that shoplifters and violent criminals are usually VERY separate - in fact - Police violence has incentivised a lot of violence in criminals
Uhuh - swat, that's almost it - they are not specialized enough -FBI are not the ones mainly dealing with Citizens, the police are, and the police lack any department specifically for riot control that is properly trained or field-psychologists that help mentally-ill people - they lack fundamental processes that would be best translated into separate units, with the entire idea that there should be a "guard" being scrapped, as its sole point - deterrence and capture of criminals - is doing more harm than good
People often conflate abolish and defund - and the two certainly don't connect necessarily - you could defund the police to the point that they were abolished, but that likes saying cutting and eradicating are the same because you cut something until it was eradicated" do you see what I mean? Defund means to lower the funding that something gets - not what everybody thinks it is.
now me personally - I would argue that we ought to abolish the police and replace it with much more specialized task forces, kinda like a hospital has different nurses and doctors for different types of injury - anywho - that is distinctly separate from this debate, they are often correlated in the eyes of the public, but it is not always the case. To critique this resolution, I would make it: Resolved: The US Government ought to significantly defund the police
Disregard the thing in my second rebuttal about that being the last round argument- I thought that I was in the position of Con in the structure of the debate my bad.
No idea why - probably cause I was rushing to type that all out
Well I certainly don't have a Ph.D. on the subject but I have gone through a couple AP and college courses regarding the matter - I can give it a look.
Good arguments from both of you; however, should you get into a debate with other users it is highly likely that they will dismiss your arguments due to their lack of sourcing - I would highly recommend that you hyperlink or list sources whenever you write a debate round
Mm, I am indeed a determinist, though I would argue you could choose whether to accept or reject a belief. The point of the matter here is that you do not choose who you are attracted to, everything else is a red herring
THe reason I did not thank you for the opportunity to debate is because I find your sexist debate topic very very rage-inducing, I have no pleasure in having to do this debate, though I do get a small amount of cathartics from winning.
There are numerous parameters that you have to fulfill in order for your argument to be sufficient, additionally, some things like changing colors doesn't let you submit your argument. I've been there, trust me.
for those unfamilar with resolution shifting - sometimes one of the debaters will attempt to take advantage of a definition loophole, each definition is subtly different - that was the case with the definitions presented by Pro - this was the case in the last debate I had with Intelligence - in fact every single debate I've had with Intelligence has had him trying to manipulate the resolution to his burden by terms
People don't choose to be gay. Some people believe that they choose to be gay, but psychologically that is not the case - you cannot choose your sexuality
Boom, we're done.
Furthermore, being gay is neutral, it is ammoral. You have provided no substantiation otherwise.
Saying that I don't hate straight people does not assume I do hate gay people. Substantiate your position or stop assuming my positions. One or the other.
The same thing applies - you do not have the substantiation to argue that children suffer more than they feel pleasure - in fact - humanity has been suffering less and less as things go on.
Also... you know I'm gay right? Your pedantic arguments are getting a little annoying.
It is impossible for ANYBODY to choose who you are attracted to by the rules of attraction - that would be you refusing to accept facts
This isn't a "oh, do you know somebody who choose their sexuality" because they are empirically incorrect, perhaps they perceived to have, but it is literally impossible.
This isn't even determinism, this is simple biology. No, not a gene, but how complexes in biology function
Sexuality isn't a choice - full stop - any psychological authority admits this.
From that perspective - to imply that it was a choice to "Choose their sexuality" There is nothing heroic about choosing to be gay or straight it is ammoral. You can "choose to face persecution" it makes the ones who never choose a thing feel like shit.
Furthermore, I do not think it is possible for ANYBODY to choose their sexuality, regardless of their subjective perspective regarding the matter. Its similar to how somebody might believe that they choose their favorite color; however, it would be more accurate to say they identified their favorite color
All sexuality is, is who you are attracted to - you can be straight and have sex with somebody of the same gender -that does not determine anything -ALL sexuality is referring to is who you are attracted to
There is nothing heroic about being gay or straight - your sexuality implies nothing regarding that factor - the fact of the matter is that you do not choose whether you are attracted to somebody or why you are attracted to somebody - you can choose to accept or reject that attraction (if you ignore determinism), but you do not ultimately choose it.
Though given your route I can assume you might have actually read my argument -
If you read the debate then you would know I already acknowledge that - some people assume they're straight, some people are indoctrinated to persuade themselves that they aren't homosxual, there are a number of reasons - none of them are because you "choose to be gay" that is a non-sequitur
There is no such thing as a "homosexual lifestyle" that is reinforcing stereotypes about homosexual people - homosexual people are all sorts of people, the only common factor being attracted to the same gender
To suggest that homosexuality is a "choice" would be to invalidate the struggles of an entire oppressed people - to say that these people could simply "choose" to stop be persecuted, and rejected by their parents, and thrown out onto the streets.
There are no struggles societally by being heterosexual - perhaps by being a creep, but not the mere truth of being heterosexual - you would be incorrect, but not bigoted.
Propagating the idea that being homosexual is "a choice", is something which has caused countless experiences of abuse, torment, and fear. I do not have any amount of respect for the people who would wish to continue spreading the falsity. I will behave civilly in the debate itself and do my best to not let my arguments be colored by my anger, but how about you have this thing called empathy? Your actions, words, and debates affect other people.
You see it doesn't matter if it would increase my ability to debate - I have more value in not harming somebody than expanding my horizons. First of all - if you believe that being gay is a choice you are a homophobe, that's as far as it gets. Furthermore - I will not argue for a position that I do not agree with, period. Yes, I realize that it is necessary in formal debate competition; however, it is antithetical to the point of debate - to arrive at the truth of the resolution asserted.
That is one of the most semantic things i have literally ever seen, "Science cannot speak"... stop - you know you're wrong here
Semantically trying to argue that your opponent broke his own rules while essentially admitting that your arguments are semantic are the definition of unsportsmanlike
In that case I apologize - I've been a tad stressed with people who aren't quite as substantive as you are -*cought* Coal *cough* they just like citing experts and expecting that to convince me... and then calling me "opinated" for not instantly agreeing, a tad frustrating I'm sure you might agree
And I'm just spitballing here - but I suppose you believe that Democrats are closer to Nazi's?
Indeed - however, that's already tried to be implemented.... several times, and across a literal century - in fact - there were three very distinct times of changing the police force - and it hasn't reduced the effect - the entire concept of a police force is a bit too corruptable, and the concept focused on punishing, whenever the best thing for the country is rehabilitating and separation - those are the most empirically sound method of defeating crime (aside from education and equity of income), and the police fundamentally miss that
Just... no - that isn't emprically true - MOST criminals aren't violent, thats just a fact of the matter, in fact they are scared of being violent; however, those who have had more interactions with police become more violent - because they are treated no differently from criminals who are violent - its a very direct relationship - even if these cops were all traumatized (which, they aren't that's a very blatant broad stroke) that's not an excuse to be increasingly violent - they should either get help or not be permitted with the safety of others - its that simple
no.. the FBI "CAN" interact with the public, but would you disagree that the public deals with the police force much much more prevalently? Furthermore, the police departments DONT have specialized units for some of the most commonly occurring crime, and treat every shoplifter as if they are a violent criminal - even though criminology teaches you that shoplifters and violent criminals are usually VERY separate - in fact - Police violence has incentivised a lot of violence in criminals
Uhuh - swat, that's almost it - they are not specialized enough -FBI are not the ones mainly dealing with Citizens, the police are, and the police lack any department specifically for riot control that is properly trained or field-psychologists that help mentally-ill people - they lack fundamental processes that would be best translated into separate units, with the entire idea that there should be a "guard" being scrapped, as its sole point - deterrence and capture of criminals - is doing more harm than good
People often conflate abolish and defund - and the two certainly don't connect necessarily - you could defund the police to the point that they were abolished, but that likes saying cutting and eradicating are the same because you cut something until it was eradicated" do you see what I mean? Defund means to lower the funding that something gets - not what everybody thinks it is.
now me personally - I would argue that we ought to abolish the police and replace it with much more specialized task forces, kinda like a hospital has different nurses and doctors for different types of injury - anywho - that is distinctly separate from this debate, they are often correlated in the eyes of the public, but it is not always the case. To critique this resolution, I would make it: Resolved: The US Government ought to significantly defund the police
Disregard the thing in my second rebuttal about that being the last round argument- I thought that I was in the position of Con in the structure of the debate my bad.
No idea why - probably cause I was rushing to type that all out
Well I certainly don't have a Ph.D. on the subject but I have gone through a couple AP and college courses regarding the matter - I can give it a look.
wow... a max 40,000 character done in not even 4 paragraphs.... sorry but I'll abstain from voting on these ones
Good arguments from both of you; however, should you get into a debate with other users it is highly likely that they will dismiss your arguments due to their lack of sourcing - I would highly recommend that you hyperlink or list sources whenever you write a debate round
Would you consider the meat from cattle and chicken farms as apart of this? The definitions seems relatively vague
Would you mind defining wild life trade? Depending on that I might accept this debate
Mm, I am indeed a determinist, though I would argue you could choose whether to accept or reject a belief. The point of the matter here is that you do not choose who you are attracted to, everything else is a red herring
Kinda ironic that he's winning the flat earth debate, eh?
Oh look, a non-sequitur, consider me surprised.
I always put in the same amount of effort relative to character limit - that won't ever change
THe reason I did not thank you for the opportunity to debate is because I find your sexist debate topic very very rage-inducing, I have no pleasure in having to do this debate, though I do get a small amount of cathartics from winning.
Yeahuh - my daily good deed for the day and all - always on the lookout for new debaters here.
While I do appreciate the traditional way of citing things, it is much more accessible to judgers if you were to hyperlink or link your sources
There is a tool bar that let's you put text into a "quote field" that's gray, its very handy in making things easier to read
I had admittedly much higher standards than what has been displayed...
There are numerous parameters that you have to fulfill in order for your argument to be sufficient, additionally, some things like changing colors doesn't let you submit your argument. I've been there, trust me.
Welcome to the site, good introductory topic
You don't choose what you believe bud. Furthermore, it is invalidating their experiences BECAUSE it is not a choice, not in spite of the fact.
for those unfamilar with resolution shifting - sometimes one of the debaters will attempt to take advantage of a definition loophole, each definition is subtly different - that was the case with the definitions presented by Pro - this was the case in the last debate I had with Intelligence - in fact every single debate I've had with Intelligence has had him trying to manipulate the resolution to his burden by terms
People don't choose to be gay. Some people believe that they choose to be gay, but psychologically that is not the case - you cannot choose your sexuality
Boom, we're done.
Furthermore, being gay is neutral, it is ammoral. You have provided no substantiation otherwise.
I've already explained it - it invalidates all of the oppression that gay people face
I don't feel the need to elaborate - figure it out
Feelings are not made up, people who assume that they can choose to feel something are incorrect - stop it with your false dichotomies
Furthermore, no - that is not what that means - you are being obviously obtuse.
If you make up something I say ever again, you will be blocked.
Saying that I don't hate straight people does not assume I do hate gay people. Substantiate your position or stop assuming my positions. One or the other.
The same thing applies - you do not have the substantiation to argue that children suffer more than they feel pleasure - in fact - humanity has been suffering less and less as things go on.
Also... you know I'm gay right? Your pedantic arguments are getting a little annoying.
If you read my argument then you would know the answer to that
interesting anti-natalist approach, I don't accept it bud.
It works on a presupposition that suffering is worth more negatively than pleasure is positive, which I reject out of a lack of substantiation.
It is impossible for ANYBODY to choose who you are attracted to by the rules of attraction - that would be you refusing to accept facts
This isn't a "oh, do you know somebody who choose their sexuality" because they are empirically incorrect, perhaps they perceived to have, but it is literally impossible.
This isn't even determinism, this is simple biology. No, not a gene, but how complexes in biology function
Sexuality isn't a choice - full stop - any psychological authority admits this.
From that perspective - to imply that it was a choice to "Choose their sexuality" There is nothing heroic about choosing to be gay or straight it is ammoral. You can "choose to face persecution" it makes the ones who never choose a thing feel like shit.
Furthermore, I do not think it is possible for ANYBODY to choose their sexuality, regardless of their subjective perspective regarding the matter. Its similar to how somebody might believe that they choose their favorite color; however, it would be more accurate to say they identified their favorite color
All sexuality is, is who you are attracted to - you can be straight and have sex with somebody of the same gender -that does not determine anything -ALL sexuality is referring to is who you are attracted to
There is nothing heroic about being gay or straight - your sexuality implies nothing regarding that factor - the fact of the matter is that you do not choose whether you are attracted to somebody or why you are attracted to somebody - you can choose to accept or reject that attraction (if you ignore determinism), but you do not ultimately choose it.
Though given your route I can assume you might have actually read my argument -
If you read the debate then you would know I already acknowledge that - some people assume they're straight, some people are indoctrinated to persuade themselves that they aren't homosxual, there are a number of reasons - none of them are because you "choose to be gay" that is a non-sequitur
There is no such thing as a "homosexual lifestyle" that is reinforcing stereotypes about homosexual people - homosexual people are all sorts of people, the only common factor being attracted to the same gender
To suggest that homosexuality is a "choice" would be to invalidate the struggles of an entire oppressed people - to say that these people could simply "choose" to stop be persecuted, and rejected by their parents, and thrown out onto the streets.
There are no struggles societally by being heterosexual - perhaps by being a creep, but not the mere truth of being heterosexual - you would be incorrect, but not bigoted.
Propagating the idea that being homosexual is "a choice", is something which has caused countless experiences of abuse, torment, and fear. I do not have any amount of respect for the people who would wish to continue spreading the falsity. I will behave civilly in the debate itself and do my best to not let my arguments be colored by my anger, but how about you have this thing called empathy? Your actions, words, and debates affect other people.
You see it doesn't matter if it would increase my ability to debate - I have more value in not harming somebody than expanding my horizons. First of all - if you believe that being gay is a choice you are a homophobe, that's as far as it gets. Furthermore - I will not argue for a position that I do not agree with, period. Yes, I realize that it is necessary in formal debate competition; however, it is antithetical to the point of debate - to arrive at the truth of the resolution asserted.
Just put in your best foot with every debate and that will never effect you
#17 - because it means that IF you do bring it back up then it reduces how long I can reply and argue back - if not then you just dropped an argument
In general - I apologize for the briefness of my arguments, personal stuff has forced me to be a tad more concise.
I've finished almost everything else, but I am unable to access three of your sources; 3,4, and 5, would you mind listing them?