I don't know. Something about it, the definition of communism seems super vague.
Like there are so many other questions:
Does human greed exist in this society?
What is the societal culture like?
Who will enforce people to contribute, because of obvious backlash.
Who will regulate property and security of property, because after all, in your definition ownership is still a thing.
I don't know. Just a lot of unanswered assumptions I would have to make.
Good (Communism): That which is better for society
Also, quick question, according to your definition:
"system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."
Who would enforce the contributions and receive in this definition of communism?
I would be careful with those definitions, because technically, a miscarriage is a natural abortion, and that isn't morally wrong, it's a natural possibility.
"I think CON could have won this debate by using any widely accepted definition of GENDER and demonstrating PRO's lack of understanding of that term"
So your telling my opponent to basically provide a false definition of the word gender, then to back it up, just say that I don't understand"
"Your wrong, and I don't have to prove I'm right, because your just stupid"
Great advice buddy.
"So, in my perspective, does ir matter? Because if you want to go that route, then still, these genders are genders. We can nitpick at the fact that gender doesn't mean gender identity all you want, but, if something is apart of gender then yes. It still can be considered their own gender."
See this is where your argument dies out. You first of all point out that this is all from "your perspective". Yes people can have perspectives on issues, but their still needs to be a basis in reality on these issues. When your "perspective" crosses with reality, then it is no longer just a perspective, it is ignorance to reality. Again, facts do not care about your feelings.
Also what the hell does "if something is apart of gender" mean exactly. How can something be a part of gender. You went from claiming these were all genders (the basis of your argument for there being more than 2 genders) then you go on and say they might not be genders, but a part of genders. If they are not genders but only a part, then what are the distinctive parts of gender? Can you explain them for me?
Gender means how you identify based on your biological sex. This is fact. Any other definitions, would be completely irrational and would have to justify many immoral and illegitimate behavior and beliefs.
"1. First off, yes you're correct from my perspective. It is something based on how you feel, but to an extent. Don't try to twist and turn the tables by saying "okay, I feel like a male", I see through that. It's just like saying, "I don't feel like either female or male", that is just the definition or base of your gender. That would mean your non-binary. Just my thought process.
2. Correct, my first comment explains a bit of relative information."
Ok, so because you believe that the so-called genders are Cisgendered, Non-Binary, and Trans-gender, etc.
Also you are denying the fact that man and woman is a gender.
But gender itself is based in the binary even with these.
As a transgender, you can either be a trans-man or a trans-woman. Still a binary.
As a "Cisgender" (strait) you can either be a man, or a woman. Still a binary.
Even with Non-binary, you are neither male nor female. Still lies within a binary.
What I am trying to say is that no matter what gender identity you put on someone, what they identify as will always be based upon the gender binary.
I don't know where you are basing your arguments off of, but I did learn something. You have a completely different perception of reality, and it doesn't align with......well reality.
From what I can tell, (correct me if I am wrong) your perception of reality is that the definition of gender is how someone identifies themselves based upon how they feel. You claim that you can't identify as a man or identify as a woman. You can only identify as "Cisgender" (strait) or any of the other gender identities like Non-Binary, and Trans-gender. This is what I am noticing you believe.
Now before I say what I need to say, would you consider this perception of reality to be yours, and if not, elaborate on what is.
I would believe otherwise. Of course there are the obvious contradictions, then there are ones, that go more into depth with the basic belief of Islam, all found in the Quran.
The existence of the Christain religion or the belief, because the religion is based on the belief, so if you are arguing that the religion is false you are arguing that the belief is false.
That is define what you view as Christianity.
Are you talking about Christianity as in the existence of the Christian God, or Christianity as the religion.
Are you arguing that the belief is factually false, or just the religion/congregation of people doesn't exist?
My apologies to the voters and my opponent for the forfeit on my part, I had a religious trip on the weekend, then got sick after that so I wasn't able to make my argument in time. I wish the best to my opponent.
"Further (forgot to add this to the comment), you say "Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true."
Correct how? In my last round I denied it and they had nothing to say. Meaning, that claim is incorrect based on my arguments, which is highlighted in the comment before this."
The statement Con made was true.
If no homosexuals existed, then there wouldn't be any violence towards homosexuals.
As for all your other questions, there was a lot going on in that debate, and those points that I made, I felt were the main arguments that were being made, and I wanted to wrap up the vote as quickly as possible, and those points out of the whole debate, helped me make my decision.
The other points were good, but I didn't want to make the vote too long.
You didn't specify descriptions in the description.
And in your first argument you allowed me to challenge the definition.
So that gave me the opportunity to provide my definition for abortion and establish it.
As for other words, you're going to have to establish them if you want to.
Got busy.
My apologies.
I don't know. Something about it, the definition of communism seems super vague.
Like there are so many other questions:
Does human greed exist in this society?
What is the societal culture like?
Who will enforce people to contribute, because of obvious backlash.
Who will regulate property and security of property, because after all, in your definition ownership is still a thing.
I don't know. Just a lot of unanswered assumptions I would have to make.
Good (Communism): That which is better for society
Also, quick question, according to your definition:
"system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."
Who would enforce the contributions and receive in this definition of communism?
Define good, and I might accept.
I would be careful with those definitions, because technically, a miscarriage is a natural abortion, and that isn't morally wrong, it's a natural possibility.
I will be willing to debate you again, since you forfeited the last one.
I'll be happy to do it after this debate. DM me for specifics.
If you use sources, just quote them, and I can look at them myself, and see if there is a problem with them.
I can't change settings after the debate has been accepted....................
Also, word count only goes up to 30,000 words.
Thats like shooting someone and saying the gun did it.
There you go.
No, debating whether it is by my definition Murder.
Apologies to my contestant.
I forgot to mention, I wanted to forfeit, my first round, on purpose.
I will debate you on this topic.
I like Sir.Lancelots idea.
Would that work for you?
Sorry to my opponent for my forfeiture.
Will not happen again.
I was out on a trip, and completely forgot about it.
My apologies.
"Did both of you plagiarize in this debate?"
I wrote all of my arguments.
But honestly I wanted to point this out too.
My opponents arguments sound a lot like generated AI. Something I have played with recently.
Funny.
I was just thinking the exact same thing.
Fun topic right?
"I think CON could have won this debate by using any widely accepted definition of GENDER and demonstrating PRO's lack of understanding of that term"
So your telling my opponent to basically provide a false definition of the word gender, then to back it up, just say that I don't understand"
"Your wrong, and I don't have to prove I'm right, because your just stupid"
Great advice buddy.
"So, in my perspective, does ir matter? Because if you want to go that route, then still, these genders are genders. We can nitpick at the fact that gender doesn't mean gender identity all you want, but, if something is apart of gender then yes. It still can be considered their own gender."
See this is where your argument dies out. You first of all point out that this is all from "your perspective". Yes people can have perspectives on issues, but their still needs to be a basis in reality on these issues. When your "perspective" crosses with reality, then it is no longer just a perspective, it is ignorance to reality. Again, facts do not care about your feelings.
Also what the hell does "if something is apart of gender" mean exactly. How can something be a part of gender. You went from claiming these were all genders (the basis of your argument for there being more than 2 genders) then you go on and say they might not be genders, but a part of genders. If they are not genders but only a part, then what are the distinctive parts of gender? Can you explain them for me?
Gender means how you identify based on your biological sex. This is fact. Any other definitions, would be completely irrational and would have to justify many immoral and illegitimate behavior and beliefs.
"1. First off, yes you're correct from my perspective. It is something based on how you feel, but to an extent. Don't try to twist and turn the tables by saying "okay, I feel like a male", I see through that. It's just like saying, "I don't feel like either female or male", that is just the definition or base of your gender. That would mean your non-binary. Just my thought process.
2. Correct, my first comment explains a bit of relative information."
Ok, so because you believe that the so-called genders are Cisgendered, Non-Binary, and Trans-gender, etc.
Also you are denying the fact that man and woman is a gender.
But gender itself is based in the binary even with these.
As a transgender, you can either be a trans-man or a trans-woman. Still a binary.
As a "Cisgender" (strait) you can either be a man, or a woman. Still a binary.
Even with Non-binary, you are neither male nor female. Still lies within a binary.
What I am trying to say is that no matter what gender identity you put on someone, what they identify as will always be based upon the gender binary.
Also making part 2 soon.
Also, I am making a #2 to this debate as agreed.
Something interesting I have learned from you.
I don't know where you are basing your arguments off of, but I did learn something. You have a completely different perception of reality, and it doesn't align with......well reality.
From what I can tell, (correct me if I am wrong) your perception of reality is that the definition of gender is how someone identifies themselves based upon how they feel. You claim that you can't identify as a man or identify as a woman. You can only identify as "Cisgender" (strait) or any of the other gender identities like Non-Binary, and Trans-gender. This is what I am noticing you believe.
Now before I say what I need to say, would you consider this perception of reality to be yours, and if not, elaborate on what is.
We can finish this debate, then if we want to, after if we have more to say, then we can make another longer one.
If you would like, I would be willing to debate you on this same topic.
I would believe otherwise. Of course there are the obvious contradictions, then there are ones, that go more into depth with the basic belief of Islam, all found in the Quran.
If you would like, after this debate, I can make another, with the maximum amount of arguments and characters, so that we can go more in depth.
I think the U.S. should allow entry, under certain conditions.
You can, but it will have to be obtainable for everyone.
I am to busy to be doing this debate. You win Austin. Sorry for all the hype to the debate, and not adding anything to it.
I got really busy and couldn't make it to the first round.
I apologize to my opponent and judges, and look forward to my opponents first argument, and will do my best to catch up.
The existence of the Christain religion or the belief, because the religion is based on the belief, so if you are arguing that the religion is false you are arguing that the belief is false.
I'll accept if you are clearer.
That is define what you view as Christianity.
Are you talking about Christianity as in the existence of the Christian God, or Christianity as the religion.
Are you arguing that the belief is factually false, or just the religion/congregation of people doesn't exist?
I would of been into it, but the time was WAY too low.
My bad for not noticing it though.
My apologies to the voters and my opponent for the forfeit on my part, I had a religious trip on the weekend, then got sick after that so I wasn't able to make my argument in time. I wish the best to my opponent.
Yea sorry I lost, I wasn't keeping track of time.
Sorry, I wasn't aware of the time limit. I was busy. I will try my best to finish up on my next round.
Never mind*
Ok never-ending I will use my first round
I am going to let Intelligence_06 go first and use this first argument as my 1 forfeit.
"Further (forgot to add this to the comment), you say "Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true."
Correct how? In my last round I denied it and they had nothing to say. Meaning, that claim is incorrect based on my arguments, which is highlighted in the comment before this."
The statement Con made was true.
If no homosexuals existed, then there wouldn't be any violence towards homosexuals.
As for all your other questions, there was a lot going on in that debate, and those points that I made, I felt were the main arguments that were being made, and I wanted to wrap up the vote as quickly as possible, and those points out of the whole debate, helped me make my decision.
The other points were good, but I didn't want to make the vote too long.
No problem
I like this debate so far.
Though so far, I can obviously see a clear winner.
Why are you Con then?
Birth control, yes
Mental health is different and not connected whatsoever.
Or more or less, who did a better job, not based on their opinions to clarify.
Also, I would like to let voters know that they are voting on how the debate went, not based on their own bias.