A natural thing is not inherently or by default correct or good.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
A natural thing is not inherently or by default justified or the way it should be that is favorable to the construction and production of life.
So to unpack that would be all things conducive to build , maintain our lives in a fruitful , positive, beneficial way not having the damaging , tearing down to deteriorate our health.
Many times, many individuals use arguments based on natural grounds. Just because it's natural, doesn't mean hands down valid, correct in accordance with our existence.
Remember we begin to exist to exist, not to non-exist. There's an order of things for a beginning and the order to maintain although we work to sustain against elements that inevitably after so much time degrades us into gradual decimation.
The organs of the body, functions of our anatomy designed or formed in the womb operate under an order of things. Makes it possible to be an all able being capable of what it is and does as an bipedal mammal.
So the basis for existence is not all things that are not natural. If you argue that something is unnatural is not justified or has to be as it should because it is natural, present the argument here.
For clarity, questions , advice, send a message please, leave a comment please.
What would be your definition of what isn't natural?
Begin to exist to exist means looking at a newborn seeing, observing all of its functions.
Everything is occurring, growing, developing for it to live, not die. We inevitably die but it doesn't look that way from the beginning. That's why it has an inconsistent read. Based on perspective.
Validity is determined of itself based on whatever perspective we're seeing.
The perspective of life we can see what is proper or valid for life to exist and continue existing. Just because it's natural , something you were born with, doesn't make it valid automatically.
I could make an example but that is what the debate is for. Save all that for the debate.
I don't agree that the statement is a truism. But I am having trouble understanding your point. What do you mean we begin to exist to exist - not to non-exist. That seems to be inconsistent with death, unless death of course is simply a means to another location. But it does not sound like you are suggesting that.
You also indicate that validity is not justified just because something is natural. Surely, that needs to be qualified? Who determines what validity is in that case? Surely if something has started to exist - it has a valid reason to exist. Otherwise it would not exist. I am considering arguing the contender's point but I suspect we are moving on different trains of thought.
The reason I reject the opening line as a truism is based primarily on my religious conviction that God made all things and he made all things good. This may or may not be a reason for debating you. Given that you wish to build up a general wealth of knowledge based on your fallacy, it might not be a constructive discussion. PM if you wish to discuss this further.
Using a truism as a topic statement is not very fun at all.
I mean, I agree with that typically - saying otherwise, or that something is good because it is natural, is actually a logical fallacy. The logic, however, seems to be hypocritical considering some of your other debates, such as; nobody accepts homosexuality, your plan for everybody to accept homosexuality, and other debates like it
Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true .
That's very good sir . We agree which may not make this debatable after all but you never know sometimes.
Some natural things are inherently good and some are not, so being that ***some*** are not, that makes it possible for a least one single natural thing, *a natural thing * , singular to not be innately good.
We agree all the way.
Some natural things are intrinsically good.