Instigator / Pro
4
1533
rating
18
debates
36.11%
won
Topic
#3881

We should support abortion, the promotion of transgenderism and euthenasia

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
2
8
Better legibility
2
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 24 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
28
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

I don't think any conservative can really defend conservative ideology and I welcome a debate with somebody who believes that murdering babies and the elderly is wrong.

No alternative plans allowed you have to debate against my proposition.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Forfeited
Con
#2
Who is 'we'? This is a major flaw in the resolution especially as the description implies that 'we' includes and yet simulatenously excludes conservative political believers/thinkers/voters. I don't understand what this debate's scope is in that sense.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Forfeited
Con
#4
Abort abort, mission abort.

Omega male vs alpha male

Gamma male vs Sigma male

Transition and you are still basic, bitch.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Forfeited
Con
#6
Try harder.
Round 4
Pro
#7
This is now a 1 round debate. I would appreciate if con forfeits his final round so we can keep the debate fair and judges have one round each to weigh. If con tries to acquire an unfair advantage he should be punished with a conduct points being awarded to pro.

These sorts of things, euthenasia, transgenderism and abortion result in measures that reduce population growth, which is why Fabian socialists who control the world are pushing them on the western countries they control. 

There are studies coming out which are showing the end of the world by 2040 or in some cases 2033.
MIT did a study a few years ago consisting of plugging some variables into an artificial intelligence that can predict the future and determined the world would end in 2040. Another recent study released shows the end of the world in approximately 10 years from now. This is most likely due to global warming.

Every human has a carbon footprint. The more fags we have, the less those people who become fags will reproduce. The genocide of unborn babies is a socially acceptable way to commit lots of murders that will prevent new people who have carbon footprint a from emerging. Euthanasia is a socially acceptable way to murder old people that will reduce the amount of people with a carbon footprint.

I would also add that wars in which millions die could quickly reduce the number of people creating carbon footprint a, so nation states such as Russia murder lots of Ukrainians, America murdering middle eastern people and China murdering the Taiwanese may be what is best for the planet.

The choice really is between these socially acceptable forms of murder and possibly kicking up action for example manufacturing Covid 19 to force people to take sterilization shots (obviously writing into law these Covid vaccinee makers can't be sued to avoid the legal ramifications of mass sterilization programs under that guise).

Well like I was trying to say, the choice is mass genocide or the end of the world in 10 years resulting in every life on the planet dying. Not just the 10 billion humans, but trillions of other life forms. a few million sacrificed to save billions is a worthy and honorable sacrifice and I applaud our current leaders for taking that approach. 
Con
#8
What kind of an an absolute puss-out is that? You are the one who was too afraid to be rebuked so you left your constructive until the last Round.

The description says this:

No alternative plans allowed you have to debate against my proposition.
That means I had to wait until you gave your proposition in order to debate against it. Do not dare be a slimy cuck-like coward in the face of me ever, Wylted. I will rip you to pieces as the audience cheers.

Voters should all punish Wylted for this cowardice via the conduct point, thank you.

==

These sorts of things... result in measures that reduce population growth, which is why Fabian socialists who control the world are pushing them on the western countries they control.
This a baseless statement. For instance, while abortion appears to do this in the immediate generation will stifle the growth theoretically, the very same parents aborting while dirt-poor may instead of being drained by 1 offspring, end up pushing forward in their careers such that they can share the burden well and raise 4 high quality offspring instead of that 1 that perpetually drains them because they started parenting when dirt-poor.

In other words, abortion doesn't do this in the long-run in practise necessarily. Transgenderism doesn't do this either, Pro offered no source/reference showing that. As for euthanasia, I am confused if Pro is saying that the killing of people is a good thing there because it reduced the population or what.

There are studies coming out which are showing the end of the world by 2040 or in some cases 2033.
Which studies? Why would this support Pro's side?
MIT did a study a few years ago consisting of plugging some variables into an artificial intelligence that can predict the future and determined the world would end in 2040. Another recent study released shows the end of the world in approximately 10 years from now. This is most likely due to global warming.
What does this have to do with anything? the study was never provided by Pro.

But don’t worry, this scorching destruction of Earth is a long way off: about 7.59 billion years in the future, according to some calculations. Even if our planet somehow survives and remains in orbit around the bloated red giant Sun, Earth’s natural orbital decay means it would merge with the dead Sun’s remnant.

Eventually, anyway: this fate would occur in about 100 billion billion years. Not bad considering the Universe is only around 13 billion years old now.

I assert a different Earth duration.

Every human has a carbon footprint. The more f- we have, the less those people who become f- will reproduce.

Lesbian and gay couples can choose from a variety of reproduction technologies specific to their particular needs and preferences, including the following:
 
  • Sperm donation with intrauterine insemination (IUI) –sperm taken from a known or anonymous donor that has been tested for infectious disease ispassed through a thin catheter and placed directly into the uterusat the time of ovulation.
  • In vitro fertilization (IVF) – lesbian couples with fertility issues may conceive through IVF. Even fertile lesbian couples sometimes opt to retrieve the eggs from one partner and later transfer the embryo to the other partner who then carries the pregnancy and gives birth. This is known as reciprocal or shared IVF
  • Donor eggs – Gay couples (or lesbian couples who are unable to use their own eggs) can select an egg donor who will provide eggs to be fertilized in the lab with sperm from one or both partners. Egg donors may be known or anonymous and should be carefully chosen with guidance from a fertility specialist. Following fertilization, the resulting embryos are transferred to the womb of a gestational carrier through IVF, thus ending the role of the egg donor
  • Gestational carrier –a woman who is selected by a couple to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth. Gestational carriers use the eggs of a donor rather than their own

The genocide of unborn babies is a socially acceptable way to commit lots of murders that will prevent new people who have carbon footprint a from emerging. Euthanasia is a socially acceptable way to murder old people that will reduce the amount of people with a carbon footprint.
That is just not quite true. Euthanasia is typically done when people have already left a carbon footprint and are well into their lifespan. Abortions can actually help long-term population growth as explained earlier.

The choice is mass genocide or the end of the world in 10 years resulting in every life on the planet dying. Not just the 10 billion humans, but trillions of other life forms. a few million sacrificed to save billions is a worthy and honorable sacrifice and I applaud our current leaders for taking that approach. 
Pro has not explained why the world ending in 10 years is a bad thing if genocide is a good thing. Pro has failed to explain who 'we' are to support this.