We should support abortion, the promotion of transgenderism and euthenasia
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 24 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.
No alternative plans allowed you have to debate against my proposition.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Also atrocious conduct by Pro (use of the word 'fag', attempting to change the debate conditions to one round, and blitzkrieging on top of the forfeit)
Technical Full Forfeiture.
Several things.
Pro is making bold claims, but does not include any empirical evidence (sources at all, for that matter.) to suggest that any of these solutions would work as a long-term strategy.
Furthermore, the forfeiture of the rounds and then making up rules in the final, which were never mentioned in the description are considered void.
Con presents his arguments and offers sources.
The instigator seriously attempted a final round blitzkrieg, and tried to convince the voters into punishing the other side if they challenged it...
Wow, just wow!
Declare yourself the winner Wylted, you're the president now.
To be clear, since I commented before the debate took place that I agreed with Con's claim supporting abortion, transgender, and euthanasia, I support them on the grounds of bodily autonomy, not population control.
As per the voting policy:
"Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."
You literally forfeited 75% of the debate. So I don't have to consider arguments if I don't want to. This is why I put "technical" in front of full forfeiture. It wasn't a complete full forfeiture, but it technically could be considered one.
I made an argument in the last round. Not a full forfeitures. Maybe partial
Debate is over, skip to last Round.
Abortions don’t terminate “babies,” they terminate zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, unviable fetuses, and on some occasions even a viable fetus to save the woman or in rare cases, a twin (and the mother).
No one believes murdering the elderly is acceptable.
It’s also a false equivalency fallacy to compare an abortion to the murder of the elderly.
Your view on this is psychotic and crazy.
I am too scared to ask if he used Google translate or if he already is better at Esperanto than me.
Fuck I still have time to post. Didn't expect to come back to that. Nice and I have Thanksgiving off of work
tbh, I would have accepted this one. The harder position is to defend abortion and transgenderism and euthanasia.
Silentu soyboy, mi instruu vin kiel fari konservativan propagandon.
Don't try to use misspelling against me. English is not my first language. I am a southerner.
Thank God a conservative willing to defend their stupid ideology of thinking murder of babies and the elderly is wrong or their stupid ideology that it is wrong to cut off a child's penis
I agree on all counts except your spelling of euthanasia.