The term disease is a pretty well-understood term for anyone who is past the third grade. You can't cure stupidly. If people can't be bothered to do the research, then they are not worth debating.
You are just being discriminatory, which is interesting, considering the fact you claim to have the same disability. As someone who also suffers from Autism, I would say your blatant ignorance offends me, but I won't give you the satisfaction. Thank you for your (ignorant) opinions about Autism. I will be completely happy to (completely ignore) keep that in mind.
I apologize. It was meant to say the possibility of morality without religion. Not afterlife. The reason I am refusing to continue the debate is the same reason as a previous debate with Mall. So, I copied and pasted the same reason without making the proper corrections. So, please remember I am referring to morality without religion and not an afterlife. Thank you.
I get that law can be confusing, especially on an international level. A general rule of thumb I recommend is that if the law you are reading concerning rights is not specific. This means that the idea behind the law is subjective or not always enforced. It's also important to know the difference between an actual right and a specific set of rules that give something similar to a right but does not say it outright. That's the easiest way I can think of to explain international law.
Article 36 states, "Prisoners of war who are ministers of religion, without having officiated as
chaplains to their forces, shall be at liberty, whatever their denomination,
to minister freely to the members of their community. For this purpose, they
shall receive the same treatment as the chaplains retained by the Detaining
Power. They shall not be obliged to do any other work."
It does not say anything. About allowing Prisoners to practice their religion specifically. Also, if you saying, "I’d constitute forcing someone, like a Muslim to eat pork, Hindu to eat beef or a Jew to eat shellfish, to be prohibiting them to participate, follow and practice their religion in a very large way, as these dietary principles are very important to those religions" Than you are basing this on a subjective opinion and not a matter of law. And you are half right about the Geneva Convention. Both nations did sign it before the war. But neither side agreed to Protical 1, which protected civilians. So that adds further complexity to arguing that America committed war crimes though prisoner abuses did happen.
From what I found. Iraq did sign the 1949 Geneva Convention in the 1950s. But they did not sign the protocol 1 until 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I Neither did The USA at the time of the Iraq war. I also did not find any requirements in the 1949 Convention Article 36 that make making Prisoners of war eat pork to be a violation. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf I agree with WillyB. Nothing we say in the comments here should affect the results.
I would like to point out. That Iraq POWs are not US citizens. They are not entitled to US law concerning freedom of religion. They fall under the Geneva Convention. So while making them eat pork might be a dick move. If it does not violate the Genova convention, the USA technically did not violate any religious freedom, at least not under American law. Bombing important religious sites might. But I am not familiar if that's true under international law.
Just to add. There was a point where I proved the Pro went against their evidence. They argued that Latvna and Luxembourg were better examples of Democracy and freedom than the USA. But they went against that by saying NATO nations were not freedom-loving nations. even though Lativna and Luxemburg are members. Their Data chart showed Luxembourg, Latvia, and Estonia were on the top charts of the Freedom index that Pro provided. Estonia is also a NATO member.
No, they aren't. Dumb can mean being unintelligent or having a disability depending on the context. Mentally Ill is when you suffer from a condition that prevents you from acting or thinking normally, often leading to unpleasant or unpredictable behavior.
First, this a debate app. Not a Rap app. Second, you started this conversation by getting hostile for no reason. Do you think I am going to do anything for you at this point? You are either dumb or mentally ill.
I think your comments have pretty much established that you are only hearing and talking to yourself. I am not debating this any longer. My vote stands as it is.
That is not how science works. If you share DNA with species of an animal regardless of the amount, this can only happen if you are related to said animal on a genetic level, which makes you also an animal. Again, what causes me to vote for the Pro is that they based their arguments on backup scientific evidence, which Trumps any dictionary arguments you made. And since you did not refute the evidence Pro provided, that is considered in a professional debate as consenting to that point. Also, the Criteria asks who gave BETTER sources, not the amount. Nothing Trumps science as a source of information except science, which you did not provide.
Sir, I viewed both of your debates. Pro used Oxford University's definition of an animal as a living organism that feeds on organic matter. In addition, he gave another source that proves that we share DNA with other animals. Your sources come from purely word-based definitions, not scientific ones. You also tried using behavioral differences, which does not work as a species is not purely defined by behavior. You also seem to be unaware of the law of contradiction. You cannot share DNA with an animal and not be an animal yourself.
Regardless, the fact remains that The Pro established their stance based on science, whereas you established your argument based on the dictionary. Hence, your lack of scientific rebuttal and overreliance on irrelevant word definitions resulted in my vote.
You do realize that by your own admission. You purposefully made an unfair vote that was outside the criteria. I fail to see the validity in getting upset for being called out on actions you have been WARNED ahead of time not to do. Frankly, it says a lot about your character. To be warned that toxic behavior will not be tolerated, and yet you still do it anyway to be a dick. Completely unrespectable.
I think the vote TWS1405_2 is unfair because he claims I am "pro-criminal." And does not give any reasons for his vote. For example. He claims that Con did better conduct. But Con nor I disrespected each other in the debate. We both acted professionally. Overall I think it's clear that the vote was made with a clear bias; as I said, he would do rather than an honest vote based on the arguments.
Sir, you only said that AFTER I told you, I would tell the Mods about your conduct. Before that, every previous request to vote based on criteria and not personal opinion was ignored. So no, I did not lie. You also claimed I would lose long before you said you could vote as long as it was in the criteria. Cleary, your attempts at calling me a liar have failed.
Sir, you see why I am concerned? I have never once said that TWS1405_2 could not vote. However, I did ask him to make sure his vote was based on the criteria and not his personal opinions. He's not only given no assurances that he would, he has all but assured me "you will lose," Which is biased and not fair to Con or Me. He also made it clear that he is against me not because I presented a bad argument but because he thinks his past experiences make him more knowledgeable on the subject, which is not what he, as a voter, is supposed to vote based on.
It is not that he has to vote for me necessarily. It is simply that I do not think he is being fair or even evaluating my argument, as he called them "weak" with no supporting evidence before proceeding to insult me for no reason. I only ask for a fair vote based on the arguments and evidence presented.
I never disputed your ability to vote. However, there are rules against voting outside of the criteria. You have not addressed any of the points I made besides baselessly calling them weak and made it clear through your own hostile demeanor that your vote will not be in a logical manner. Still, rather a biased one, and have repeatedly made it abundant that you lack the maturity to have civilized conduct. In short sit, you are a living example of a lack of integrity. To allow you to vote when you display a clear lack of understanding of the rules of professional debating would defeat the very purpose of professional debating. You are meant to vote not on personal bias, hatred, or because you don't like someone.
You vote based on who presents a better argument, legibility, sources, and conduct. I have asked you repeatedly to conduct your vote in the manner prescribed, and you have not only refused to do so but made it clear that you intend to vote against me out of spite, which is unfair to Con and me. You can vote; however, the Mods are now aware of your intentions, and should you cast a vote and the reason for it is not thorough and based purely on the arguments presented, I will report it again, and the Mods will intervene. It is not hard to act as an Adult. All this anger is one-sided, and you are the source of the issue, sir; please stop being toxic and actually let the debate be fair and fun. Thank you.
Thank you so much for the disrespectful comment that has been reported. I have also gone ahead and let a Moderator know about this discussion, your conduct, and the confirmation of your bias should you attempt to vote. Good day.
Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective. Making claims with no evidence is called hearsay. Whether you have a degree in criminology or have worked in the justice system has no relevance. As a voter, your job is to vote solely on the criteria given, which is not meant to be based on opinion, experience, or past work history. Only better arguments, Legibility, sources, and conduct. Are you able to do so, sir? Because this discussion has so far revealed, you to be, in fact, immature, biased, and above all disrespectful. I am very tempted to notify moderators of your conduct and warn them of your unfair biases. But I want to be fair, so are you willing to act right, or will you be biased and disrespectful?
You are free to think that my rebuttals are weak, but without a proper explanation, that's a biased opinion, especially when You make it clear it is coming from the perspective of someone who hires people. My main argument in this debate has been to prove that background checks that allow businesses and landowners to discriminate against those who try to find housing and employment should not be permitted.
I have presented strong arguments showing that over 70% of post-bail jobs are negatively impacted. Additionally, I showed that the denial of proper employment and housing, which happens to millions of Americans with criminals, results in over 44% not lasting a year before reoffending. If you have read my submitted evidence and still say more is needed to convince you. Then you have no intention of considering my arguments in any serious capacity.
Secondly, You claim "on has demonstrated through the EEOC and the various jurisdictions of law that outlines that the risk does outweigh the benefit." Yet Con's sources only demonstrate that should a company hire the wrong person; The company can face litigation. It does nothing in terms of addressing the points that I have made. Points that you seem to ignore as well, I might add. As far as risks outweighing The benefits is concerned, the fact that you will take the cons' side when all they have shown in terms of risk is civil lawsuits but completely ignore my risks which include the resurgence of crime and the inability of ex-cons to survive past a year before committing crimes again. Only serve to prove that you are not being fair in this debate when voting.
This is especially true when you consider the fact Con so far has not addressed the landowner portion of my arguments and only partially when it comes to employment. Even then, it is hardly a rebuttal as they address none of the stats that prove my points and instead say that since people have to consent to a background check, lawsuits can occur if the wrong person is hired. That, if anything, makes Con's argument weak and rebuttals non-existent. I am not saying you should not vote for Con. But what I am saying is to vote not based on personal opinion like you have clearly demonstrated up to this point; vote best on the arguments themselves. If I am pulling sources and staying consistent and my opponent has not rebuttable or even addressed the points I made. Then they have clearly not made the better argument. Be fair, not biased, is all I ask.
I understand that opinions vary regarding the cause of the war, and not everyone believes it was solely due to slavery. However, I am only interested in a serious and professional debate. Anyone with a basic education in history knows that the war started for one of two reasons: 1) The South feared that Lincoln's presidency threatened the institution of slavery, making it the central reason, or 2) Southern states felt the need to secede because they believed their states' rights were being oppressed by the Federal government. Any other view is not based on the history of the civil war and is thus ignorant.
I'm sorry that my rules do not allow for ignorant and baseless assertions to be argued on but I am not interested in hearing nonsense I am interested in debating in a serious and professional manner, Since that does not seem to be your criteria then the debate is not for you then simple as that.
No one has challenged it yet and the time in between arguments is three days apart so you should have plenty of time if you are interested in debating this.
Your claim is illogical, as the slave trade in America was racially motivated and not related to Jewish matters. Furthermore, the primary debate surrounding the American Civil War for the past century has been whether slavery was the main cause or if it was due to the federal government forcing the South to secede in defense of its rights. Consequently, I am perplexed by your expectation for me to create a narrative that is not only false but also historically inaccurate, just as you are uncertain about why I should make Con argue that the Confederacy fought for states' rights instead of slavery.
Not a problem. I just started the second round.
The term disease is a pretty well-understood term for anyone who is past the third grade. You can't cure stupidly. If people can't be bothered to do the research, then they are not worth debating.
You are just being discriminatory, which is interesting, considering the fact you claim to have the same disability. As someone who also suffers from Autism, I would say your blatant ignorance offends me, but I won't give you the satisfaction. Thank you for your (ignorant) opinions about Autism. I will be completely happy to (completely ignore) keep that in mind.
I apologize. It was meant to say the possibility of morality without religion. Not afterlife. The reason I am refusing to continue the debate is the same reason as a previous debate with Mall. So, I copied and pasted the same reason without making the proper corrections. So, please remember I am referring to morality without religion and not an afterlife. Thank you.
please feel free to vote
Please feel free to vote.
I get that law can be confusing, especially on an international level. A general rule of thumb I recommend is that if the law you are reading concerning rights is not specific. This means that the idea behind the law is subjective or not always enforced. It's also important to know the difference between an actual right and a specific set of rules that give something similar to a right but does not say it outright. That's the easiest way I can think of to explain international law.
Article 36 states, "Prisoners of war who are ministers of religion, without having officiated as
chaplains to their forces, shall be at liberty, whatever their denomination,
to minister freely to the members of their community. For this purpose, they
shall receive the same treatment as the chaplains retained by the Detaining
Power. They shall not be obliged to do any other work."
It does not say anything. About allowing Prisoners to practice their religion specifically. Also, if you saying, "I’d constitute forcing someone, like a Muslim to eat pork, Hindu to eat beef or a Jew to eat shellfish, to be prohibiting them to participate, follow and practice their religion in a very large way, as these dietary principles are very important to those religions" Than you are basing this on a subjective opinion and not a matter of law. And you are half right about the Geneva Convention. Both nations did sign it before the war. But neither side agreed to Protical 1, which protected civilians. So that adds further complexity to arguing that America committed war crimes though prisoner abuses did happen.
From what I found. Iraq did sign the 1949 Geneva Convention in the 1950s. But they did not sign the protocol 1 until 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I Neither did The USA at the time of the Iraq war. I also did not find any requirements in the 1949 Convention Article 36 that make making Prisoners of war eat pork to be a violation. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf I agree with WillyB. Nothing we say in the comments here should affect the results.
I would like to point out. That Iraq POWs are not US citizens. They are not entitled to US law concerning freedom of religion. They fall under the Geneva Convention. So while making them eat pork might be a dick move. If it does not violate the Genova convention, the USA technically did not violate any religious freedom, at least not under American law. Bombing important religious sites might. But I am not familiar if that's true under international law.
The arguments are all submitted. Feel free to vote.
The arguments are all submitted. Feel free to vote.
Just to add. There was a point where I proved the Pro went against their evidence. They argued that Latvna and Luxembourg were better examples of Democracy and freedom than the USA. But they went against that by saying NATO nations were not freedom-loving nations. even though Lativna and Luxemburg are members. Their Data chart showed Luxembourg, Latvia, and Estonia were on the top charts of the Freedom index that Pro provided. Estonia is also a NATO member.
No, they aren't. Dumb can mean being unintelligent or having a disability depending on the context. Mentally Ill is when you suffer from a condition that prevents you from acting or thinking normally, often leading to unpleasant or unpredictable behavior.
First, this a debate app. Not a Rap app. Second, you started this conversation by getting hostile for no reason. Do you think I am going to do anything for you at this point? You are either dumb or mentally ill.
What beef? I don't even know you. You just came on here and started cursing at me and Pro.
Okay. I will report you now. Have a nice day.
Thank you for your suggestion. I have done so and have advised Pro to do the same.
That's not the basis of the debate.
I think your comments have pretty much established that you are only hearing and talking to yourself. I am not debating this any longer. My vote stands as it is.
That is not how science works. If you share DNA with species of an animal regardless of the amount, this can only happen if you are related to said animal on a genetic level, which makes you also an animal. Again, what causes me to vote for the Pro is that they based their arguments on backup scientific evidence, which Trumps any dictionary arguments you made. And since you did not refute the evidence Pro provided, that is considered in a professional debate as consenting to that point. Also, the Criteria asks who gave BETTER sources, not the amount. Nothing Trumps science as a source of information except science, which you did not provide.
Sir, I viewed both of your debates. Pro used Oxford University's definition of an animal as a living organism that feeds on organic matter. In addition, he gave another source that proves that we share DNA with other animals. Your sources come from purely word-based definitions, not scientific ones. You also tried using behavioral differences, which does not work as a species is not purely defined by behavior. You also seem to be unaware of the law of contradiction. You cannot share DNA with an animal and not be an animal yourself.
Regardless, the fact remains that The Pro established their stance based on science, whereas you established your argument based on the dictionary. Hence, your lack of scientific rebuttal and overreliance on irrelevant word definitions resulted in my vote.
Sounds good. Just DM me when you want to, and I will set up the debate. The topic will remain the same.
If you're willing, I would be more than happy to debate with you on this topic since the Con did not do much. I would be a con on this debate.
Sounds good. But I don't know how to do that. Thanks for participating. It was fun.
You don't know what respect is. But it's pointless arguing with you. You only want to run your mouth and be a troll. IM done listening to it.
You do realize that by your own admission. You purposefully made an unfair vote that was outside the criteria. I fail to see the validity in getting upset for being called out on actions you have been WARNED ahead of time not to do. Frankly, it says a lot about your character. To be warned that toxic behavior will not be tolerated, and yet you still do it anyway to be a dick. Completely unrespectable.
thank you sir.
I think the vote TWS1405_2 is unfair because he claims I am "pro-criminal." And does not give any reasons for his vote. For example. He claims that Con did better conduct. But Con nor I disrespected each other in the debate. We both acted professionally. Overall I think it's clear that the vote was made with a clear bias; as I said, he would do rather than an honest vote based on the arguments.
Thank you. I will follow your good advice.
Sir, you only said that AFTER I told you, I would tell the Mods about your conduct. Before that, every previous request to vote based on criteria and not personal opinion was ignored. So no, I did not lie. You also claimed I would lose long before you said you could vote as long as it was in the criteria. Cleary, your attempts at calling me a liar have failed.
Sir, you see why I am concerned? I have never once said that TWS1405_2 could not vote. However, I did ask him to make sure his vote was based on the criteria and not his personal opinions. He's not only given no assurances that he would, he has all but assured me "you will lose," Which is biased and not fair to Con or Me. He also made it clear that he is against me not because I presented a bad argument but because he thinks his past experiences make him more knowledgeable on the subject, which is not what he, as a voter, is supposed to vote based on.
It is not that he has to vote for me necessarily. It is simply that I do not think he is being fair or even evaluating my argument, as he called them "weak" with no supporting evidence before proceeding to insult me for no reason. I only ask for a fair vote based on the arguments and evidence presented.
I try to be as quick and efficient as possible. Sometimes to my own detriment, lol.
I never disputed your ability to vote. However, there are rules against voting outside of the criteria. You have not addressed any of the points I made besides baselessly calling them weak and made it clear through your own hostile demeanor that your vote will not be in a logical manner. Still, rather a biased one, and have repeatedly made it abundant that you lack the maturity to have civilized conduct. In short sit, you are a living example of a lack of integrity. To allow you to vote when you display a clear lack of understanding of the rules of professional debating would defeat the very purpose of professional debating. You are meant to vote not on personal bias, hatred, or because you don't like someone.
You vote based on who presents a better argument, legibility, sources, and conduct. I have asked you repeatedly to conduct your vote in the manner prescribed, and you have not only refused to do so but made it clear that you intend to vote against me out of spite, which is unfair to Con and me. You can vote; however, the Mods are now aware of your intentions, and should you cast a vote and the reason for it is not thorough and based purely on the arguments presented, I will report it again, and the Mods will intervene. It is not hard to act as an Adult. All this anger is one-sided, and you are the source of the issue, sir; please stop being toxic and actually let the debate be fair and fun. Thank you.
Thank you so much for the disrespectful comment that has been reported. I have also gone ahead and let a Moderator know about this discussion, your conduct, and the confirmation of your bias should you attempt to vote. Good day.
Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective. Making claims with no evidence is called hearsay. Whether you have a degree in criminology or have worked in the justice system has no relevance. As a voter, your job is to vote solely on the criteria given, which is not meant to be based on opinion, experience, or past work history. Only better arguments, Legibility, sources, and conduct. Are you able to do so, sir? Because this discussion has so far revealed, you to be, in fact, immature, biased, and above all disrespectful. I am very tempted to notify moderators of your conduct and warn them of your unfair biases. But I want to be fair, so are you willing to act right, or will you be biased and disrespectful?
You are free to think that my rebuttals are weak, but without a proper explanation, that's a biased opinion, especially when You make it clear it is coming from the perspective of someone who hires people. My main argument in this debate has been to prove that background checks that allow businesses and landowners to discriminate against those who try to find housing and employment should not be permitted.
I have presented strong arguments showing that over 70% of post-bail jobs are negatively impacted. Additionally, I showed that the denial of proper employment and housing, which happens to millions of Americans with criminals, results in over 44% not lasting a year before reoffending. If you have read my submitted evidence and still say more is needed to convince you. Then you have no intention of considering my arguments in any serious capacity.
Secondly, You claim "on has demonstrated through the EEOC and the various jurisdictions of law that outlines that the risk does outweigh the benefit." Yet Con's sources only demonstrate that should a company hire the wrong person; The company can face litigation. It does nothing in terms of addressing the points that I have made. Points that you seem to ignore as well, I might add. As far as risks outweighing The benefits is concerned, the fact that you will take the cons' side when all they have shown in terms of risk is civil lawsuits but completely ignore my risks which include the resurgence of crime and the inability of ex-cons to survive past a year before committing crimes again. Only serve to prove that you are not being fair in this debate when voting.
This is especially true when you consider the fact Con so far has not addressed the landowner portion of my arguments and only partially when it comes to employment. Even then, it is hardly a rebuttal as they address none of the stats that prove my points and instead say that since people have to consent to a background check, lawsuits can occur if the wrong person is hired. That, if anything, makes Con's argument weak and rebuttals non-existent. I am not saying you should not vote for Con. But what I am saying is to vote not based on personal opinion like you have clearly demonstrated up to this point; vote best on the arguments themselves. If I am pulling sources and staying consistent and my opponent has not rebuttable or even addressed the points I made. Then they have clearly not made the better argument. Be fair, not biased, is all I ask.
Sorry, some of my sources are reused unintentionally, there was a mistake when I was doing the editing
This is a debating app, not a musical. People are not interested, so you should give up on this.
please clarify what you are arguing for or against and I will consider accepting the challenge as of now it is not clear.
sorry for the initial forfeit guys that was not intentional.
thanks all for voting and hearing both sides of the argument
I would love to debate this subject but unfortunately, the rating is too high for me to be able to.
thanks for agreeing to the debate it was a lot of fun and I look forward to hearing your closing argument.
I understand that opinions vary regarding the cause of the war, and not everyone believes it was solely due to slavery. However, I am only interested in a serious and professional debate. Anyone with a basic education in history knows that the war started for one of two reasons: 1) The South feared that Lincoln's presidency threatened the institution of slavery, making it the central reason, or 2) Southern states felt the need to secede because they believed their states' rights were being oppressed by the Federal government. Any other view is not based on the history of the civil war and is thus ignorant.
I'm sorry that my rules do not allow for ignorant and baseless assertions to be argued on but I am not interested in hearing nonsense I am interested in debating in a serious and professional manner, Since that does not seem to be your criteria then the debate is not for you then simple as that.
No one has challenged it yet and the time in between arguments is three days apart so you should have plenty of time if you are interested in debating this.
If you believe the South left to protect its states' rights or that slavery was not the cause then challenge the debate.
Your claim is illogical, as the slave trade in America was racially motivated and not related to Jewish matters. Furthermore, the primary debate surrounding the American Civil War for the past century has been whether slavery was the main cause or if it was due to the federal government forcing the South to secede in defense of its rights. Consequently, I am perplexed by your expectation for me to create a narrative that is not only false but also historically inaccurate, just as you are uncertain about why I should make Con argue that the Confederacy fought for states' rights instead of slavery.
sorry ill post now, did not get notified until now.