"I am not a xenophobe." Also, you: "First of all, you are American and I don't think you understand much stuff correctly or in a logical way."
Either you don't know what xenophobia means or you are just lying at this point.
@LogicalDebater01 needs to have their vote removed and investigated, as their reasoning for their vote violates the rules, and they have been extremely rude to me. They claim that because I am an American, I have low intellect and can't argue logically. Xenophobic behavior should not be tolerated.
>First of all, you are American and I don't think you understand much stuff correctly or in a logical way.
Awesome. Announce the fact you're being a xenophobe and then call ME illogical. That's such a GREAT starting point.
> "listing sources should be considered UNREADABLE", I wrote "UNRELIABLE" at that last part. Please learn how to read and if you have cognitive issues with lacking the brain power to read, then I recommend going to a psychiatrist for finding solutions on how to solve your lack of brain power.
I acknowledge my typo, but given that your statement contains about three errors, you're not in the strongest position to critique. Furthermore, your argument is not pertinent. You seem to imply that citing sources is unreliable, which is illogical; such reasoning would suggest that empirical evidence is unreliable in debate, which is untrue. Perhaps instead of worrying about the psychological mindset of others, you should worry about your own since you think insults and xenophobic remarks make for a counterargument.
>The essence of how debates function is how convincing arguments are, and if you disagree with this then you pretty much lack the ability to understand it's purpose. I believe Con is a very intelligent individual that most people can not understand; he seems apparent and quite gifted in my observation; his reasoning throughout his debates are very well conducted and packs more logic than the reasoning done by Pro throughout their rounds.
Your standard of logic is, "Go against anyone's sources, yell personal attacks at anyone who disagrees, and be a xenophobe." Your understanding of logic is different from what the world understands logic to be. Your moral ethics also seem to be lacking. Again, Pro provided empirical evidence, while Con did not. Empiricism defeats logic.
>. Your inability to comprehend Con shows your lack of brain power, and you don't seem to understand the points illustrated in Con's viewpoint. Also it's probably just you who hardly comprehends Con.
Continuing to mock my intelligence only undermines your argument further. The reality is that you are aligning with the opposition on illogical grounds and paradoxically criticizing the proposition for providing evidence to support their argument, which is nonsensical.
>I believe that Pro has been doing not so much so far, except explain basic baby concepts from physics, biology, and psychology in a very short and simplistic but very non-smart way due to how he uses those information in order to gain advantage in the debate (which is obviously a delusion of his).
I'm starting to believe you may not understand how arguments function. Professionals using information supported by sources is a standard strategy in debates. Indeed, it creates a much stronger argument than merely employing logic, as logic by itself does not constitute evidence. Therefore, it is indeed wise to use information in a debate; without it, there is no debate.
>He spends so much time yapping in order to add details but not add any good reason to his arguments so far. Your inability to see how they've gone ("strayed" is not a word I used nor would use for this situation) off-topic is quite ridiculous.
Here you go, being absurd again. Your definition of "yaping" is subjective and ultimately irrelevant. All that tells us is that you didn't bother evaluating the Pros argument when you made the vote, which is against the guidelines when voting. Pro also never went off-topic. So, that's just a lie you made.
>Also, Pro's citations to support his arguments are quite absurd and ridiculous, because they're not enough to provide a sustainable argument that is logically sounding in order to prove that free will is an illusion, all he did was just cite less-abstract studies that require more investigation and are still being debated within the realms of philosophy.
This statement is yet another fallacy. The proponent has provided ample evidence to logically support their argument. The reasoning behind your vote contradicts itself; initially, you opposed the proponent because "adding sources is unreliable," yet now you claim they did not provide sufficient support for their argument. This demonstrates a clear bias and a double standard.
> Pro went off topic because illustratively he has 80% of information that is useless for proving that free will is an illusion in his arguments (arguments of which are absurd).
You seem to be contradicting yourself. It's not consistent to claim that someone went "off topic" and then assert that 80% of their information is useless. They are either off-topic with no relevant information, or they are on topic, and you believe 80% of their information is useless, which is irrelevant if you haven't demonstrated how any of their information is without value.
I disagree with the way you managed your vote. It was evident that Con did not present a superior argument since it lacked any support. The statement that "listing sources should be considered unreadable" is illogical. An argument becomes stronger with more evidence provided. That's the essence of how debates function. Moreover, I cannot comprehend how Con demonstrated better conduct than Pro.
Your assertion that Pro "intensely yaps about quantum mechanics and the elementary principles of neuroscience, including the functioning of decaying brain cells (a hyperbolic statement, and such yapping is indeed irrelevant and unnecessary for the debate topic)," while Con remains professionally on topic, is incorrect. In the initial round, Pro presented the argument that free will is an illusion, citing cognitive neuroscience studies that demonstrate how our decisions are influenced by unconscious processes. Therefore, it appears you may have either not read the debate thoroughly or are misrepresenting the facts.
You also assert that Con "counters Pro's assertions with robust logic in a detailed and logical manner; very efficiently." However, this is inaccurate as neither Pro nor Con strayed off topic, and regardless of how "logical" you subjectively consider Con's argument to be, Con failed to provide any evidence, even upon Pro's request.
Therefore, I would like you to correct your vote, or I shall report it for misrepresentation.
The idea that there are universal moral concepts is misleading. Although murder is frequently mentioned as universally immoral, it is actually a legal term used within judicial systems. To deem an act as murder from a moral perspective is to engage in subjective interpretation. For instance, the killing of a person for burglarizing a home may be viewed as justified by the homeowner, yet the burglar's family would perceive it as the murder of their relative. Morality is invariably contextual, not absolute.
No, You can lead a moral life even if morality is not an objective reality. Subjective morality doesn't imply the absence of moral values; rather, it means that individuals shape their morality based on personal perceptions and experiences instead of an external authority. For example, Christians say that stealing is morally wrong because Christianity teaches that is a sin. That is a purposed objective moral view because no matter what, stealing is viewed as wrong.
As an atheist, I may consider stealing to be morally acceptable based on my perceptions and values. This means that regardless of my moral standpoint, I am living a lifestyle that I consider to be moral and successful.
Regarding the debate on whether morality is objective or subjective, the law of non-contradiction dictates that it can only be one, not both. Given that there is no universal adherence to or agreement on any moral concept, a universal moral standard cannot exist for objective morality or realism to hold true. In summary, while countless examples may demonstrate the subjectivity of morality, not a single instance of universal applicability exists to support the existence of objective morality.
>Also, the fact that morality isn't a tangible thing doesn't make it inherently subjective either. Mathematics is an intangible concept. That doesn't mean that the fact that 2+2=4 depends on people believing in it.
An entity that necessitates belief for its existence is not empirical. Morality exists solely because humans conceptualized it. Similarly, mathematics straddles the empirical and the non-empirical. For instance, the truth of 2+2 equaling four does not rely on belief, as it is demonstrable and applicable in reality. Conversely, the non-empirical aspect of mathematics, such as algebraic equations, does not directly correlate to real-life situations. For example, the equation 2x-8 equals a certain value and does not represent a tangible number, as 2x is an abstract concept created to address a particular mathematical problem.
In contrast, morality lacks an empirical foundation; it is a subjective notion that arises solely from the experiences and philosophical teachings of individuals.
I suggest researching the law of non-contradiction. For religion to be necessary for a moral life, morality would not only need to be objective but also based on that particular religion. Arguing that morality is subjective does not undermine my case because if morality is proven to be subjective, then objective morality cannot exist, and thus, the necessity of religion for a moral life would also be false.
Secondly, morality does not exist in tangible form. It is a concept adopted through personal experience or the teachings of others. As such, morality relies on individual or collective belief to exist. If no one believes an action to be immoral, then it will not be considered immoral, and vice versaThis renders morality subjective. It cannot be empirically validated as true since it is an abstract concept residing solely within human consciousness.
>That's the thing though, Con doesn't have to prove anything if you have the burden of proof. All they have to do is show how your arguments are insufficient to prove God does not exist, which they are.
The lack of evidence for the existence of God is frequently interpreted as evidence of absence. It is illogical to demand that people disprove the existence of something that has never been proven. This is comparable to being asked to prove that someone lacks insurance without any evidence indicating they have it. Therefore, the fact that the universe's creation cannot be attributed to a deity through the laws of thermodynamics, coupled with the complete absence of empirical proof of God, suffices for me to convincingly argue that God does not exist and cannot be empirically proven.
If that is insufficient for you, then perhaps nothing will ever suffice, as you may always find yourself in a situation where you think something might be real despite lacking evidence, and no argument could persuade you otherwise, given that the stance itself is contradictory.
>Incorrect. Again, you are committing the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are making the invalid assumption that because something has not been proven, it cannot be proven and must therefore be false. Mathematicians have been trying to prove the Riemann Hypothesis for decades and have been unable to, yet there is still little doubt that it's actually true.
That's incorrect. First, mathematics is not always empirical. When we engage with empirical mathematics, we are dealing with immutable truths; for example, 1+1 will always equal 2. In the case of the Riemann Hypothesis, we are dealing with a theory that, by your own admission, has not been proven and thus cannot be declared as true.
Secondly, I am not committing an "argument from ignorance" fallacy. I am following the established principles of the scientific method. To substantiate something, we must observe it, develop theories based on these observations, and then test these theories to reach a conclusion. This process is fundamental to science and empirical reasoning. Since God cannot be physically observed, no theory about God can be formulated, and thus, God cannot be empirically proven. Unless one argues that science itself commits an "argument from ignorance" fallacy, the assertion that I am making such a fallacy is not valid.
>Many theorems have been proven that rely on it being true. Again, Con doesn't have the BoP here and doesn't have to prove that God exists. As long as they can prove that his existence is at least possible, then they win.
You may argue that Con does not bear the burden of proof and that it lies with me, but this is ultimately irrelevant for two reasons. First, even if we agree that I carry the burden of proof, I have already established it through the absence of evidence, which is considered a form of evidence. Second, the only way Con can effectively counter my argument of evidence absence is by providing evidence.
Finally, given that there is no physical evidence of God and the scientific method cannot be applied to establish the concept of God as a theory, I am curious about how the opposition could demonstrate the possibility of God's existence without being able to establish it as a theory.
>While it is true that the person trying to prove God's existence typically has the burden of proof, once you claim non existence the burden shifts to you, and the murder comparison doesn't stand up.
Acutally, it does. Claiming someone has committed murder requires proof to substantiate the accusation. This makes a perfect comparison. However, your argument Is akin to arguing that a person is presumed innocent until they declare their innocence, at which point the burden shifts to them to prove they are not guilty. This is an illogical stance.
>The fact is you can't assume a universe created by God is less likely than a universe that popped into existence or always existed.
You seem to have overlooked my argument where I stated that the Universe, being composed of matter, has always existed and thus lacks a creator. I supported this claim with a source. Therefore, I did not make any assumptions but rather based my framework on empirical scientific laws.
I recognize my stance as Pro; I am simply highlighting that Con cannot provide any proof, as doing so would challenge the principles of science. Since the existence of God cannot be proven, my argument stands substantiated.
>It's funny that you bring up that you can't assert something is true just because something hasn't been disproven, when you are doing exactly that, but in inverse.
I have no idea where ca,e that came from because that its not what I said. I said that you can't assert something is true because you believe it to be true.
>At best, you can say we have insufficient evidence to believe in God and maybe even argue that God's existence is unlikely, but you can't disprove it, and that's actually what you have to do in this debate since you have the presumptive burden of proof.
Actually, that's a fallacy argument because you acknowledge that you lack sufficient proof to establish God, then you haven't proven God, and therefore, it, by definition, is not proven. Thus admitting that God can't be proven.
Actually, proving the non-existence of God is quite straightforward. It's akin to why we don't accept accusations of murder without evidence: proof is required. God's existence cannot be verified as there is no scientific method available for such a verification. You may argue, "But you can't prove He doesn't exist." Yet, this is a logical fallacy that contradicts the principles of evidence. When asserting the truth of any claim, whether it's the existence of God or anything else, one must substantiate it with evidence that can be presented to others. To assert that something is true simply because it has not been disproven is to misunderstand the burden of proof and the nature of objective evidence, expecting others to disprove an unestablished claim.
In essence, if the opposition cannot prove the existence of God or that it can be proven, then I have won the debate since my position is the exact opposite.
I appreciate that you found merit in my initial argument, but it seems there was a misunderstanding. My point was that the concept of God creating the Universe is incompatible with the Universe's eternal existence. This is rooted in the first law of thermodynamics, which asserts that matter cannot be created or destroyed; something that was never created can't have a creator because there was never a time when it did not exist.
I believe there's a crucial aspect being overlooked. Evidence isn't reciprocal. Given that my stance starts with skepticism, it falls on the opposition to demonstrate that God's existence is provable. I'm not required to prove God's existence is unprovable, as that would be contradictory. Clearly, if something is provable, then I can't prove it's not. The existence of God is not within the physical or testable realms of science, thus making the absence of evidence apparent. To counter this, Con would need to claim that there is, indeed, a method to prove God's existence and then proceed to demonstrate it.
I must clarify that this is not the correct approach. Selectively using words to misrepresent someone's statements, either by taking them out of context or by creating a misleading narrative, constitutes manipulation, which is dishonesty. Furthermore, 'unsympathetic' is not equivalent to 'awful.' Being unsympathetic indicates a lack of compassion for others, which was exactly how you said you felt about others. In contrast, labeling someone as awful suggests a critique of their character. Inserting words into someone else's dialogue does not constitute a fact that they actually said what you insinuate, nor does it alter the facts.
>That’s why I put the … there. to show the adjectives but not connect them
Your education must be otherworldly because it's certainly not from this planet. Imagine strolling into an English class, declaring you'll quote Shakespeare, and then proclaiming, "To...Be...Macbeth...end." You'd be the day's entertainment!
I hope you know that creating fake quotes makes you a liar. Because voters will see where you claim, I said, "absurd…fictitious... unsympathetic to the suffering of others which you affirm." They will read that I actually said, "Not only does this absurd argument do nothing to counter nor address what I said, but at this point you are making fictitious arguments. I never called you an "rather awful person." I only pointed out that you were unsympathetic to the suffering of others which you affirm. If that comes across as a bad person in your own point of view than you should consider reevaluating your own conduct rather than get offended and make up falsehoods to justify it. "
>These people have no obligation to read your debate. It should at least be fun to read
Again, troll, this is a platform for professional debating. If "fun" means being an insufferable degenerate in your books, then go somewhere else. Btw you just admitted that you don't even read the debates.
First of all, that's not what a concession is. A concession is when you admit the opposite side has a point. For example, say we were debating about cigarettes, and I, as Con, said that they should be banned cause they caused cancer. Then Pro says in their argument that they admit smoking causes cancer, but rebuttals that banning cigarettes isn't possible. That a concession because Pro concedes to my point that smoking risks cancer.
Me saying I won't participate because Pro told me that they would not take the debate seriously as the topic was a joke is NOT a concession because there is no point that they made that I agree with.
>You accepted my debate and I gave more effort than him and it was you who chose not to take my corn debate seriously. I made a fun topic, but I made a serious effort, admittedly not my hardest effort but a serious one and you bowed out.
Dude, if you think about making a topic where you assert married men should stop eating CORN and in the said topic, you go on a ridiculous and related Vulguar rant about PORN as a "Serious effort." Then you have to be either extremely uneducated or simply don't know what a debate is.
>The above quote is a concession, and he likely gave you very little effort because you gave him very little.
I know you troll and thus uneducated and, therefore, probably don't realize the stupidity in trying to establish falsehoods in a situation where everything is literally readable. Nevertheless, even you have to realize that such a lie will not work when we write with Pro flat out, stating they won't make an effort no matter what I did due to the topic being a JOKE. But yes, try to blame me and spout as much WRITTEN nonsense as you want. It won't make it true, nor will it make you less foolish for both lying and trying to justify your toxic actions.
>You also insult the mods in R1, so you are asking them for a favorable view of a vote in a Grey area after insulting them, so good luck with that
Never asked for a favorable vote, so that's another lie that you even prove by a quotation of my words (side note: Acting stupid on purpose doesn't make you cool. It just makes you stupid); I only said I would report you for breaking the rules, which isn't the definition of a "favor" btw. Also, I never insulted them. I merely critiqued at the fact that they let toxic stupidy when this app used to be serious. A position you only help further prove with your stupid actions.
Dude, you are a troll. Clearly, by your admission, Pro is disrespected and, therefore, did not deserve the better conduct vote, especially after admitting that they were not interested in participating in the debate. Secondly, I never made any concession whatsoever. I have reported your vote and will be reporting you to the mods very soon,
>Does that apply to writing and other forms of expression as well? Or literal just to what our forefathers wrote, the spoken word? Also do any instances of 'man' and such refer to woman equally?
I do not really understand the questions here because the First Amendment makes it pretty clear that my ability to freedom of speech is absolute. Yes, it only applies to government and private entities such as your place of employment or public platforms can retaliate in ways from firing me, banning me, and suing me. However, the fact remains that I cannot be silenced because my ability to speak is protected by the First Amendment.
The wording of the Constitution has not been changed since it was written, so there is no difference in what the Constitution says now as opposed to what the forefathers originally said. The only argument you could make is to point out that other amendments were added after the forefathers died. Still, even then, that doesn't change the fact that many of the beginning Amendments, including Free Speech, were authored by our founding fathers.
Also, the Constitution's criteria are based on CITIZENSHIP, not GENDER. So any rights or laws governed by the Constitution apply equally to men and women both.
> Also please add your definition of constitutional right into the description.
I don't go by subjective definitions when it comes to the law, as it is not a matter of personal opinions. The definition of Constitutional rights is any rights granted to you by the Constitution. They are generally categorized under the American Bill of Rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights However, other rights, such as women's and African American rights to vote as well as the right to vote at 18, exist as well.
> You may also want to add a few details of the types of abortion you are applying this to. Human (obviously), before the end of the third trimester, but second trimester forward or conception forward or what? And are you wishing your ban to allow exceptions for instances of rape, health issues (hopefully at least ectopic pregnancies), or anything else?
Well, there are no different "types" of abortion. Abortion is the wish to terminate a pregnancy. And no, the point of this isn't to advocate for or against abortion. I am saying that from a Constitutional standpoint, women do not have the right to have an abortion, and I am inviting anyone who thinks otherwise to challenge that position.
>It is forcing pregnancy for those already pregnant.
Again, unless it's rape, that was the consequence of their actions.
>Really, you are making the argument, "If you don't want kids, then don't have sex." Really, the only people that can make this argument are those that are waiting until marriage to have sex (which I'm willing to, but only 3% of the US population actually is willing to do).
I don't know what to tell you; I didn't invent biology. You choose to have sex recklessly, and without thinking, you will end up with a child. Most people realize when they are older that sex is not all that important and has consequences. You don't have to wait till marriage; you have to be responsible. Know the laws in your state, look at your finances, ask yourself if parenthood is worth the risk, and let the chips fall where they may.
>The claim that, "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" is a claim that those wanting to ban abortion agree with and those wanting to legalize it disagree with.
Pregnancy is the result of sex. That is basic biology and the result of one's choice. It has nothing to do with consent. I don't care if abortion is banned or not. I care about keeping it factual.
As for the rest, I fail to see what's important about your bulletin. Because facts don't care about feelings and facts are all that matter. The fact is, if a woman decides to have sex with a man, she is playing a game of, "Will this get me knocked up or not?" Once she does this, whatever actions that happen is what she brought on herself. It doesn't matter what others think about or if she does it in the name of "good" or natural. You don't want to have kids? Don't have sex. Too easy.
Denying the right to abortion is not forcing pregnancy. No one says, "You woman. You must have 3 children before your 20th birthday." When women have sex, they run the risk of getting impregnated, excluding cases of rape that are entirely on them. So, my rebuttal to that argument if people present that to me is, "Women don't need to have sex." It's as simple as that.
As for the 14th Amendment, while it is true that only people born in the US are natural citizens, it does not OK murder, nor would that even be relevant to the 14th Amendment. Abortion itself being considered murder would depend on the state.
I know these are not your arguments. But I felt offering how I view them.
My definition of a Constitutional right is that it has to be based in some way on the Constitution. That is how the law works. For example, when I insist I have a right to free speech Constitutionally, I have to cite where that comes from within the Constitution itself. In this instance, the First Amendment. The 13th and 14th Amendments don't mention abortion, so they cannot be used as a basis to say that the right to abortion is within them.
I don't give a shit how many times you come to my comment section and call me a coward. I blocked you because you never debate with any intention of staying on topic or even acknowledging the points anyone makes. Arguing with you is simply a waste of breath.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I seriously need to know where you got that kind of education from. The 13th and 14th Amendments neither mention abortion nor are they relevant. The 13th Amendment is about abolishing slavery: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13
The 14th Amendment is about citizenship status, prohibiting people guilty of insurrection from taking political office, and other issues. None of them include women reproductive rights. "Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
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.
We just made two new arguments. I would love to hear your views on both sides.
I want to debate. But I am current at max on my debates
LogicalDebater01 is a loon. Theres no point arguing with stupid.
"I am not a xenophobe." Also, you: "First of all, you are American and I don't think you understand much stuff correctly or in a logical way."
Either you don't know what xenophobia means or you are just lying at this point.
@LogicalDebater01 needs to have their vote removed and investigated, as their reasoning for their vote violates the rules, and they have been extremely rude to me. They claim that because I am an American, I have low intellect and can't argue logically. Xenophobic behavior should not be tolerated.
Don't even worry about it. I am going to proceed with reporting you. Talking to you was a waste of time.
>First of all, you are American and I don't think you understand much stuff correctly or in a logical way.
Awesome. Announce the fact you're being a xenophobe and then call ME illogical. That's such a GREAT starting point.
> "listing sources should be considered UNREADABLE", I wrote "UNRELIABLE" at that last part. Please learn how to read and if you have cognitive issues with lacking the brain power to read, then I recommend going to a psychiatrist for finding solutions on how to solve your lack of brain power.
I acknowledge my typo, but given that your statement contains about three errors, you're not in the strongest position to critique. Furthermore, your argument is not pertinent. You seem to imply that citing sources is unreliable, which is illogical; such reasoning would suggest that empirical evidence is unreliable in debate, which is untrue. Perhaps instead of worrying about the psychological mindset of others, you should worry about your own since you think insults and xenophobic remarks make for a counterargument.
>The essence of how debates function is how convincing arguments are, and if you disagree with this then you pretty much lack the ability to understand it's purpose. I believe Con is a very intelligent individual that most people can not understand; he seems apparent and quite gifted in my observation; his reasoning throughout his debates are very well conducted and packs more logic than the reasoning done by Pro throughout their rounds.
Your standard of logic is, "Go against anyone's sources, yell personal attacks at anyone who disagrees, and be a xenophobe." Your understanding of logic is different from what the world understands logic to be. Your moral ethics also seem to be lacking. Again, Pro provided empirical evidence, while Con did not. Empiricism defeats logic.
>. Your inability to comprehend Con shows your lack of brain power, and you don't seem to understand the points illustrated in Con's viewpoint. Also it's probably just you who hardly comprehends Con.
Continuing to mock my intelligence only undermines your argument further. The reality is that you are aligning with the opposition on illogical grounds and paradoxically criticizing the proposition for providing evidence to support their argument, which is nonsensical.
>I believe that Pro has been doing not so much so far, except explain basic baby concepts from physics, biology, and psychology in a very short and simplistic but very non-smart way due to how he uses those information in order to gain advantage in the debate (which is obviously a delusion of his).
I'm starting to believe you may not understand how arguments function. Professionals using information supported by sources is a standard strategy in debates. Indeed, it creates a much stronger argument than merely employing logic, as logic by itself does not constitute evidence. Therefore, it is indeed wise to use information in a debate; without it, there is no debate.
>He spends so much time yapping in order to add details but not add any good reason to his arguments so far. Your inability to see how they've gone ("strayed" is not a word I used nor would use for this situation) off-topic is quite ridiculous.
Here you go, being absurd again. Your definition of "yaping" is subjective and ultimately irrelevant. All that tells us is that you didn't bother evaluating the Pros argument when you made the vote, which is against the guidelines when voting. Pro also never went off-topic. So, that's just a lie you made.
>Also, Pro's citations to support his arguments are quite absurd and ridiculous, because they're not enough to provide a sustainable argument that is logically sounding in order to prove that free will is an illusion, all he did was just cite less-abstract studies that require more investigation and are still being debated within the realms of philosophy.
This statement is yet another fallacy. The proponent has provided ample evidence to logically support their argument. The reasoning behind your vote contradicts itself; initially, you opposed the proponent because "adding sources is unreliable," yet now you claim they did not provide sufficient support for their argument. This demonstrates a clear bias and a double standard.
> Pro went off topic because illustratively he has 80% of information that is useless for proving that free will is an illusion in his arguments (arguments of which are absurd).
You seem to be contradicting yourself. It's not consistent to claim that someone went "off topic" and then assert that 80% of their information is useless. They are either off-topic with no relevant information, or they are on topic, and you believe 80% of their information is useless, which is irrelevant if you haven't demonstrated how any of their information is without value.
I disagree with the way you managed your vote. It was evident that Con did not present a superior argument since it lacked any support. The statement that "listing sources should be considered unreadable" is illogical. An argument becomes stronger with more evidence provided. That's the essence of how debates function. Moreover, I cannot comprehend how Con demonstrated better conduct than Pro.
Your assertion that Pro "intensely yaps about quantum mechanics and the elementary principles of neuroscience, including the functioning of decaying brain cells (a hyperbolic statement, and such yapping is indeed irrelevant and unnecessary for the debate topic)," while Con remains professionally on topic, is incorrect. In the initial round, Pro presented the argument that free will is an illusion, citing cognitive neuroscience studies that demonstrate how our decisions are influenced by unconscious processes. Therefore, it appears you may have either not read the debate thoroughly or are misrepresenting the facts.
You also assert that Con "counters Pro's assertions with robust logic in a detailed and logical manner; very efficiently." However, this is inaccurate as neither Pro nor Con strayed off topic, and regardless of how "logical" you subjectively consider Con's argument to be, Con failed to provide any evidence, even upon Pro's request.
Therefore, I would like you to correct your vote, or I shall report it for misrepresentation.
The idea that there are universal moral concepts is misleading. Although murder is frequently mentioned as universally immoral, it is actually a legal term used within judicial systems. To deem an act as murder from a moral perspective is to engage in subjective interpretation. For instance, the killing of a person for burglarizing a home may be viewed as justified by the homeowner, yet the burglar's family would perceive it as the murder of their relative. Morality is invariably contextual, not absolute.
No, You can lead a moral life even if morality is not an objective reality. Subjective morality doesn't imply the absence of moral values; rather, it means that individuals shape their morality based on personal perceptions and experiences instead of an external authority. For example, Christians say that stealing is morally wrong because Christianity teaches that is a sin. That is a purposed objective moral view because no matter what, stealing is viewed as wrong.
As an atheist, I may consider stealing to be morally acceptable based on my perceptions and values. This means that regardless of my moral standpoint, I am living a lifestyle that I consider to be moral and successful.
Regarding the debate on whether morality is objective or subjective, the law of non-contradiction dictates that it can only be one, not both. Given that there is no universal adherence to or agreement on any moral concept, a universal moral standard cannot exist for objective morality or realism to hold true. In summary, while countless examples may demonstrate the subjectivity of morality, not a single instance of universal applicability exists to support the existence of objective morality.
>Also, the fact that morality isn't a tangible thing doesn't make it inherently subjective either. Mathematics is an intangible concept. That doesn't mean that the fact that 2+2=4 depends on people believing in it.
An entity that necessitates belief for its existence is not empirical. Morality exists solely because humans conceptualized it. Similarly, mathematics straddles the empirical and the non-empirical. For instance, the truth of 2+2 equaling four does not rely on belief, as it is demonstrable and applicable in reality. Conversely, the non-empirical aspect of mathematics, such as algebraic equations, does not directly correlate to real-life situations. For example, the equation 2x-8 equals a certain value and does not represent a tangible number, as 2x is an abstract concept created to address a particular mathematical problem.
In contrast, morality lacks an empirical foundation; it is a subjective notion that arises solely from the experiences and philosophical teachings of individuals.
I suggest researching the law of non-contradiction. For religion to be necessary for a moral life, morality would not only need to be objective but also based on that particular religion. Arguing that morality is subjective does not undermine my case because if morality is proven to be subjective, then objective morality cannot exist, and thus, the necessity of religion for a moral life would also be false.
Secondly, morality does not exist in tangible form. It is a concept adopted through personal experience or the teachings of others. As such, morality relies on individual or collective belief to exist. If no one believes an action to be immoral, then it will not be considered immoral, and vice versaThis renders morality subjective. It cannot be empirically validated as true since it is an abstract concept residing solely within human consciousness.
>That's the thing though, Con doesn't have to prove anything if you have the burden of proof. All they have to do is show how your arguments are insufficient to prove God does not exist, which they are.
The lack of evidence for the existence of God is frequently interpreted as evidence of absence. It is illogical to demand that people disprove the existence of something that has never been proven. This is comparable to being asked to prove that someone lacks insurance without any evidence indicating they have it. Therefore, the fact that the universe's creation cannot be attributed to a deity through the laws of thermodynamics, coupled with the complete absence of empirical proof of God, suffices for me to convincingly argue that God does not exist and cannot be empirically proven.
If that is insufficient for you, then perhaps nothing will ever suffice, as you may always find yourself in a situation where you think something might be real despite lacking evidence, and no argument could persuade you otherwise, given that the stance itself is contradictory.
>Incorrect. Again, you are committing the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are making the invalid assumption that because something has not been proven, it cannot be proven and must therefore be false. Mathematicians have been trying to prove the Riemann Hypothesis for decades and have been unable to, yet there is still little doubt that it's actually true.
That's incorrect. First, mathematics is not always empirical. When we engage with empirical mathematics, we are dealing with immutable truths; for example, 1+1 will always equal 2. In the case of the Riemann Hypothesis, we are dealing with a theory that, by your own admission, has not been proven and thus cannot be declared as true.
Secondly, I am not committing an "argument from ignorance" fallacy. I am following the established principles of the scientific method. To substantiate something, we must observe it, develop theories based on these observations, and then test these theories to reach a conclusion. This process is fundamental to science and empirical reasoning. Since God cannot be physically observed, no theory about God can be formulated, and thus, God cannot be empirically proven. Unless one argues that science itself commits an "argument from ignorance" fallacy, the assertion that I am making such a fallacy is not valid.
>Many theorems have been proven that rely on it being true. Again, Con doesn't have the BoP here and doesn't have to prove that God exists. As long as they can prove that his existence is at least possible, then they win.
You may argue that Con does not bear the burden of proof and that it lies with me, but this is ultimately irrelevant for two reasons. First, even if we agree that I carry the burden of proof, I have already established it through the absence of evidence, which is considered a form of evidence. Second, the only way Con can effectively counter my argument of evidence absence is by providing evidence.
Finally, given that there is no physical evidence of God and the scientific method cannot be applied to establish the concept of God as a theory, I am curious about how the opposition could demonstrate the possibility of God's existence without being able to establish it as a theory.
>While it is true that the person trying to prove God's existence typically has the burden of proof, once you claim non existence the burden shifts to you, and the murder comparison doesn't stand up.
Acutally, it does. Claiming someone has committed murder requires proof to substantiate the accusation. This makes a perfect comparison. However, your argument Is akin to arguing that a person is presumed innocent until they declare their innocence, at which point the burden shifts to them to prove they are not guilty. This is an illogical stance.
>The fact is you can't assume a universe created by God is less likely than a universe that popped into existence or always existed.
You seem to have overlooked my argument where I stated that the Universe, being composed of matter, has always existed and thus lacks a creator. I supported this claim with a source. Therefore, I did not make any assumptions but rather based my framework on empirical scientific laws.
I recognize my stance as Pro; I am simply highlighting that Con cannot provide any proof, as doing so would challenge the principles of science. Since the existence of God cannot be proven, my argument stands substantiated.
>It's funny that you bring up that you can't assert something is true just because something hasn't been disproven, when you are doing exactly that, but in inverse.
I have no idea where ca,e that came from because that its not what I said. I said that you can't assert something is true because you believe it to be true.
>At best, you can say we have insufficient evidence to believe in God and maybe even argue that God's existence is unlikely, but you can't disprove it, and that's actually what you have to do in this debate since you have the presumptive burden of proof.
Actually, that's a fallacy argument because you acknowledge that you lack sufficient proof to establish God, then you haven't proven God, and therefore, it, by definition, is not proven. Thus admitting that God can't be proven.
Actually, proving the non-existence of God is quite straightforward. It's akin to why we don't accept accusations of murder without evidence: proof is required. God's existence cannot be verified as there is no scientific method available for such a verification. You may argue, "But you can't prove He doesn't exist." Yet, this is a logical fallacy that contradicts the principles of evidence. When asserting the truth of any claim, whether it's the existence of God or anything else, one must substantiate it with evidence that can be presented to others. To assert that something is true simply because it has not been disproven is to misunderstand the burden of proof and the nature of objective evidence, expecting others to disprove an unestablished claim.
In essence, if the opposition cannot prove the existence of God or that it can be proven, then I have won the debate since my position is the exact opposite.
I appreciate that you found merit in my initial argument, but it seems there was a misunderstanding. My point was that the concept of God creating the Universe is incompatible with the Universe's eternal existence. This is rooted in the first law of thermodynamics, which asserts that matter cannot be created or destroyed; something that was never created can't have a creator because there was never a time when it did not exist.
I believe there's a crucial aspect being overlooked. Evidence isn't reciprocal. Given that my stance starts with skepticism, it falls on the opposition to demonstrate that God's existence is provable. I'm not required to prove God's existence is unprovable, as that would be contradictory. Clearly, if something is provable, then I can't prove it's not. The existence of God is not within the physical or testable realms of science, thus making the absence of evidence apparent. To counter this, Con would need to claim that there is, indeed, a method to prove God's existence and then proceed to demonstrate it.
I must clarify that this is not the correct approach. Selectively using words to misrepresent someone's statements, either by taking them out of context or by creating a misleading narrative, constitutes manipulation, which is dishonesty. Furthermore, 'unsympathetic' is not equivalent to 'awful.' Being unsympathetic indicates a lack of compassion for others, which was exactly how you said you felt about others. In contrast, labeling someone as awful suggests a critique of their character. Inserting words into someone else's dialogue does not constitute a fact that they actually said what you insinuate, nor does it alter the facts.
>That’s why I put the … there. to show the adjectives but not connect them
Your education must be otherworldly because it's certainly not from this planet. Imagine strolling into an English class, declaring you'll quote Shakespeare, and then proclaiming, "To...Be...Macbeth...end." You'd be the day's entertainment!
I hope you know that creating fake quotes makes you a liar. Because voters will see where you claim, I said, "absurd…fictitious... unsympathetic to the suffering of others which you affirm." They will read that I actually said, "Not only does this absurd argument do nothing to counter nor address what I said, but at this point you are making fictitious arguments. I never called you an "rather awful person." I only pointed out that you were unsympathetic to the suffering of others which you affirm. If that comes across as a bad person in your own point of view than you should consider reevaluating your own conduct rather than get offended and make up falsehoods to justify it. "
Can you please do something about @WyIted? he's nothing but an insufferable troll.
>These people have no obligation to read your debate. It should at least be fun to read
Again, troll, this is a platform for professional debating. If "fun" means being an insufferable degenerate in your books, then go somewhere else. Btw you just admitted that you don't even read the debates.
First of all, that's not what a concession is. A concession is when you admit the opposite side has a point. For example, say we were debating about cigarettes, and I, as Con, said that they should be banned cause they caused cancer. Then Pro says in their argument that they admit smoking causes cancer, but rebuttals that banning cigarettes isn't possible. That a concession because Pro concedes to my point that smoking risks cancer.
Me saying I won't participate because Pro told me that they would not take the debate seriously as the topic was a joke is NOT a concession because there is no point that they made that I agree with.
>You accepted my debate and I gave more effort than him and it was you who chose not to take my corn debate seriously. I made a fun topic, but I made a serious effort, admittedly not my hardest effort but a serious one and you bowed out.
Dude, if you think about making a topic where you assert married men should stop eating CORN and in the said topic, you go on a ridiculous and related Vulguar rant about PORN as a "Serious effort." Then you have to be either extremely uneducated or simply don't know what a debate is.
>The above quote is a concession, and he likely gave you very little effort because you gave him very little.
I know you troll and thus uneducated and, therefore, probably don't realize the stupidity in trying to establish falsehoods in a situation where everything is literally readable. Nevertheless, even you have to realize that such a lie will not work when we write with Pro flat out, stating they won't make an effort no matter what I did due to the topic being a JOKE. But yes, try to blame me and spout as much WRITTEN nonsense as you want. It won't make it true, nor will it make you less foolish for both lying and trying to justify your toxic actions.
>You also insult the mods in R1, so you are asking them for a favorable view of a vote in a Grey area after insulting them, so good luck with that
Never asked for a favorable vote, so that's another lie that you even prove by a quotation of my words (side note: Acting stupid on purpose doesn't make you cool. It just makes you stupid); I only said I would report you for breaking the rules, which isn't the definition of a "favor" btw. Also, I never insulted them. I merely critiqued at the fact that they let toxic stupidy when this app used to be serious. A position you only help further prove with your stupid actions.
Dude, you are a troll. Clearly, by your admission, Pro is disrespected and, therefore, did not deserve the better conduct vote, especially after admitting that they were not interested in participating in the debate. Secondly, I never made any concession whatsoever. I have reported your vote and will be reporting you to the mods very soon,
I am not participating in this stupid shit.
>Does that apply to writing and other forms of expression as well? Or literal just to what our forefathers wrote, the spoken word? Also do any instances of 'man' and such refer to woman equally?
I do not really understand the questions here because the First Amendment makes it pretty clear that my ability to freedom of speech is absolute. Yes, it only applies to government and private entities such as your place of employment or public platforms can retaliate in ways from firing me, banning me, and suing me. However, the fact remains that I cannot be silenced because my ability to speak is protected by the First Amendment.
The wording of the Constitution has not been changed since it was written, so there is no difference in what the Constitution says now as opposed to what the forefathers originally said. The only argument you could make is to point out that other amendments were added after the forefathers died. Still, even then, that doesn't change the fact that many of the beginning Amendments, including Free Speech, were authored by our founding fathers.
Also, the Constitution's criteria are based on CITIZENSHIP, not GENDER. So any rights or laws governed by the Constitution apply equally to men and women both.
> Also please add your definition of constitutional right into the description.
I don't go by subjective definitions when it comes to the law, as it is not a matter of personal opinions. The definition of Constitutional rights is any rights granted to you by the Constitution. They are generally categorized under the American Bill of Rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights However, other rights, such as women's and African American rights to vote as well as the right to vote at 18, exist as well.
> You may also want to add a few details of the types of abortion you are applying this to. Human (obviously), before the end of the third trimester, but second trimester forward or conception forward or what? And are you wishing your ban to allow exceptions for instances of rape, health issues (hopefully at least ectopic pregnancies), or anything else?
Well, there are no different "types" of abortion. Abortion is the wish to terminate a pregnancy. And no, the point of this isn't to advocate for or against abortion. I am saying that from a Constitutional standpoint, women do not have the right to have an abortion, and I am inviting anyone who thinks otherwise to challenge that position.
>It is forcing pregnancy for those already pregnant.
Again, unless it's rape, that was the consequence of their actions.
>Really, you are making the argument, "If you don't want kids, then don't have sex." Really, the only people that can make this argument are those that are waiting until marriage to have sex (which I'm willing to, but only 3% of the US population actually is willing to do).
I don't know what to tell you; I didn't invent biology. You choose to have sex recklessly, and without thinking, you will end up with a child. Most people realize when they are older that sex is not all that important and has consequences. You don't have to wait till marriage; you have to be responsible. Know the laws in your state, look at your finances, ask yourself if parenthood is worth the risk, and let the chips fall where they may.
>The claim that, "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" is a claim that those wanting to ban abortion agree with and those wanting to legalize it disagree with.
Pregnancy is the result of sex. That is basic biology and the result of one's choice. It has nothing to do with consent. I don't care if abortion is banned or not. I care about keeping it factual.
As for the rest, I fail to see what's important about your bulletin. Because facts don't care about feelings and facts are all that matter. The fact is, if a woman decides to have sex with a man, she is playing a game of, "Will this get me knocked up or not?" Once she does this, whatever actions that happen is what she brought on herself. It doesn't matter what others think about or if she does it in the name of "good" or natural. You don't want to have kids? Don't have sex. Too easy.
Denying the right to abortion is not forcing pregnancy. No one says, "You woman. You must have 3 children before your 20th birthday." When women have sex, they run the risk of getting impregnated, excluding cases of rape that are entirely on them. So, my rebuttal to that argument if people present that to me is, "Women don't need to have sex." It's as simple as that.
As for the 14th Amendment, while it is true that only people born in the US are natural citizens, it does not OK murder, nor would that even be relevant to the 14th Amendment. Abortion itself being considered murder would depend on the state.
I know these are not your arguments. But I felt offering how I view them.
My definition of a Constitutional right is that it has to be based in some way on the Constitution. That is how the law works. For example, when I insist I have a right to free speech Constitutionally, I have to cite where that comes from within the Constitution itself. In this instance, the First Amendment. The 13th and 14th Amendments don't mention abortion, so they cannot be used as a basis to say that the right to abortion is within them.
I don't give a shit how many times you come to my comment section and call me a coward. I blocked you because you never debate with any intention of staying on topic or even acknowledging the points anyone makes. Arguing with you is simply a waste of breath.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I seriously need to know where you got that kind of education from. The 13th and 14th Amendments neither mention abortion nor are they relevant. The 13th Amendment is about abolishing slavery: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13
The 14th Amendment is about citizenship status, prohibiting people guilty of insurrection from taking political office, and other issues. None of them include women reproductive rights. "Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
there is nowhere in the Constitution that says women have the right to an abortion.
sorry guys, I have been busy and wasn't notified that my opponent made any arguments. So the system forfeited me. I will post this topic again
I apologize; I never meant to forfeit; life got in the way, and I ran out of time.
I am not here to act like a 10-year-old. If we are going to debate, then it is gonna have to be taken as seriously. Otherwise, I will not participate.
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.