RFD 1/2:
[ ] is personal thoughts, not mentioned by either side that won’t be judged or based on.
First off, before I go straight into my vote, let's take a look at the resolution. Nowhere does this include all men, some men, one man, etc. It’s quite broad. I won’t personally distinguish what the resolution should be, I'll leave that to both pro and con.
Let's go ahead and look into the arguments..
R1
Con stated four contentions:
1. Cut dicks do not feel good for men
2. Cut penis looks weird
3. Accidents happen
4. Kids should not be harmed without consent
Pro stated his first contention:
“The individual right to mutilate their bodies in the name of a belief or religion is a cornerstone of individual humanity.”
—
Now let’s look into the actual rebuttals.
R2
Con’s rebuttals:
Con doesn’t really rebuttal, except for the fact of practically saying religious people have the choice, however, it’s not a good choice.
As for Pro’s rebuttals:
“1. Cut dicks do not feel good for men”
Pro then goes on to state a valid point, some things don't feel good in general.
They give examples of such things like piercings, tattoos, hangovers, etc..
Basically pro’s point was: Many things don’t feel good, so what?
I think pro quite literally threw pro’s first contention out the window.
“2. Cut penis looks weird”
Pro doesn’t completely counter, expect for reminding that she had already conceded circumcision should be a choice.
“3. Accidents happen”
[I think it would’ve been better if somebody had said the rates of accidents when circumcising. Particularly con if they mention it. But nobody did.. so..]
Basically pro, summarized, says accidents happen all the time. Doesn’t mean we should completely stop or ban it all together.
I think pro did drop this to an extent, but doesn’t at the same time. Accidents happen all the time and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, but specifically, accidents happen with this surgery.
[Once again, it would’ve been so much better if someone had some percentage of these accidents occurring. It would’ve cleared this up so much better. Just a little heads up, the percent is low.]
“4. Kids should not be harmed without consent”
[Honestly the resolution: “American Men” should clear this up completely. The resolution says men, not American male children or American males. But once again, nothing was said. I just don’t know if I can or will include this as it is not counting towards her burden. She would not fulfill it talking about children.]
Pro sites a source, and gives reasons children might need to be circumcised. Pro counters this by what's necessary. Sometimes it's needed.
Pro’s defense:
Pro states: “My issue with Con is the blanket statement it should not happen, and then accepting that it is someone's choice”
^^^^ I wouldn’t call this part completely defense, but rather questioning con’s position.
[I think con is alright with doing so. Ex: Murder shouldn’t happen but it’s someone's choice. Theft shouldn’t happen, but it’s someone's choice]
Con themselves clears that up in round three, but until then..
The impression of this part of pro’s defense is really just: Since con accepts it may be a choice and medically needed though not able to consent at the time as well as the right to do anything with our bodies then con has failed their position of the BoP with contradiction.
So now, were left with pro’s side of two things once again:
1. Our bodies our choice
2. May be medically needed
Also, science has developed and changed defintions to match with it.
Not that I know the actual scientific backup behind your defintions, hints the " ".
"But, the votes I call vote bomb, I can prove them here by discussing them in full detail. But I do not want to waste my time on that. Probably I will do debate on this topic again in near future."
If your not willing to discuss to the "fullest" in private messages, why exploit what you say in comments?
If your going to complain about my vote, why not complain to the person directly especially when you messaged them in the first place?
I can see getting busy but I don't think that's quite the case right now.
Yeah.. my loss would've been an automatic loss in this debate if I used that defintion. It favors pro more than it would favor me in almost all if not all aspects.
But as said, I won't be using a defintion that now, has "less scientific backup" than other defintions.
I get you have defintions you like, cool, but for this debate I won't be using them.. Either its an old defintion as I see from dates and now has been changed more in society or just simply not fitting for my idea in this debate.
Many defintions from health care to other websites have far different definitions that are like mine. And so far, I agree with those definition but thanks.
Flow and rhyme scheme are quite similar and quite often used in an interchangeable manner. (I still believe there is a small distinction between the two but, yeah).
If you see me keep mentioned con on accident it's because I speedran this in order to get it out quicker. I figured that a few mistakes you could see through and make some distinction. Most if not all was based on the impression I got from both con and you.
RFD:
ROUND FOUR:
Entire thing was rebuttals, splitting them up.
1. Hebephilia
I think this was funny, con got refuted, but pro was not completely right either.
Nowhere did it say it was limited to just liking pubescent rather than adult figures, but says "rather".
2. Child Groomer
Pro basically just restating she's not a child, it's a complete restate.
3. War
Pro practically just says, "he cannot not prove she was not mature." But also states that she took part as a medic, im not sure if that completely accounts for anything. Medic's have to go through treated injuries that are quite traumatic or even experience losing a patient.
4. Puberty
I think this is where I really think pro made a comeback with his arguments.
According to his definitions, as long as she is no longer in puberty she is not considered a child. (Expect for the factor that his definitions only said "especially" meaning it's not just limited to those stages, but just one of the more extreme factors but this was not mentioned, so I won't factor it all to much).
5. Age of consent
Just provides sources of the age of consent in many places.
- Con's response -
In this case, pro just helps con out.
With what con has stated, it would even be un-normal for other age of consent laws in other regions.
6. Physical maturity and Mental maturity
Pro assumes that con conceded to the fact they can be physical mature?
My assumption:
Children do and can mature at different rates into developing into an adult more quickly, but that is not to say they are physically mature. That just means they are developing more physically mature(r).
^^^^^ is broad.
7. Pregnancy
Pro then mentions that children or a child have/has become mothers at the age of six, which leaves me to believe he is hinting they can be mature. But I don't get it? What does this have to do with (RA) Aisha? She does not relate to this claim at all, and con has already stated that just because they can become pregnant does not mean they are mature.
^^^^
But the above is personal thoughts, based on the lack of reasoning, meaning it won't be judged unless con states the same (even though con has made that clear for the most part).
- Con's rebuttal -
Basically his response is that the child even though a mother is not old enough for the responsibility of a child.
-
8. Caring Man
Pro restates his contention in round three.
Aisha was happy in the relationship/marriage.
- Con's response -
Simply: Implication it is stockholm syndrome.
-
ROUND FIVE:
As for pro, all he really did was insult con or a repeat of the last rounds.
On con's side, he waives and extends his arguments.
Impression overall:
I'm left with the impression that (RA) Aisha, even though in puberty, was not an adult. Therefore, Prophet (SAW) is a pedophilia, making the relationship, even though a "happy relationship" is still not normal. Regardless of Islam faith beliefs, it is heavily burdened that she could've been manipulated easily into believing such relationships are alright and okay. However, in the end result it is still not normal. Con introduces that stockholm syndrome is quite easy for young children to get manipulated into and that a clear power gap is enough to trigger those elements. With the implication of stockholm syndrome, that is the final straw for it to be implied it is quite possible that Aisha was experiencing stockholm syndrome according to the symptoms and parallel lines.
BoP (Burden of Proof):
I think on both sides it was a bit iffy, however, I think con prevailed more. Pro really overall thinks, at least the impression I got, that having a supposed successful relationship/marriage means that it was not in ways mentally traumatizing or physically harmful. Con prevails by a little bit by stating that a child going through rape (or even just sex) for that matter is traumatizing. As for war, I won't completely regard this because its not really related to the relationship.
I do not think that con could fulfil this burden by simply stating that they had a loving relationship.
I think con does, at least within the limits that it is not normal for one to have stockholm syndrome when in a relationship nor is it normal for one to be in such a relationship.
ROUND THREE:
Basically, pro makes a certain main claim, the marriage had no physical harm and they both enjoyed the marriage.
I think a lot of what pro said was not needed, and not to be judged. Mostly just the rebuttals, so, let's break it apart.
1. Pro's response to framework - Successful marriage.
Pro gives a few sources, and spreads them out. Love, affection, care, compassion, etc. In each section they list examples that are supporting by such things of successful marriage.
My impression from this contention: Aisha (RA) and Prophet (SAW) both had successful marriage.
Now as for proving their was no physical or psychological harm, I don't know. I think these sources and sections were good for providing they had ideals of a successful marriage, but to say there was no harm at all, I don't think that was fully proved.
-Con's response-
Prophet (SAW) could've changed the scripture to say anything, it's not fully reliable.
Though I will say the rules seem to state something about assuming that sources about Islamic faith are true, but pro already violated their own rules as well, hm? I think con contests the scripture overall.
Con also states that she is impressionable as a child, and can be easily manipulated. Which means that she could've been groomed into the fact that such relationships were acceptable (which relates to stockholm syndrome), which just proves it to be not normal.
I think con's reasoning was a bit more on the guessing-game, but its clear their was a gap in power, which leads strong suspicion that she was easily susceptible to the relationship.
Con draws the parallel lines with predators and victims, assuming that Prophet (SAW) made (RA) Aisha happy (for effect).
-
- Pro's rebuttals to previous round two -
1. (RA) Aisha is not an adult
Pro stands by the fact that Aisha was an adult despite what con has said and gives the impression that because they can or have become a mother at a young age means you are an adult. I'm not sure how that works, you can be a mother but that doesn't mean you are an adult.
Then pro basically just talks about the brain development. Pro covers brain development, but what is the difference between brain development and maturity?
- Con's follow up rebuttal -
(RA) Aisha, as already stated, is not an adult are nine years old.
2. Forced marriage, effects
This one is simple.
I think pro actually handled this nicely, they stated that (RA) Aisha enjoyed the relationship between the two.
3. Islamic faith
I do think con is right that pro is appealing to Islamic faith quite a bit, but this not something to be quite judged more so con's interpretation which leaves me with the overall impression that, Islamic faith cannot be the complete factor of what a "normal" marriage is.
4. Child rapist
All pro really does here is give some definitions to try and give a broad term of marriage, but I don't think this fully addresses the issue at hand.
Just because it doesn't state a certain age, that means that they are not a child rapist?
I think this would revolve around one thing, age of consent. But then again, when you force someone (a child) to do sexual acts that is a child rapist. I'm not sure pro fully covers that, but I see their point.
I think this is already contested on it's own by con's words. And the impression is what I got, aka above ^^^.
-
As for the rest of the rounds, ill be a bit quicker on. It seems like a repeat.
-
RFD:
This is quite long, saw it smaller in my head..
Voting won't end for quite awhile, but here goes my vote. My bad for the late vote, this just got long and time consuming.
Tough debate guys, but disregarding conduct, good debate.
ARGUMENTS:
Per description; "Resolution: Marriage Between Prophet (SAW) and Aisha (RA) was normal."
Honestly, what I took for this debate was quite little. Con provided the framework, it was uncontested. I'm going off Con's framework.
"Pro must defend that Muhammad’s marriage to a nine year old is not strange or unusual and that it was healthy for both participants."
"Conversely, I must only show that regardless of historical beliefs or values, that the marriage is wrong and subject to scrutiny."
Both sides play defensively.
ROUND ONE & ROUND TWO:
So, what I got from Con is, it is not physically or mentally good for someone on the younger side (abuse and grooming), con rebuttals by saying this is not pedophilia.
1 Pedophilia - Adult or Not?
Pro lays out a few definitions, but my problem with these are he uses them in the wrong way. Pro states that a person can become an adult at the age of nine. So, now pro turns this part into a debate about "Is Aisha an Adult or not". Pro uses a source based on Islam faith that basically just says that she is an adult, and she is old enough to marry because of the puberty state. But only states this within the Islamic faith for the most part.
According to pro's definitions, that has nothing to do with it. For example, pro's definition: "A young person, especially between infancy and puberty", since Aisha has begin or is in puberty, she has not completely puberty. Which means the term, "between infancy and puberty", stays because she is still in puberty.
- Con's rebuttal -
They believe that pro has a misconception about puberty, puberty is not instant.
Con continues by saying that (RA) Aisha even though possibly developing into an adult quicker does not mean that she can process things such as others that are the age of consent, an adult.
Con goes by stating the brain development and that since she had only started puberty, there is no way she has made it into adulthood.
-
2. Child groomer
Con just rebuttals with even though pedophilia may not be the correct term in pro's eyes, they are a child groomer.
3. Western Laws
Not much to quite judge here.
"Rule No 13: Everything Being discuss, is for the sake of debate only, not imposing on any culture or society. Laws and regulation made for any country is for them and has nothing to do with the debate."
Funny? A violation of the rules already, pro?
Anyways, this is cleared up by con quickly by really just stating they draw limits to certain relationships as well.
Something I wish was better explained on this site as well.
B: Burden, O: Of, P: Proof
Burden of Proof.
Definition:
Burden of proof is who, basically, to my understanding, holds the position to prove or disprove the resolution. When it is shared, both sides must prove it. For example, "homosexuals should be treated fairly", if the burden is shared, pro proves why they should be treated fairly, con proves why they shouldn't.
Sometimes it's not shared, and one just refutes the other. Depends on the debate.
“4) Homosexuality is bad for society. It is justifying the castration of 14 year-olds through hormones injections. It increases the amount of mental illnesses. = Dropped, Extend.
Add: My opponent says that rate of suicides is higher because population is higher. False. Rate of suicides is per 100,000 population. It is irrelevant to the total population size, as it deals per 100,000. Not per total population. It deals in percentage, thats why the percentage of population committing suicide in USA is higher than the percentage of population committing suicide in Afganistan.
My opponent says that birth rates cant be higher in Afghanistan because Afghanistan has less population than USA. Birth rates are per 1000 women, not per total population. It is irrelevant that USA has more population, as US too had higher birth rates while it promoted hate towards homosexuals. The population of Afghanistan currently grows faster than US population by percentage of growth.
My opponent says: "How happy are these people when you punish their freedom?". "Is it because of homosexuality or is it because of the peoples mindset towards homosexuals that's causing it?"
Countries that have more homosexual freedom also have more suicides and lower birth rates. Countries that promote hate towards homosexuals have less suicides and higher birth rates. That proves how accepting homosexuals causes suicides. Preventing suicides is good, so we should hate and ban homosexuality. If happiness was more important than life, then that is contradictive, because you cannot have happiness without life and destroying life destroys happiness. If you think it is okay to destroy lives in order to be happy, then that further justifies pedophilia.”
As of this one, sure. I didn’t correctly read the rates. But doesn’t that happen to us all, homosexual or not? Is it the person's fault for being homosexual or is it because of the stigma they receive?
For example, children can bully another for their race, and they commit suicide, but that isn’t because that is their biological race. It's because of the negative bullying they recieve.
And can you prove these suicides are because they are homosexuals? Nope. You just put random sucide rates out there. Yet, most you cannot prove where because they are homosexuals. In fact, you never state why they commit sucide. So, this is irrelevant to the discussion.
As for the contention name, I don’t think it increases mental illness nor do you have proof right now.
“5) Homosexuality is worse than pedophilia by objective standard = Dropped, Extend.
Add: My opponent says that saying "homosexuality is worse than pedophilia" justifies pedophilia. It does not. Saying "two murders are worse than one murder" doesnt justify "one murder".
Both homosexuality and pedophilia are bad. However, homosexuality is much worse. Therefore, accepting homosexuality is a slippery slope towards accepting pedophilia.
My opponent says: "Usually pedophilia is referred to as attraction while as homosexuality is referred to as sexual orientation.". My opponent defined homosexuality as sexual attraction. Plus, sexual orientation is a sexual attraction, so my opponent needs to read his definitions better.”
When did I say homosexuality is worse than pedophilla.. Homosexuality is not bad, pedophilla is bad. They are two different things.
My definitions in my eyes are fine. Pedophilla is attraction ONLY attraction. Sexual orientation is attracted to the same sex, or opposite, etc. See the difference?
What gender you like versus who you're dating.
“6) Conclusion
We have seen that homosexuality has no positive effects on population. We have seen that homosexuality is bad for society, that it includes underage relationships and that it justifies pedophilia. Accepting homosexuality increases suicides and lowers birth rates. We have seen that even very poor countries that punish homosexuality have less suicides and higher birth rates than countries that encourage homosexuality. We have seen that forced conversion therapy would punish homosexuality and lower the exposure of children to homosexuality, and that would help society. Forced conversion would help society by lowering suicides, lowering amount of mental illnesses and increasing birth rates.”
Incorrect to a degree. Which I explain in my rebuttals.
Con drops all my contentions in the process of extending theres.
So, extend. Burden is shared; not just countering my opponent.
Rebuttals:
“1) Definition includes underage homosexuality. = Dropped, Extend.
Add: Homosexuality does include underage homosexuality, which is a type of pedophilia. So we could say that homosexuality by the given definition already justified pedophilia. In those cases, conversion therapy would be most necessary.”
This was not really dropped..
Con seems to use justifying in the wrong way; nowhere does it support it. Where does it say children can date adults? It doesn't. Because it's not talking about age gaps, it's talking about sexual preference. Such as being straight, nowhere does it say that being a pedo is right. Same thing applies to homosexuals.
Just because it can/does happen does not mean it's because of homosexuality.
Con misplaces the wrong justification.
“2) Children would be exposed to homosexuality. Since children are sensitive, they can easily develop feelings towards same sex. = Dropped, Extend.
Add: I said that homosexuality would encourage underage homosexuality. My opponent said that thats pedophilia. So we can conclude that homosexuality encourages pedophilia then.”
No? I do not agree. Which is explained above, in your contention, pedophila.
“My opponent says that conversion therapy wouldnt prevent underage homosexuality. However, it would be useful, since it would give homosexuals a chance to change their behavior and let everyone know that its wrong. Therefore, homosexuals would conceal their behavior, and children would be less exposed to it.
My opponent says: "If they were in that type of relationship, how many are actually in that kind of relationship? Is this relationship forced?".
If a 12 year-old boy is willingly in a relationship with 30 year-old man, it still stands that such relationship is wrong. Such homosexual relationships are products of encouraging homosexuality. Therefore, discouraging all homosexuality would discourage such relationships.”
No.. In my contention I said conversion therapy has shown and been proven not to help at all but leave negative effects.
As for your example, homosexuality does not in any way define that the relationship is right. The sexual orientation, however, is. I explain this above as well.
“3) Conversion therapy would serve as punishment for homosexuality. Conversion therapy would discourage homosexuality. = Dropped,Extend.
Add: Conversion therapy is useful as punishment and an attempt to prevent individuals from engaging in gay sex. There will be some cases where conversion therapy wont work. Then the death penalty will be necessary. Conversion therapy is there to see if individual can be fixed without being killed, since in some cases individual can choose to supress his urges. In cases where he cant, then the death penalty will cure him. Conversion therapy is necessary to give every homosexual a chance to reject his homosexuality, save his life and improve it. It lets everyone know that homosexuality is wrong. That will lower public displays of homosexuality, and lower the exposure of children to homosexuality, as all public homosexuality will be reported and dealt with.”
Con proves nothing here.
I already stated that conversion therapy does not help at all with research behind it. Con has not.
As for a death penalty the United States rarely gives them for criminals, why for homosexuals who have done nothing wrong?
Well, looks like I'm winning this regardless of my introduction of slavery!
Short period of time.. Yes. Forcing to hold the baby for months and then forcing a pregnancy, regardless of outcomes. If the mother could die in the process. Which is a possibility with all circumstances, but even more so when doctors ahead of time know. So, when I say slavery I factored all my contentions into it.
Wins her freedom? LOL. The law is gives freedom to ALL humans upon birth, human rights. It's not given to woman when they give birth. If you were to say that, it gives me the impression you mean woman don't get freedom UNTILL they give birth. But back to what you meant.. Woman's (human) rights shouldn't be taken away the moment you have an unwanted child. Which is, like said, slavery!
We keep using your definitions everytime we have a disagreement, but sure.
"entire subjection to the will and commands of another" : is that not what forced pregnancy is? "My entire subjection to the wills and commands (having forced pregnancy) of the country/state."
"What happens when a girl/woman is forced to do something against their will, like give birth, makes them society's personal incubator. That's it."
Im sorry I laughed. That's still slavery, if you want to use those words: "makes them society's forced personal incubator" which is still slavery!
Alright TWS1405_2, I looked at mostly everyone's votes. I'll specifically clear those ideas, from your vote, next round. And hopefully other people's votes.
I'll accept if nobody else does in a bit. I have ideas.
Even though it should never be considered, because any sides of pro trans or con trans don't mention that at all. It woild be reworded as "Trans (female/male) are females/males", or even possibly with the wording "biologically".
RFD 1/2:
[ ] is personal thoughts, not mentioned by either side that won’t be judged or based on.
First off, before I go straight into my vote, let's take a look at the resolution. Nowhere does this include all men, some men, one man, etc. It’s quite broad. I won’t personally distinguish what the resolution should be, I'll leave that to both pro and con.
Let's go ahead and look into the arguments..
R1
Con stated four contentions:
1. Cut dicks do not feel good for men
2. Cut penis looks weird
3. Accidents happen
4. Kids should not be harmed without consent
Pro stated his first contention:
“The individual right to mutilate their bodies in the name of a belief or religion is a cornerstone of individual humanity.”
—
Now let’s look into the actual rebuttals.
R2
Con’s rebuttals:
Con doesn’t really rebuttal, except for the fact of practically saying religious people have the choice, however, it’s not a good choice.
As for Pro’s rebuttals:
“1. Cut dicks do not feel good for men”
Pro then goes on to state a valid point, some things don't feel good in general.
They give examples of such things like piercings, tattoos, hangovers, etc..
Basically pro’s point was: Many things don’t feel good, so what?
I think pro quite literally threw pro’s first contention out the window.
“2. Cut penis looks weird”
Pro doesn’t completely counter, expect for reminding that she had already conceded circumcision should be a choice.
“3. Accidents happen”
[I think it would’ve been better if somebody had said the rates of accidents when circumcising. Particularly con if they mention it. But nobody did.. so..]
Basically pro, summarized, says accidents happen all the time. Doesn’t mean we should completely stop or ban it all together.
I think pro did drop this to an extent, but doesn’t at the same time. Accidents happen all the time and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, but specifically, accidents happen with this surgery.
[Once again, it would’ve been so much better if someone had some percentage of these accidents occurring. It would’ve cleared this up so much better. Just a little heads up, the percent is low.]
“4. Kids should not be harmed without consent”
[Honestly the resolution: “American Men” should clear this up completely. The resolution says men, not American male children or American males. But once again, nothing was said. I just don’t know if I can or will include this as it is not counting towards her burden. She would not fulfill it talking about children.]
Pro sites a source, and gives reasons children might need to be circumcised. Pro counters this by what's necessary. Sometimes it's needed.
Pro’s defense:
Pro states: “My issue with Con is the blanket statement it should not happen, and then accepting that it is someone's choice”
^^^^ I wouldn’t call this part completely defense, but rather questioning con’s position.
[I think con is alright with doing so. Ex: Murder shouldn’t happen but it’s someone's choice. Theft shouldn’t happen, but it’s someone's choice]
Con themselves clears that up in round three, but until then..
The impression of this part of pro’s defense is really just: Since con accepts it may be a choice and medically needed though not able to consent at the time as well as the right to do anything with our bodies then con has failed their position of the BoP with contradiction.
So now, were left with pro’s side of two things once again:
1. Our bodies our choice
2. May be medically needed
Sorry about that judges, and Devon. I rushed on the last fifteen minutes.
I'll try to clear up my contentions and rebuttals a lot better next round.
I thought I mentioned the wrong people - I was going to rewrite the comment.
As for the comment:
He already does have voting qualification, so, even if he misses this one he'll be alright. Just an extra debate I guess.
Look at the dates.
Also, science has developed and changed defintions to match with it.
Not that I know the actual scientific backup behind your defintions, hints the " ".
No, I just think its funny you shit on someone, without mentioning them, but can't do the same in private messages.
It's not completely about changing someones mind, but you complain when you can't even to the direct person.
If you don't want to go deep into it, don't complain in the comments about it. Simple.
Comment two:
That's why I deleted it. Funny you have no complaint but compare me to him..
"But, the votes I call vote bomb, I can prove them here by discussing them in full detail. But I do not want to waste my time on that. Probably I will do debate on this topic again in near future."
If your not willing to discuss to the "fullest" in private messages, why exploit what you say in comments?
If your going to complain about my vote, why not complain to the person directly especially when you messaged them in the first place?
I can see getting busy but I don't think that's quite the case right now.
Yeah.. my loss would've been an automatic loss in this debate if I used that defintion. It favors pro more than it would favor me in almost all if not all aspects.
But as said, I won't be using a defintion that now, has "less scientific backup" than other defintions.
Thanks, but no thanks?
I get you have defintions you like, cool, but for this debate I won't be using them.. Either its an old defintion as I see from dates and now has been changed more in society or just simply not fitting for my idea in this debate.
Many defintions from health care to other websites have far different definitions that are like mine. And so far, I agree with those definition but thanks.
Flow and rhyme scheme are quite similar and quite often used in an interchangeable manner. (I still believe there is a small distinction between the two but, yeah).
Maybe it would be better as delivery quality.
Sure, just give me two days or so.
Check the qualifications. It specifically says no forfeited rounds in order to get voting rights, and you forfeited 2/3 debates.
^^^^^ "Finish 3 debates with an open voting system without forfeiting rounds."
Oh, my bad. Thanks.
"I want to ask, if you can testify that you have written RFD for barney and also for bellaasp?"
Please, I actually can't. LOL.
Go find someone else to put up with this, but it only seems you disagree with votes against you. So continue with that.
You do so.
All voters can have their own impressions on the debate and you only seem to dislike the ones voting against you, coincidence?
If you don't like my vote, cool.
If you see me keep mentioned con on accident it's because I speedran this in order to get it out quicker. I figured that a few mistakes you could see through and make some distinction. Most if not all was based on the impression I got from both con and you.
This was quite a long vote.. Maybe I should've done google documents..
RFD:
ROUND FOUR:
Entire thing was rebuttals, splitting them up.
1. Hebephilia
I think this was funny, con got refuted, but pro was not completely right either.
Nowhere did it say it was limited to just liking pubescent rather than adult figures, but says "rather".
2. Child Groomer
Pro basically just restating she's not a child, it's a complete restate.
3. War
Pro practically just says, "he cannot not prove she was not mature." But also states that she took part as a medic, im not sure if that completely accounts for anything. Medic's have to go through treated injuries that are quite traumatic or even experience losing a patient.
4. Puberty
I think this is where I really think pro made a comeback with his arguments.
According to his definitions, as long as she is no longer in puberty she is not considered a child. (Expect for the factor that his definitions only said "especially" meaning it's not just limited to those stages, but just one of the more extreme factors but this was not mentioned, so I won't factor it all to much).
5. Age of consent
Just provides sources of the age of consent in many places.
- Con's response -
In this case, pro just helps con out.
With what con has stated, it would even be un-normal for other age of consent laws in other regions.
6. Physical maturity and Mental maturity
Pro assumes that con conceded to the fact they can be physical mature?
My assumption:
Children do and can mature at different rates into developing into an adult more quickly, but that is not to say they are physically mature. That just means they are developing more physically mature(r).
^^^^^ is broad.
7. Pregnancy
Pro then mentions that children or a child have/has become mothers at the age of six, which leaves me to believe he is hinting they can be mature. But I don't get it? What does this have to do with (RA) Aisha? She does not relate to this claim at all, and con has already stated that just because they can become pregnant does not mean they are mature.
^^^^
But the above is personal thoughts, based on the lack of reasoning, meaning it won't be judged unless con states the same (even though con has made that clear for the most part).
- Con's rebuttal -
Basically his response is that the child even though a mother is not old enough for the responsibility of a child.
-
8. Caring Man
Pro restates his contention in round three.
Aisha was happy in the relationship/marriage.
- Con's response -
Simply: Implication it is stockholm syndrome.
-
ROUND FIVE:
As for pro, all he really did was insult con or a repeat of the last rounds.
On con's side, he waives and extends his arguments.
Impression overall:
I'm left with the impression that (RA) Aisha, even though in puberty, was not an adult. Therefore, Prophet (SAW) is a pedophilia, making the relationship, even though a "happy relationship" is still not normal. Regardless of Islam faith beliefs, it is heavily burdened that she could've been manipulated easily into believing such relationships are alright and okay. However, in the end result it is still not normal. Con introduces that stockholm syndrome is quite easy for young children to get manipulated into and that a clear power gap is enough to trigger those elements. With the implication of stockholm syndrome, that is the final straw for it to be implied it is quite possible that Aisha was experiencing stockholm syndrome according to the symptoms and parallel lines.
BoP (Burden of Proof):
I think on both sides it was a bit iffy, however, I think con prevailed more. Pro really overall thinks, at least the impression I got, that having a supposed successful relationship/marriage means that it was not in ways mentally traumatizing or physically harmful. Con prevails by a little bit by stating that a child going through rape (or even just sex) for that matter is traumatizing. As for war, I won't completely regard this because its not really related to the relationship.
I do not think that con could fulfil this burden by simply stating that they had a loving relationship.
I think con does, at least within the limits that it is not normal for one to have stockholm syndrome when in a relationship nor is it normal for one to be in such a relationship.
Con just ran the race a bit better than pro.
ARGUMENTS to CON.
RFD:
ROUND THREE:
Basically, pro makes a certain main claim, the marriage had no physical harm and they both enjoyed the marriage.
I think a lot of what pro said was not needed, and not to be judged. Mostly just the rebuttals, so, let's break it apart.
1. Pro's response to framework - Successful marriage.
Pro gives a few sources, and spreads them out. Love, affection, care, compassion, etc. In each section they list examples that are supporting by such things of successful marriage.
My impression from this contention: Aisha (RA) and Prophet (SAW) both had successful marriage.
Now as for proving their was no physical or psychological harm, I don't know. I think these sources and sections were good for providing they had ideals of a successful marriage, but to say there was no harm at all, I don't think that was fully proved.
-Con's response-
Prophet (SAW) could've changed the scripture to say anything, it's not fully reliable.
Though I will say the rules seem to state something about assuming that sources about Islamic faith are true, but pro already violated their own rules as well, hm? I think con contests the scripture overall.
Con also states that she is impressionable as a child, and can be easily manipulated. Which means that she could've been groomed into the fact that such relationships were acceptable (which relates to stockholm syndrome), which just proves it to be not normal.
I think con's reasoning was a bit more on the guessing-game, but its clear their was a gap in power, which leads strong suspicion that she was easily susceptible to the relationship.
Con draws the parallel lines with predators and victims, assuming that Prophet (SAW) made (RA) Aisha happy (for effect).
-
- Pro's rebuttals to previous round two -
1. (RA) Aisha is not an adult
Pro stands by the fact that Aisha was an adult despite what con has said and gives the impression that because they can or have become a mother at a young age means you are an adult. I'm not sure how that works, you can be a mother but that doesn't mean you are an adult.
Then pro basically just talks about the brain development. Pro covers brain development, but what is the difference between brain development and maturity?
- Con's follow up rebuttal -
(RA) Aisha, as already stated, is not an adult are nine years old.
2. Forced marriage, effects
This one is simple.
I think pro actually handled this nicely, they stated that (RA) Aisha enjoyed the relationship between the two.
3. Islamic faith
I do think con is right that pro is appealing to Islamic faith quite a bit, but this not something to be quite judged more so con's interpretation which leaves me with the overall impression that, Islamic faith cannot be the complete factor of what a "normal" marriage is.
4. Child rapist
All pro really does here is give some definitions to try and give a broad term of marriage, but I don't think this fully addresses the issue at hand.
Just because it doesn't state a certain age, that means that they are not a child rapist?
I think this would revolve around one thing, age of consent. But then again, when you force someone (a child) to do sexual acts that is a child rapist. I'm not sure pro fully covers that, but I see their point.
I think this is already contested on it's own by con's words. And the impression is what I got, aka above ^^^.
-
As for the rest of the rounds, ill be a bit quicker on. It seems like a repeat.
-
RFD:
This is quite long, saw it smaller in my head..
Voting won't end for quite awhile, but here goes my vote. My bad for the late vote, this just got long and time consuming.
Tough debate guys, but disregarding conduct, good debate.
ARGUMENTS:
Per description; "Resolution: Marriage Between Prophet (SAW) and Aisha (RA) was normal."
Honestly, what I took for this debate was quite little. Con provided the framework, it was uncontested. I'm going off Con's framework.
"Pro must defend that Muhammad’s marriage to a nine year old is not strange or unusual and that it was healthy for both participants."
"Conversely, I must only show that regardless of historical beliefs or values, that the marriage is wrong and subject to scrutiny."
Both sides play defensively.
ROUND ONE & ROUND TWO:
So, what I got from Con is, it is not physically or mentally good for someone on the younger side (abuse and grooming), con rebuttals by saying this is not pedophilia.
1 Pedophilia - Adult or Not?
Pro lays out a few definitions, but my problem with these are he uses them in the wrong way. Pro states that a person can become an adult at the age of nine. So, now pro turns this part into a debate about "Is Aisha an Adult or not". Pro uses a source based on Islam faith that basically just says that she is an adult, and she is old enough to marry because of the puberty state. But only states this within the Islamic faith for the most part.
According to pro's definitions, that has nothing to do with it. For example, pro's definition: "A young person, especially between infancy and puberty", since Aisha has begin or is in puberty, she has not completely puberty. Which means the term, "between infancy and puberty", stays because she is still in puberty.
- Con's rebuttal -
They believe that pro has a misconception about puberty, puberty is not instant.
Con continues by saying that (RA) Aisha even though possibly developing into an adult quicker does not mean that she can process things such as others that are the age of consent, an adult.
Con goes by stating the brain development and that since she had only started puberty, there is no way she has made it into adulthood.
-
2. Child groomer
Con just rebuttals with even though pedophilia may not be the correct term in pro's eyes, they are a child groomer.
3. Western Laws
Not much to quite judge here.
"Rule No 13: Everything Being discuss, is for the sake of debate only, not imposing on any culture or society. Laws and regulation made for any country is for them and has nothing to do with the debate."
Funny? A violation of the rules already, pro?
Anyways, this is cleared up by con quickly by really just stating they draw limits to certain relationships as well.
Thank you, I really just loved the vote!
Ill read now and vote later tonight, looks a bit long.
This time ill vote, now that your back.
I completed forgot... LOL. It's whatever.
I'm willing to try, however, three days?
I'll be forfeiting more than I submit arguments if not.
Nah, your good. I just did the same.
My bad, and ill be throwing out better responses next round.
Sources R1:
1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bad
2. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1610-assault-18-usc-351e
3. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/corporal-punishment-and-health#:~:text=Corporal%20punishment%20triggers%20harmful%20psychological,that%20support%20dealing%20with%20danger.
4. https://www.shapeamerica.org/Common/Uploaded%20files//uploads/2021/advocacy/position-statements/Physical-Activity-Should-Not-Be-Used-as-Punishment-and-or-Behavior-Management.pdf
Oh, my bad. I agree, but I understand the opinion.
Thanks, but my arguments were for the legalization of abortions? My argument was not for the ban of all abortions.
Something I wish was better explained on this site as well.
B: Burden, O: Of, P: Proof
Burden of Proof.
Definition:
Burden of proof is who, basically, to my understanding, holds the position to prove or disprove the resolution. When it is shared, both sides must prove it. For example, "homosexuals should be treated fairly", if the burden is shared, pro proves why they should be treated fairly, con proves why they shouldn't.
Sometimes it's not shared, and one just refutes the other. Depends on the debate.
Round four 2/2:
“4) Homosexuality is bad for society. It is justifying the castration of 14 year-olds through hormones injections. It increases the amount of mental illnesses. = Dropped, Extend.
Add: My opponent says that rate of suicides is higher because population is higher. False. Rate of suicides is per 100,000 population. It is irrelevant to the total population size, as it deals per 100,000. Not per total population. It deals in percentage, thats why the percentage of population committing suicide in USA is higher than the percentage of population committing suicide in Afganistan.
My opponent says that birth rates cant be higher in Afghanistan because Afghanistan has less population than USA. Birth rates are per 1000 women, not per total population. It is irrelevant that USA has more population, as US too had higher birth rates while it promoted hate towards homosexuals. The population of Afghanistan currently grows faster than US population by percentage of growth.
My opponent says: "How happy are these people when you punish their freedom?". "Is it because of homosexuality or is it because of the peoples mindset towards homosexuals that's causing it?"
Countries that have more homosexual freedom also have more suicides and lower birth rates. Countries that promote hate towards homosexuals have less suicides and higher birth rates. That proves how accepting homosexuals causes suicides. Preventing suicides is good, so we should hate and ban homosexuality. If happiness was more important than life, then that is contradictive, because you cannot have happiness without life and destroying life destroys happiness. If you think it is okay to destroy lives in order to be happy, then that further justifies pedophilia.”
As of this one, sure. I didn’t correctly read the rates. But doesn’t that happen to us all, homosexual or not? Is it the person's fault for being homosexual or is it because of the stigma they receive?
For example, children can bully another for their race, and they commit suicide, but that isn’t because that is their biological race. It's because of the negative bullying they recieve.
And can you prove these suicides are because they are homosexuals? Nope. You just put random sucide rates out there. Yet, most you cannot prove where because they are homosexuals. In fact, you never state why they commit sucide. So, this is irrelevant to the discussion.
As for the contention name, I don’t think it increases mental illness nor do you have proof right now.
“5) Homosexuality is worse than pedophilia by objective standard = Dropped, Extend.
Add: My opponent says that saying "homosexuality is worse than pedophilia" justifies pedophilia. It does not. Saying "two murders are worse than one murder" doesnt justify "one murder".
Both homosexuality and pedophilia are bad. However, homosexuality is much worse. Therefore, accepting homosexuality is a slippery slope towards accepting pedophilia.
My opponent says: "Usually pedophilia is referred to as attraction while as homosexuality is referred to as sexual orientation.". My opponent defined homosexuality as sexual attraction. Plus, sexual orientation is a sexual attraction, so my opponent needs to read his definitions better.”
When did I say homosexuality is worse than pedophilla.. Homosexuality is not bad, pedophilla is bad. They are two different things.
My definitions in my eyes are fine. Pedophilla is attraction ONLY attraction. Sexual orientation is attracted to the same sex, or opposite, etc. See the difference?
What gender you like versus who you're dating.
“6) Conclusion
We have seen that homosexuality has no positive effects on population. We have seen that homosexuality is bad for society, that it includes underage relationships and that it justifies pedophilia. Accepting homosexuality increases suicides and lowers birth rates. We have seen that even very poor countries that punish homosexuality have less suicides and higher birth rates than countries that encourage homosexuality. We have seen that forced conversion therapy would punish homosexuality and lower the exposure of children to homosexuality, and that would help society. Forced conversion would help society by lowering suicides, lowering amount of mental illnesses and increasing birth rates.”
Incorrect to a degree. Which I explain in my rebuttals.
Round four 1/2:
Con drops all my contentions in the process of extending theres.
So, extend. Burden is shared; not just countering my opponent.
Rebuttals:
“1) Definition includes underage homosexuality. = Dropped, Extend.
Add: Homosexuality does include underage homosexuality, which is a type of pedophilia. So we could say that homosexuality by the given definition already justified pedophilia. In those cases, conversion therapy would be most necessary.”
This was not really dropped..
Con seems to use justifying in the wrong way; nowhere does it support it. Where does it say children can date adults? It doesn't. Because it's not talking about age gaps, it's talking about sexual preference. Such as being straight, nowhere does it say that being a pedo is right. Same thing applies to homosexuals.
Just because it can/does happen does not mean it's because of homosexuality.
Con misplaces the wrong justification.
“2) Children would be exposed to homosexuality. Since children are sensitive, they can easily develop feelings towards same sex. = Dropped, Extend.
Add: I said that homosexuality would encourage underage homosexuality. My opponent said that thats pedophilia. So we can conclude that homosexuality encourages pedophilia then.”
No? I do not agree. Which is explained above, in your contention, pedophila.
“My opponent says that conversion therapy wouldnt prevent underage homosexuality. However, it would be useful, since it would give homosexuals a chance to change their behavior and let everyone know that its wrong. Therefore, homosexuals would conceal their behavior, and children would be less exposed to it.
My opponent says: "If they were in that type of relationship, how many are actually in that kind of relationship? Is this relationship forced?".
If a 12 year-old boy is willingly in a relationship with 30 year-old man, it still stands that such relationship is wrong. Such homosexual relationships are products of encouraging homosexuality. Therefore, discouraging all homosexuality would discourage such relationships.”
No.. In my contention I said conversion therapy has shown and been proven not to help at all but leave negative effects.
As for your example, homosexuality does not in any way define that the relationship is right. The sexual orientation, however, is. I explain this above as well.
“3) Conversion therapy would serve as punishment for homosexuality. Conversion therapy would discourage homosexuality. = Dropped,Extend.
Add: Conversion therapy is useful as punishment and an attempt to prevent individuals from engaging in gay sex. There will be some cases where conversion therapy wont work. Then the death penalty will be necessary. Conversion therapy is there to see if individual can be fixed without being killed, since in some cases individual can choose to supress his urges. In cases where he cant, then the death penalty will cure him. Conversion therapy is necessary to give every homosexual a chance to reject his homosexuality, save his life and improve it. It lets everyone know that homosexuality is wrong. That will lower public displays of homosexuality, and lower the exposure of children to homosexuality, as all public homosexuality will be reported and dealt with.”
Con proves nothing here.
I already stated that conversion therapy does not help at all with research behind it. Con has not.
As for a death penalty the United States rarely gives them for criminals, why for homosexuals who have done nothing wrong?
Sure, thanks.
I can only think of two ways to win this debate. Interesting debate though.
Elaborate. I'm not sure who this is direct to?
Well, looks like I'm winning this regardless of my introduction of slavery!
Short period of time.. Yes. Forcing to hold the baby for months and then forcing a pregnancy, regardless of outcomes. If the mother could die in the process. Which is a possibility with all circumstances, but even more so when doctors ahead of time know. So, when I say slavery I factored all my contentions into it.
Wins her freedom? LOL. The law is gives freedom to ALL humans upon birth, human rights. It's not given to woman when they give birth. If you were to say that, it gives me the impression you mean woman don't get freedom UNTILL they give birth. But back to what you meant.. Woman's (human) rights shouldn't be taken away the moment you have an unwanted child. Which is, like said, slavery!
So, were going to ignore the last part? Alright.
Not just pregnancy, forced pregnancy.
We keep using your definitions everytime we have a disagreement, but sure.
"entire subjection to the will and commands of another" : is that not what forced pregnancy is? "My entire subjection to the wills and commands (having forced pregnancy) of the country/state."
"What happens when a girl/woman is forced to do something against their will, like give birth, makes them society's personal incubator. That's it."
Im sorry I laughed. That's still slavery, if you want to use those words: "makes them society's forced personal incubator" which is still slavery!
Alright, but forcing someone to have pregnancy is slavery. And that is (a) part of the discussion with this medical procedure.
Also, I skimmed only a bit from this debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4531-abortion-is-not-murder
It covered it almost the same as me. I barely saw it mentioned expect for on the other side. Is that ignorant as well?
...Yeah um.. At least I have my response typed out?
Yeah, I concede, obviously. I took to many debates for my schedule.
Alrightly, i'll touch up on that later on. Thanks.
Alright TWS1405_2, I looked at mostly everyone's votes. I'll specifically clear those ideas, from your vote, next round. And hopefully other people's votes.
Thanks for the previous vote.
That was close..
Yep, I can say the same.
Your all good, challange me if you want to redo this.
Cool, it's finally finished. I'll read this today and probably vote tomorrow.
I'll accept if nobody else does in a bit. I have ideas.
Even though it should never be considered, because any sides of pro trans or con trans don't mention that at all. It woild be reworded as "Trans (female/male) are females/males", or even possibly with the wording "biologically".
Nooo, I thought they were an unsolved rubik's cube.
(But then if you think about it..)
No way I missed two rounds..
Completely fine, it's helpful. I am planning on fixing those mistakes with my redo practice debate again with him. We'll see.