This debate is running out very quickly. It would be highly appreciated if you took a minute to vote, such that this debate doesn't end as a no-vote tie.
Newton created the math field of calculus; he described the laws of motion, thermodynamics, energy and gravity. His laws hold true and are mathematically accurate even to this day. Moreover, he accomplished a lot of these feats while still being a student --- Einstein only looks "smarter" because his theory is more modern.
Your premise is flawed. Einstein being wrong is not "hyped" because of his alledged genius (mind you, Newton, Leonardo and many others where way more genius than him), but because his theories is the foundation of modern physics.
CON's R1 was a bit sketchy.
-Knife party
- internet friends
-Literally a quote from the vid: "you blocked me on Facebook, and now you are going to die".
-At the same time, CON says that "I thought, this song would be appropriate due to you blocking me."
Great idea, yet not so much perfectly executed. You would have benefited from a long argument with space to discuss implications as well as try to provide evidence of a society functioning without police -- that might have made your point more effective. By making the argument extremely short you are kind of wasting your round, as nothing is remembered or have any impact. Otherwise, you had a cool angle I hadn't expected.
Aha, you are bringing out the woman. Of course, that is a whole other issue that isn't as clear cut, and also is not my position to deny women the right to abortion.
I merely claim that a human fetus, and a baby, are not valuable in themselves, only because of their future. Do you deny this?
Undefeatable, you have accused the pro-life position, which I have not pledged allegiance to, of having a warped logic. I challenge you to substantiate that claim of yours. Do you claim that a born baby is more valuable than a non-born baby even when the time difference can be less than a day (or do you allow the killing of just-born babies). Alternatively, do you simply mean that the traits of a late-stage fetus or early baby make it deserve to be treated as a human. If so, why? You do know that we accept the killing of dogs, whose traits of consciousness and personality far supersede that of babies. Yet babies are still treated better than dogs, not because of their innate traits, but because of their future as humans. It is this universally accepted logic, that the future lives of babies mean more than their time-specific traits, that explains why dogs aren't worthy of human rights while babies are. Your claims imply otherwise, and I ask you to clarify.
Until then, stop calling the pro-life logic warped.
Just tell me, what makes a 13-week old clump of human cells more valuable than a 12-week old clump of human cells? Why should one of them be treated differently than the other -- surely, neither have inherent value. The only reason we think of babies as valuable is their future lives as sentient and intelligent beings.
Can you tell me, what part of my logic do you deny:
-That a human ought to be treated as a human
-That a fetus grows into an entity clearly recognisable as a human
-That one does not change species merely through growing
Or do you just dislike my argument by virtue of disagreeing with its conclusion?
I changed the debate. I have reworded the debate so that semantics like "ideological vs emotional" isn't a factor. To counteract the extra advantage of having a broader category of error, the BoP has been put on PRO only. What do you say?
So you felt like I declared victory when I literally didn't, and then you punished me for that? I only stated that my evidence was sufficient to conclude that budgies are cute, I didn't override boundaries for fairness as I have done before. My arguments were unrebutted, as I explained in R2 that PRO's R1 claims don't rebut my arguments, he merely challenged me to provide more evidence.
The adjectives being a part of the definitions isn't my choice, it's the choice of society that creates words and gives them meaning. In R1, I cited an official definition and showed why budgies fall under that definition. In PRO's R1, he made claims about my BoP that contradicted the definitions, essentially adding his own criteria for cuteness. My arguments aren't contradictory or self-defeating. I simply explained that I didn't have to provide more evidence, but did it regardless because I love budgies.
Your critique of my R3 conclusion is absurd. I simply stated that my evidence was sufficient to conclude that budgies are cute. I did not declare victory, lest you think that every debater in every argument's conclusion declare victory merely by concluding that their case is correct given the evidence they provided. In other words, you are giving CON the conduct point for a crime I didn't commit, and if I did then every other debater always commits the same crime. Your conduct point awarding is unfair.
Also, your granting of argument point to CON is also nonsensical. CON makes no argument, and you use your own reasoning to conclude that my argument is contradictory. You are not analysing a debate, you are acting as the CON party should have acted during the debate. My R1 evidence was enough to conclude that budgies are cute, and you simply ignore all of the evidence I provided. Nope, your vote is not fair at all.
Oh, I see.
-No argument for CON.
-No sources for CON.
-CON barely wrote anything.
-CON forfeited.
-PRO's R2 arguments went unrebutted, and his R1 evidence not disputed.
-PRO's case being correct by definition -- the very definition of cute uses as an example a puppy, which signalises that subjective opinion is enough to call something cute. Thus by mere budgies being the most popular bird in the world proves they are cute. This argument is made and not rebutted.
Its ok
This debate is running out very quickly. It would be highly appreciated if you took a minute to vote, such that this debate doesn't end as a no-vote tie.
Thank you for voting
If any of you want to vote it would be highly appreciated.
What do you think about my R1?
Newton created the math field of calculus; he described the laws of motion, thermodynamics, energy and gravity. His laws hold true and are mathematically accurate even to this day. Moreover, he accomplished a lot of these feats while still being a student --- Einstein only looks "smarter" because his theory is more modern.
Your premise is flawed. Einstein being wrong is not "hyped" because of his alledged genius (mind you, Newton, Leonardo and many others where way more genius than him), but because his theories is the foundation of modern physics.
Ok, I cancelled.
Wait what?
I have reported Sum1hugme's vote --- because unvoted ties don't affect rating or win%.
Thanks for voting
WTF! LOL!
Thank you for voting.
Thank you for voting.
You might be interested in this.
I looked at a few, like Crewella, and was not too impressed. But I literally don't have any musical talent or taste, so my opinion is highly invalid.
The quote was from about 2/3rds in, and I understanding your joke.
CON's R1 was a bit sketchy.
-Knife party
- internet friends
-Literally a quote from the vid: "you blocked me on Facebook, and now you are going to die".
-At the same time, CON says that "I thought, this song would be appropriate due to you blocking me."
As said, a bit sketchy.
Oh, I didn't see your comment before now, sorry for the delay.
Yeah sure. You had no time for arguments. Let's call a tie.
Vote bump
Vote bump
Your R2 argument was suspiciously good compared to your R1 argument. Just remember to post sources IF you copy/past text from other websites.
Congrats on your first debate. I am impressed with your debating skills, especially after learning you are only 12; good job.
Thank you for voting
Great idea, yet not so much perfectly executed. You would have benefited from a long argument with space to discuss implications as well as try to provide evidence of a society functioning without police -- that might have made your point more effective. By making the argument extremely short you are kind of wasting your round, as nothing is remembered or have any impact. Otherwise, you had a cool angle I hadn't expected.
Aha, you are bringing out the woman. Of course, that is a whole other issue that isn't as clear cut, and also is not my position to deny women the right to abortion.
I merely claim that a human fetus, and a baby, are not valuable in themselves, only because of their future. Do you deny this?
Yes. Thank you whiteflame for the wording.
Undefeatable, you have accused the pro-life position, which I have not pledged allegiance to, of having a warped logic. I challenge you to substantiate that claim of yours. Do you claim that a born baby is more valuable than a non-born baby even when the time difference can be less than a day (or do you allow the killing of just-born babies). Alternatively, do you simply mean that the traits of a late-stage fetus or early baby make it deserve to be treated as a human. If so, why? You do know that we accept the killing of dogs, whose traits of consciousness and personality far supersede that of babies. Yet babies are still treated better than dogs, not because of their innate traits, but because of their future as humans. It is this universally accepted logic, that the future lives of babies mean more than their time-specific traits, that explains why dogs aren't worthy of human rights while babies are. Your claims imply otherwise, and I ask you to clarify.
Until then, stop calling the pro-life logic warped.
Just tell me, what makes a 13-week old clump of human cells more valuable than a 12-week old clump of human cells? Why should one of them be treated differently than the other -- surely, neither have inherent value. The only reason we think of babies as valuable is their future lives as sentient and intelligent beings.
Ah, I see --- you deny that personhood and "humanhood" are the same. But still, a human ought to be treated as a human, but maybe not as a person.
Can you tell me, what part of my logic do you deny:
-That a human ought to be treated as a human
-That a fetus grows into an entity clearly recognisable as a human
-That one does not change species merely through growing
Or do you just dislike my argument by virtue of disagreeing with its conclusion?
I would prefer a definition of human that was correct. That is, a definition under which only humans are categorized as humans. LOL.
You made me change this topic to avoid it being an easy win. But even your version of the resolution was easy to prove. What do you think now?
What do you think of this debate? (not necessarily asking for a vote, I am most interested in your thoughts)
I agree with the topic
The most important agencies that the government runs, that means the most important agency in general, not only in a specific state.
What do you think of my argument?
I changed the debate. I have reworded the debate so that semantics like "ideological vs emotional" isn't a factor. To counteract the extra advantage of having a broader category of error, the BoP has been put on PRO only. What do you say?
My sincerest apologies, broddah. The problem will be fixed immidiately.
Fixed.
Fixed. Rather than making a "what-if" scenario and using one's imagination, PRO now has to analyse real history to a much more prevalent degree.
Also read my responce to whiteflame.
Fixed.
Previously, as you commented on, the job of PRO could have amounted to "alternative history" which quickly gets theoretical and off-track.
Now the resolutions ask PRO to analyse the real history and drag a clear connection between Hitler's emotions and the defeat of the Third Reich.
Fixed.
I found a better way to phrase the debate's topic.
Thank you for voting.
Thank you. I can say the same to you.
So you felt like I declared victory when I literally didn't, and then you punished me for that? I only stated that my evidence was sufficient to conclude that budgies are cute, I didn't override boundaries for fairness as I have done before. My arguments were unrebutted, as I explained in R2 that PRO's R1 claims don't rebut my arguments, he merely challenged me to provide more evidence.
The adjectives being a part of the definitions isn't my choice, it's the choice of society that creates words and gives them meaning. In R1, I cited an official definition and showed why budgies fall under that definition. In PRO's R1, he made claims about my BoP that contradicted the definitions, essentially adding his own criteria for cuteness. My arguments aren't contradictory or self-defeating. I simply explained that I didn't have to provide more evidence, but did it regardless because I love budgies.
Thank you for voting.
Also, I pay you respect for viewing the pictures and thinking budgies are cute.
Would you care to vote? I don't think it would take too much time.
Fauxlaw
Your critique of my R3 conclusion is absurd. I simply stated that my evidence was sufficient to conclude that budgies are cute. I did not declare victory, lest you think that every debater in every argument's conclusion declare victory merely by concluding that their case is correct given the evidence they provided. In other words, you are giving CON the conduct point for a crime I didn't commit, and if I did then every other debater always commits the same crime. Your conduct point awarding is unfair.
Also, your granting of argument point to CON is also nonsensical. CON makes no argument, and you use your own reasoning to conclude that my argument is contradictory. You are not analysing a debate, you are acting as the CON party should have acted during the debate. My R1 evidence was enough to conclude that budgies are cute, and you simply ignore all of the evidence I provided. Nope, your vote is not fair at all.
Oh, I see.
-No argument for CON.
-No sources for CON.
-CON barely wrote anything.
-CON forfeited.
-PRO's R2 arguments went unrebutted, and his R1 evidence not disputed.
-PRO's case being correct by definition -- the very definition of cute uses as an example a puppy, which signalises that subjective opinion is enough to call something cute. Thus by mere budgies being the most popular bird in the world proves they are cute. This argument is made and not rebutted.
Seems like the debate to vote CON, doesn't it?
I swear this debate contains more definitions than the actual dictionary.