I was just pointing out that its not a fallacy. As for this topic, we already have enough problems with sources and conduct winning debates which by mere arguments wouldnt be won.
So I fail to see how adding more points to vote on wont just enable certain voters to make it so that their vote counts as much as 3 other votes.
If "strategy" is treated same as "arguments", then maybe, sure. Other than that, I dont see the purpose.
"Fallacies like appealing to authority or appealing to emotion or gish galloping might be good strategies but shouldn't be rewarded"
Gish Gallop isnt exactly a fallacy. I dont know why people everywhere officially put it as a fallacy, when its one of the most effective debating tactics in history which everyone should try, if for nothing, for fun at least.
Its not just Trump who used it to destroy opponents. The very person its named after, Gish, used it to completely make fun of much more educated opponents. Actual scientists were made to look like complete idiots.
On this site tho, it just means that instead of few arguments supported by many points, you make many arguments supported by few points.
Same with counter arguments. Many counter arguments supported by few points.
Adults already vote for bad people. Almost every president is bad and corrupt. So if making bad choices is a basis for taking away choices, you would take away choices from over 90% of the people.
Parents dont have "the right" to vaccinate a child any more they have right to vaccinate other adults, since it is not allowed to violate people's bodies even if its beneficial. For example, it is wrong to rape a woman to make her pregnant, even if it is beneficial for society.
If you say that those more educated get to decide, then you are arguing for a dictatorship of one most educated person over all of society.
There is no level of education which lets you violate other people's bodies. Are you allowed to rape a woman if you are smarter than her?
You say parents pay taxes for a child, but what does that have to do with anything? If some criminals asked me to pay money because you exist, it wouldnt mean I own you. So if state asks you to pay money because your child exists, it still doesnt follow that you own a child.
Even if state registers a child as your property, it still doesnt follow that child is a property, unless you believe people are allowed to register other people as property.
Further, just because you get blamed for what your child does, doesnt follow that that is a correct way. That would be "is = should" fallacy.
Again, you say that adults cant make mistakes, but all major mistakes in history were made by adults.
So again, if you want to take away choices because person will make a mistake, you have to take away choices from adults and install a dictatorship of one smartest person who wont make any mistakes.
To be able to have free speech, person must be able to control own body in any way person wants, as free speech is not just about giving information. To be able to give information which person wants to give and when and where person wants to give, person must be allowed to receieve information in a voluntary way, must be allowed to move, must be allowed to choose if and when person wants to talk, person must be allowed to explore and learn, person must be allowed to engage in voluntary trade. Not allowing any of these violates free speech, thus violates debate, thus these are basic truths which you must accept to even have a debate to begin with.
Thus, to have free speech, person must be able to move, to trade, to learn, to explore, to own property recieved from voluntary trade and to own their own body.
If person wasnt allowed to move, person would not be able to practice free speech in a way person wants.
If person wasnt allowed to trade, person wouldnt be able to get what they want, thus informations would be limited.
If person wasnt allowed to learn in a voluntary way what person wants to learn, person again wouldnt be able to practice free speech in a way person wants.
If person wasnt allowed to own property, then not only would person's sustain be a problem, but also research would be a problem.
If person doesnt own their own body, then free speech is again in danger because when someone else makes decisions for you about what you are allowed to do, about which actions you are allowed to do, it affects your ability to say what you want, but also affects ability to learn what you want.
Besides, assuming that you can make choices instead of children doesnt stop at mere ban of gender identity, but expands in all other areas due to problem of consistency, thus violating free speech completely.
So there is no way to own someone else's body and make decisions about it without violating free speech and thus violating debate and thus making your position in debate impossible to prove correct since your very position, if realized, violates debate.
Police are just people with guns. There is no any guarantee that police does a better job than armed people protecting themselves. Police doesnt even stop most crimes. It just responds to punish after crime was already committed. So if someone attacks you, its very unlikely cops will even get there in time to protect you. However, since police enforces laws which people wouldnt normally pay to enforce, it effectively wastes money, since it forces people to pay money for something they wouldnt pay for if given a choice. So police is not cost effective in terms of enforcing laws, since it enforces laws people wouldnt want to pay to enforce. However, police also demands an entire justice system and prison system to be created, thus it wastes money while not exactly preventing bad things, since criminals in prison can still do bad things. It is much more simple to simply give people guns so everyone keeps everyone in check. This would save money, thus even reduce poverty, so people would even have less reason to resort to crime.
Most children can vote. The fact that society doesnt let them to has nothing to do with ability to vote.
Child's body belongs to a child.
So who is the only one who gets to vote about what child does with own body?
The child.
To put it simply, you can only get a vote to decide about something if that something is your property.
Is child your property? No.
You mention major mistake, but adults make major mistakes too.
However, with non-aggression principle, you get to educate people so they dont make a mistake, but also they grow intellectually.
Again, you cannot make a decision about child's body instead of a child without violating child's free speech, and that would be making your position in this debate false.
Besides, I doubt many children have enough money to pay for gender surgery, so that mistake would likely be only in very small percentage.
If everyone owns a gun, everyone will protect themselves according to own interest. So money is saved in the process, and people become more skilled with protecting themselves, where now they rely on police to a greater extent. So schools and banks would be protected by those with guns and who are willing to protect them.
I dont understand why he accepted a debate if he is not going to participate in it, but he still expects to somehow win. I mean, I can agree to a tie if he doesnt wanna debate, but I find it strange that he just quit.
It makes no sense that people are allowed to circumcise infants, but most people dont care about banning circumcision at all. I have watched some circumcision videos, and they are all horrible.
This is easy win for Pro as long as voters dont accept choice of actual voters in elections. So its pretty much a debate of meritocracy vs democracy, more than it is Biden vs Trump.
I actually wouldnt mind that much if current laws were abolished, even tho it wouldnt last that long. People create their own laws very quickly, and the ones making laws in absence of law would likely be those with guns. But if everyone has a gun, then I guess it would balance itself out.
If someone else accepted, it was possible that the debate ends in a tie, so your win rate would be harmed. Just let me concede, so you win and keep 100% win rate.
But mocking them wont change that. There is plenty of mocking based on looks in modern countries, probably more than anywhere else. It does not lower suicide rates.
And how would you telling them that and calling them ugly make them less suicidal? People arent going to magically become tough just because you tell them to and call them ugly.
What about useless and harmful truth? Calling someone ugly is harmful and useless, even if true. Telling them that they look good would make them happier and wouldnt hurt anyone, even if a lie.
Its really not immoral to say what you dont mean. If you see an ugly person, it would be immoral to tell them that they are ugly, since that would hurt them and brings no benefits, really.
"Should society be legally forced under legal prosecution to refer to Jennifer as she, or is society allowed to believe that Jennifer is a man (an opinion btw that is majoritarian in this country)?"
Society is allowed to believe that Jennifer is a man, but they should be respectful and refer to Jennifer as she, even if there are no legal obligations to do so.
Its not slavery. It just feels like that because you spend entire day working for a wage which you cant even enjoy because you have to work the whole day.
"Maybe to you, but everyone has their own tastes"
Its not about taste.
Women past age 30 just give birth to more defective children, more down syndrome, more autism...ect.
If you are attracted to women over 30, something is biologically wrong with you.
If you are married to a woman, she gets ugly over time.
After she is age 30, you can either divorce either watch porn.
Any woman above the age of 30 is just undesirable, ugly and worthless when it comes to sex.
If you think people should respect something which was forced on them, then there is nothing to talk about here, since you think rape is okay.
Some people are married to a pillow, or are in forced marriages.
People need guns to be able to kill themselves more easily.
For one debate, I even wrote 5 rounds with over 70,000 characters in advance.
But yeah, for most debates, I dont put in that much effort.
I just sometimed write 5 rounds in advance, maybe 2000 characters per round, its enough.
Most of the time I actually do engage with opponent's arguments, but it rarely pays off in terms of time I have to spend.
If the actual topic is "dangerous", then there is nothing to debate. Everything is dangerous per standard of high amount or significant cost.
I was just pointing out that its not a fallacy. As for this topic, we already have enough problems with sources and conduct winning debates which by mere arguments wouldnt be won.
So I fail to see how adding more points to vote on wont just enable certain voters to make it so that their vote counts as much as 3 other votes.
If "strategy" is treated same as "arguments", then maybe, sure. Other than that, I dont see the purpose.
But maybe Pro will convince me into his views.
"Fallacies like appealing to authority or appealing to emotion or gish galloping might be good strategies but shouldn't be rewarded"
Gish Gallop isnt exactly a fallacy. I dont know why people everywhere officially put it as a fallacy, when its one of the most effective debating tactics in history which everyone should try, if for nothing, for fun at least.
Its not just Trump who used it to destroy opponents. The very person its named after, Gish, used it to completely make fun of much more educated opponents. Actual scientists were made to look like complete idiots.
On this site tho, it just means that instead of few arguments supported by many points, you make many arguments supported by few points.
Same with counter arguments. Many counter arguments supported by few points.
Adults already vote for bad people. Almost every president is bad and corrupt. So if making bad choices is a basis for taking away choices, you would take away choices from over 90% of the people.
Parents dont have "the right" to vaccinate a child any more they have right to vaccinate other adults, since it is not allowed to violate people's bodies even if its beneficial. For example, it is wrong to rape a woman to make her pregnant, even if it is beneficial for society.
If you say that those more educated get to decide, then you are arguing for a dictatorship of one most educated person over all of society.
There is no level of education which lets you violate other people's bodies. Are you allowed to rape a woman if you are smarter than her?
You say parents pay taxes for a child, but what does that have to do with anything? If some criminals asked me to pay money because you exist, it wouldnt mean I own you. So if state asks you to pay money because your child exists, it still doesnt follow that you own a child.
Even if state registers a child as your property, it still doesnt follow that child is a property, unless you believe people are allowed to register other people as property.
Further, just because you get blamed for what your child does, doesnt follow that that is a correct way. That would be "is = should" fallacy.
Again, you say that adults cant make mistakes, but all major mistakes in history were made by adults.
So again, if you want to take away choices because person will make a mistake, you have to take away choices from adults and install a dictatorship of one smartest person who wont make any mistakes.
To be able to have free speech, person must be able to control own body in any way person wants, as free speech is not just about giving information. To be able to give information which person wants to give and when and where person wants to give, person must be allowed to receieve information in a voluntary way, must be allowed to move, must be allowed to choose if and when person wants to talk, person must be allowed to explore and learn, person must be allowed to engage in voluntary trade. Not allowing any of these violates free speech, thus violates debate, thus these are basic truths which you must accept to even have a debate to begin with.
Thus, to have free speech, person must be able to move, to trade, to learn, to explore, to own property recieved from voluntary trade and to own their own body.
If person wasnt allowed to move, person would not be able to practice free speech in a way person wants.
If person wasnt allowed to trade, person wouldnt be able to get what they want, thus informations would be limited.
If person wasnt allowed to learn in a voluntary way what person wants to learn, person again wouldnt be able to practice free speech in a way person wants.
If person wasnt allowed to own property, then not only would person's sustain be a problem, but also research would be a problem.
If person doesnt own their own body, then free speech is again in danger because when someone else makes decisions for you about what you are allowed to do, about which actions you are allowed to do, it affects your ability to say what you want, but also affects ability to learn what you want.
Besides, assuming that you can make choices instead of children doesnt stop at mere ban of gender identity, but expands in all other areas due to problem of consistency, thus violating free speech completely.
So there is no way to own someone else's body and make decisions about it without violating free speech and thus violating debate and thus making your position in debate impossible to prove correct since your very position, if realized, violates debate.
Police are just people with guns. There is no any guarantee that police does a better job than armed people protecting themselves. Police doesnt even stop most crimes. It just responds to punish after crime was already committed. So if someone attacks you, its very unlikely cops will even get there in time to protect you. However, since police enforces laws which people wouldnt normally pay to enforce, it effectively wastes money, since it forces people to pay money for something they wouldnt pay for if given a choice. So police is not cost effective in terms of enforcing laws, since it enforces laws people wouldnt want to pay to enforce. However, police also demands an entire justice system and prison system to be created, thus it wastes money while not exactly preventing bad things, since criminals in prison can still do bad things. It is much more simple to simply give people guns so everyone keeps everyone in check. This would save money, thus even reduce poverty, so people would even have less reason to resort to crime.
Most children can vote. The fact that society doesnt let them to has nothing to do with ability to vote.
Child's body belongs to a child.
So who is the only one who gets to vote about what child does with own body?
The child.
To put it simply, you can only get a vote to decide about something if that something is your property.
Is child your property? No.
You mention major mistake, but adults make major mistakes too.
However, with non-aggression principle, you get to educate people so they dont make a mistake, but also they grow intellectually.
Again, you cannot make a decision about child's body instead of a child without violating child's free speech, and that would be making your position in this debate false.
Besides, I doubt many children have enough money to pay for gender surgery, so that mistake would likely be only in very small percentage.
If everyone owns a gun, everyone will protect themselves according to own interest. So money is saved in the process, and people become more skilled with protecting themselves, where now they rely on police to a greater extent. So schools and banks would be protected by those with guns and who are willing to protect them.
The only other option is that children are slaves and then your position in debate violates free speech because slavery violates free speech.
People at any age can make mistakes. You learn from mistakes, so its beneficial regardless.
People usually have guns for protection, at least in USA.
I dont understand why he accepted a debate if he is not going to participate in it, but he still expects to somehow win. I mean, I can agree to a tie if he doesnt wanna debate, but I find it strange that he just quit.
Also, almost all online games with chat option are technically "social media".
Any site from YouTube to any which has simple options to post comments is a social media, so thats most of the sites on internet.
So you would probably be banning those under 13 from using the internet at all, or using it with severe limitations.
It makes no sense that people are allowed to circumcise infants, but most people dont care about banning circumcision at all. I have watched some circumcision videos, and they are all horrible.
Only humans which happen to pollute a lot.
All humans? Nope.
This is easy win for Pro as long as voters dont accept choice of actual voters in elections. So its pretty much a debate of meritocracy vs democracy, more than it is Biden vs Trump.
I actually wouldnt mind that much if current laws were abolished, even tho it wouldnt last that long. People create their own laws very quickly, and the ones making laws in absence of law would likely be those with guns. But if everyone has a gun, then I guess it would balance itself out.
If someone else accepted, it was possible that the debate ends in a tie, so your win rate would be harmed. Just let me concede, so you win and keep 100% win rate.
Thats a bit extreme.
Yeah, like when I write 5 rounds in advance and just copy paste.
Sorry, I dont know what that means.
Accepting gives you the last word, which means you can make points the other guy cant respond to.
One can do both.
I guess, but most big hospitals dont approve much of the doctors who refuse to do the work.
But this debate would mostly be about the meaning of the word "allowed".
Same exceptions for abortion being illegal, like rape, mother's life being endangered by fetus and fetus dying anyway.
"It was much more common back in the day."
USA has similar suicide rate as it did 1950, so what are you saying?
"Trauma makes you a better person."
Not always. Most criminals and people who committed suicide had some severe traumas. It did not make them better. It just hurt them.
"And Modern countries have thinner skins"
But mocking them wont change that. There is plenty of mocking based on looks in modern countries, probably more than anywhere else. It does not lower suicide rates.
I feel its better to attack the intended argument, to steelman the argument.
"They would then look better, go to the gym, do pushups instead of take medical pills, and be much more confident with themselves."
Or they would develop depression from being mocked. Modern countries have lots of mocking based on looks, and lots of suicides as well.
"Then tell people to grow thick skins."
And how would you telling them that and calling them ugly make them less suicidal? People arent going to magically become tough just because you tell them to and call them ugly.
There is no any guarantee of long term benefits of calling someone ugly. It might even drive people to suicide or self harm.
"You tell an ugly person they are beautiful, they never change. You tell an ugly person they are ugly, they might change."
Its very unlikely that calling someone ugly would turn him beautiful, but it is very likely it would hurt them emotionally.
What about useless and harmful truth? Calling someone ugly is harmful and useless, even if true. Telling them that they look good would make them happier and wouldnt hurt anyone, even if a lie.
When things reach their prime, they begin to decline.
Thats mean lol
Its really not immoral to say what you dont mean. If you see an ugly person, it would be immoral to tell them that they are ugly, since that would hurt them and brings no benefits, really.
You can say things you dont believe if it avoids uncomfortable situations.
"Should society be legally forced under legal prosecution to refer to Jennifer as she, or is society allowed to believe that Jennifer is a man (an opinion btw that is majoritarian in this country)?"
Society is allowed to believe that Jennifer is a man, but they should be respectful and refer to Jennifer as she, even if there are no legal obligations to do so.
I guess you forfeit the debate. Thats okay. Free win for me.
Its not slavery. It just feels like that because you spend entire day working for a wage which you cant even enjoy because you have to work the whole day.
Okay, but dont expect lots of effort on my part. Maybe some effort.
If people have a problem with accepting this debate, I can write in description that its a troll debate.
I think this should have had more rounds or more characters. Reading about anarchy is fun now that I support anarchy.