Best.Korea

This debate definitely shouldnt have gone into debating Bible,

And Pro definitely shouldnt have claimed that all unborns go to heaven.

Its a famous question in Christianity, to which some Christians give entirelly different answer.

In Christianity, there are many theories which actually deny that unborns go to heaven.

One such theory is about future crimes and actions person would do under certain circumstances.

The theory is strongly implied in the Bible, as Jesus said that Sodom will have it easier at judgment day, not because of what it actually did, but because it would have repented if it was given a sign.

This goes more about God knowing what unborn would do in life if it was allowed to live even if unborn never gets to live.

Which definition do you want?

Source battle!

"Pro conceded that non-Christians go to hell and that there are much more non-Christians in the world than non-Christians, and that due to that, baby will likely go to hell if not aborted and surely go to heaven if aborted."

Small correction here.

I meant to say "there are much more non-Christians in the world than Christians".

I always thought unforgivable curses were based on real life severe crimes of murder, torture and making others do bad things.

I guess the writer thought of those as worst crimes.

I can see it as being less bad than killing curse.

Of course, the other two curses are more debatable.

"I know that when these babies die, they will go to heaven"

I mean, this sentence alone destroys Pro position, and it came from Pro.

There were too many unnecessary claims being made in this debate which made this unwinnable for Pro.

It was unnecessary to add "abortion is not healthcare" to the topic.

After reading the debate so far, I get the clear feeling that abortion is not "morally wrong" in many cases, but I also get the feeling that abortion is morally good and even morally obligatory in most cases.

There is nothing which makes me think its better for baby to go to hell than heaven,

And the point of no suffering being experienced by the unborn didnt get any challenge either.

Its interesting how I can have view that unborn has personhood while at the same time I can be pro-abortion.

"My opponent has dropped most of my arguments, and did outweight them with his counter option."

I meant to say didnt outweigh lol

To me, its not really about winning.

I sometimes try hard to win, but sticking to same pattern of debating and same topics gets boring even if it gives wins.

Sometimes I go with what the opponent offers in round 1, even if debate topic is something different by official definitions.

Just edit the debate by clicking on edit.

Now, there are some arguments to be made against homosexuality, but there are not many.

This is because even if homosexuality is not beneficial, banning it is less beneficial,

and considering it morally wrong just makes the world a worse place.

This will just be fight over definitions.

Define murder first.

How would one even prove flat Earth?

There are some people who claim flat Earth, but actual proof obviously isnt there.

I thought that thats what the debate will be about, but first round went completely other way.

I mean, what definition of mental disorder do you go with?

You are supposed to put definitions in description or in round one.

Comments cant really be considered part of debate, unless agreed to by both debaters.

Well, there are plenty of humans who are not completely rational.

I am not even sure how someone would prove that certain person is entirely rational.

So I am Pro for "Earth is spherical"?

Yes.

I just dont see what else my opponent can argue to prove his side of the topic.

Ultimatelly, he has to argue that logic partially consists of illogical, or that illogical partially consists of logic.

So yes, he must argue that logic is not entirely logic, or that illogical is not entirely illogical.

Thats what his side of the topic leads to by commonly understood definitions.

I assume thats what the debate will be about.

Since illogical must not be "outside of logic", for my opponent to prove his case.

Or illogical must not be "separate from logic".

So really, my opponent must argue that some part of illogical is part of logic, or that some part of logic is part of illogical.

Yes, this depends on definitions of each word in the topic.

I accepted because I am curious what arguments will my opponent use.

Thanks for voting.

I can see the point of reasonable doubt.

Without it, one could just throw a bunch of assumptions at opponent and every debate would be essentially a tie unless every thrown assumption is disproven.

Maybe I should have made it more reasonable, such as presenting arguments for existence of God which would lead to conclusion that God intentionally designed a large number of pregnancies to end in fetus death, essentially committing divine abortion.

I myself dont follow the principle of reasonable doubt when topic needs to be proven to be true beyond any doubt, but one can see the point of asking for doubt to be supported by some evidence.

Presenting doubts which are more probable than not is more effective for these debates, which is what I will try to work on in future.

Well, so far no one has suggested any crazy topics.

I mostly post these for new users, or anyone who wishes to debate some topic.

The number of debates and debaters is decreasing, which kinda makes me willing to debate almost any topic.

I wouldnt debate some really nasty topics, but other than that, I am willing to debate anything.

Some topics are unknown for me, but I figured I can use google to research.

I noticed that people are not really starting much of the new topics.

Google translate does allow people to debate in any language. Its a miracle of technology.

Sorry, I forgot what the topic was. It happens when topic is in different language.

I appreciate that you dont take debates personally. I like being able to be in good relations with people after debate. I dont think debates are supposed to make enemies out of people.

You do realize that you both used sources? And I dont see any problems with conduct, so really, I dont know what you are going for here.

Ah, I see. So you know that my vote changes nothing, and yet you still go around being upset because you assume that I didnt justify the arguments.

I am pretty sure that plenty of unknowns justify a tied vote, and you saying it doesnt would just be your assumption.

"Also, you wrote something about the debate that is simply untrue. PRO never claimed that fetuses are people"

I was talking about your claim, but yes I can see the source of confusion.

"explain why one side has better arguments."

You do realize that arguments are tie in my vote?

Really? You are bothered by a vote that doesnt affect anything?

I figured that with burden of proof on him, he has to prove resolution to be true by proving all counter-options false.

I simply presented a counter-option which he never disproved and which carries equal possibility of being correct as his side, making topic essentially unproven.

Of course, its not a commonly accepted debate tactic, but with it, one can counter argument almost anything, even this type of almost circular topics.

I went the other way. I am saying that God or non-human being deliberately causes miscarriages.

The main flaw in definitions is that in order to be murder, it must be done by another human, where in order to be abortion, it doesnt need to be done by another human.

Your definition says "unlawful".

So its a debate about if its legal or not.

I mean, just debating if its legal or not?

Sorry for the gish gallop in the first 3 rounds. I was merely trying out how is it to be a google debater(debater who takes most arguments from google). I hope round 4 makes up for my google adventure. I will skip round 5, so you can have enough text to respond to points that werent covered if you like.

Well, text format has many advantages.

I agree that it would be probably wrong to give 3 year old a gender surgery.
So I am not arguing that.
But studies indicate that transition is extremely consistent and great majority of children continue with transition to the desired level.
So 10 year old should be allowed to have gender surgery if its his choice, since that improves quality of life.

Its not minimum age. I am merely arguing that 10 or older should be allowed. The debate doesnt include those under 10 being allowed or not allowed.

I am not going to pretend that I know perfect minimum age.

Some trans people start transition at 3 years old. They wear clothes, hair and make up that suit their identity. They do activities which in the past would have been considered inappropriate, such as born boys acting in a feminine way.

Its a new thing, but all studies support trans children being allowed to transition. The only real point of disagreement is surgery.

Thanks for voting.

I cant really get myself to watch anime.

Most children continue with transition, according to studies.

I am okay with that.

Here is a source, I forgot to include.

https://www.news24.com/news24/the-problem-of-the-bible-inaccuracies-contradictions-fallacies-scientific-issues-and-more-20120517

It was a study done on over 8000 transgenders.

Now, of course, the question is does same apply to 10 year olds if it applies to 16 year olds.

One could say it does, since most 10 year olds dont regret hormone therapy or puberty blockers.

Its probably mostly about those 16 or older, but I will try to find more in another round.

Yes, but my argument is about reduction of pain in the world, not about what is reversible. Well, I posted a round. If you are interested, give it a read.