Best.Korea

I think 10 year old driving a car increases pain, where 10 year old getting gender surgery reduces pain.

I prefer not to attack votes.

I dont see the point in debating if I am going to make myself debate voters as well.

Plus, my arguments in debate were kinda saying that voters can vote in any way they choose due to arbitrary standard, so whats there to complain about?

No. Thats why I didnt make that the topic.

See if this position works for you

More importantly, the specific age kinda matters. I really dont wanna argue that 3 year olds should get gender surgeries. Its not the position I want to bother to defend.

10 years old and above could be allowed to get gender surgeries. That position makes a bit more sense.

I am thinking if I should defend that children should be allowed get gender surgeries or not.

Not sure if I can defend "any age" position, but if that is the topic you are willing to debate, so be it.

Thank you for the vote.

If any of you wonder why I went with selfishness and arbitrary morality, its because none of the popular moral systems were working in my favor, except one.

Human rights system worked for my opponent, since most people agree that its justified to violate rights of criminals to protect innocents.

Justice system worked for my opponent.

Consequentialism, if focused on saving lives or reducing pain, both worked for my opponent.

The survival of the nation system also worked for my opponent.

There was just one moral system that is popular and that worked for me, but I didnt go for it.

I could have used the pacifist approach, and say that "all killings are wrong" or "we shouldnt kill anyone". So killing criminals too would be wrong.
However, that would force me to defend many uncomfortable positions, such as that it was wrong to fight against Hitler in WW2, that we shouldnt imprison criminals, that self defense is wrong, and many more.

So despite my choice in debate being strange, I dont see what other options could have worked for me.

Also, I did google about the anime. While I found many opinions that Light was evil, I found no explanation as to why his killings were evil. In fact, the only explanations I found were the ones justifying killings.

So yeah, maybe I should have focused more on violent anime causing violence in real life, but overall it was a good debate regardless.

See if this works for you.

Sure.

It is done.

Most people live past age 26.

Now, I cant exactly think of a more suitable topic. If we were just discussing age at which surgery should be allowed, it would be largely in my favor if I picked ages 18-22.

If the topic gets too awkward, I can always forfeit.

You said you would debate abortion. Does this debate suit you?

Actually, I was already told that endless insults may be used against Allah and prophet Muhammad.

Now, I dont have endless insults, but I can give a few.

I was merely insulting Allah and the prophet Muhammad. Since they are not members of this site, endless insults may be used against them.

Quran came from Allah's ass. Allah is a pig. Quran came from pig's ass. Those who read Quran read from pig's ass.

So he lied to make things better. That means he didnt lie. Understood.

Can you imagine how a fight between Aisha and Muhammad looked like?

Aisha: "I married a pig."

Muhammad: "So what, I worship a pig."

"Allah can't lie because there is no point in believing him then."

So there is no point in believing Allah. Allah is a pig. Allah lies a lot.

"metaphors and generalizations are not contradictions."

So Allah lied when he said that he likes those who clean themselves. Allah didnt mean that. Allah doesnt like them.

"Pigs are Najis. They are ritually unclean."

That was a metaphor for Muhammad. It means that prophet Muhammad is an unclean pig.

"It also says he doesn't have emotions. So what can we deduce from here?"

That Quran contradicts itself?

Did you know that pigs are protected animals in the Quran? Its banned to eat them. Allah protects his kind.

Since your God is a pig, and your God wrote Quran, it follows that pig wrote the Quran.

"why not? People can't be upset?"

Fine then, be upset.

"Allah does not "like""

It says in the quran that he does.

"No. People will."

Well, if Allah isnt upset, neither should they be. Besides, maybe Allah likes being a pig. Maybe its his fetish.

"my views are open in this debate."

I have no time to read your debate, but muslims tend to support arranged marriages, such as sometimes selling their teenage daughters to old rich men against their will.

Great. So Allah wont be upset when I call him a disgusting ugly pig.

"I'm not an emotional person. So insults have 0 impact on me."

Is Allah an emotional person?

Well, no, it was not "necessary". But I cant help but hate muslims. They pretend to support child marriages, but the circumcision in islam is real.

"Do you think critique and blasphemy are the same thing?"

I think that they are the same. Muslims call atheists rude names, so atheists call Allah a pig. Its a reasonable critique of the system.

Glad we agree.

Well, some of the best debaters on this site claimed that cows are persons, so I am probably not wrong.

See if this works for you.

Comments dont count in debates, so I dont have to answer it.

Sorry, I wont debate in comments.

I mean, how is one supposed to prove that something is not fake?

I wont be accepting, just wondering about the opposing view.

"with a time limit of at least two days"

Well, I can put any time limit you want. If its standard debate and not rated, time limit can be up to two weeks.

How do you want the character limit?

Circumcision

Do you want me to make the debate "The Bible is Stupid and wrong"?

Are you available to debate it right now or do we debate later?

Yes. I am Pro for any topic you choose.

Yes, I would debate that.

"Voters should judge with the presupposition that all arguments are correct unless proven wrong"

Well, so every assumption is correct unless challenged.

I dont particularly care about votes.

If you want to have a debate on this topic, make the challenge and I will accept, or I will make the challenge and you accept.

Then you will hear my complete opinion on the topic.

"I CTRL+F d the cites you sent to see where you found the 30% figure. "

This conversation is over. Bye.

"The standard I want to use is only those who are mature enough (regardless of age) should be allowed to consent to sex."

But 30% of children under 16 have sex even with current strict laws. Its a pointless standard which you are trying to have.

"You are the one making claims."

A simple google search would have given you the answer. I dont see why you hate doing research. Are you trying to get educated or just trying to argue?

https://legaljobs.io/blog/sex-offenders-statistics/

https://screenandreveal.com/pedophile-statistics/

You can google and find information. I already gave you the numbers. You gave me assumptions as a response.

Originally, you claimed that children shouldnt have sex because they cant consent and it doesnt benefit them.

Then you claimed its okay for 16 year old and 13 year old to have sex.

So until you make up your mind on which standard you want to use and make it consistent, there is nothing for us to discuss here.

The point is not about 30 year old.

The point is that most of the time, offender is not caught.

Thats again, incorrect. Girls tend to be with older partners.

But the main point is that children arent going to stop having partners just because its banned.

Ban just makes it impossible to regulate, as relationships become unknown.

Whats unknown cant be regulated.

"I think eventually, pretty much all relationships with an adult and a minor get discovered"

Well, not even close to truth.

30% of children had sex before 16.

Thats over 90 million people in USA in total, but almost none ended in prison.

And thats just whats reported by surveys.

"Does banning tobacco for children benefit them? After all, children cannot be stopped from smoking tobacco"

Tobacco is a different issue. Children can mostly be stopped from smoking tobacco.

However, when it comes to sex, no country has lowered sex rate by making it illegal.

They have increased prison population, and caused many problems such as adultery, but they didnt lower the percentage of children who had sex.

"How? In the long run, more workers."

The birth rates are declining world wide. When child marriages were legal, in the past, birth rates used to be 6 per woman.

Today, women are taught to wait until older. What they dont know is that the longer they wait, the less are the odds of giving birth.

"How would you regulate sex with kids in a way that does not result in a ban?"

I think I already explained the issue before. The issue is that 90% of offenders are never caught and 90% of those relationships remain unknown. If something is unknown, its impossible to regulate and ban is useless.

If it was legal, there would be more education about it.

"Correlation vs causation"

All causations are correlations.

Well, Japan did raise age of consent to 16, but that didnt show any benefits.

Japan has age of consent at 13.

Sweden has age of consent 15.

Canada has age of consent at 16.

All are safer countries to live in than USA.

Really, 18 is just an arbitrary law that didnt prove to be any good in any way.

Child marriages do tend to increase birth rates, which is beneficial for society.

Banning sex with children does not benefit children, because children cannot be stopped from having sex and judgment from ban just harms them.

Usually, it is better to regulate something than to ban it.