Best.Korea

"Christians were never mentioned by myself"

You said biological men or biological women. Most Christians are biological women or biological men.

Do you want to change definition again, to exclude Christians?

"“Same kind” meaning gender in this instance, transgender should, in my opinion, be recognised as its own gender."

Another new definition. Great. At this point, you should probably write your own dictionary.

"Christians were never mentioned by myself, only you. A majority of Christians are reasonable however those who murder, rape, and slaughter are not, nor are they recognised such within the law. The same for transgendered people, ciswomen, and cismen."

You ignored how trans people are much more reasonable than Christians. You also ignored that Christians are greater threat to both women and trans, since Bible commands the death of trans.

Since Christians are objectively less reasonable, we cannot really label them as "reasonable others". At best, less reasonable others. Do you support ban on Christianity since it is a threat to women and trans?

"A “biological woman” would generally be a “reasonable individual”."

All biological women are reasonable individuals?
Obviously not. Plenty of cases of women killing their children. Women often abuse their children, beat them, emotionally abuse them. There have been even cases where women eat their children. So we see that biological woman and reasonable individual is not the same.

Maybe you mean in most cases, but in that case you concede that you were using two mutually exclusive definitions, one that includes all biological women, and the other which includes only reasonable ones. Also, you would be again moving the goalpost. But you are used to that.

"“Distinct from another”, all have distinct features, transgender people, biological men, and biological women"

All people have distinct features. This definition has nothing to do with previous. Which one of those people are most reasonable? Statistics say transgender, since they are least likely to violate others. They are most reasonable individuals among all other groups.

Christians, on the other hand, are most violent. Christians are much more likely to be rapists. In fact, Christianity and islam are most violent religions in history. Christian is statistically a threat to society. Christians even rape children. How can you not hate them?

You said that meaning remains consistent. Lets see if thats true.

What is consistent between "biological woman" and "reasonable individual" and "distinct from another" and "reasonable individual of same kind"?

And how does any of this exclude Christians? Christians arent reasonable?

I assume the last one about "same kind" is you attacking trans-species-people.

"“‘Other’ in this case means any reasonable individual, ejusdem generis, of the same kind.”"

Now you have a fourth definition????

Okay, lets go through this again.

First you said "Until they interfere with the rights of another".

Then you said:
"Other’ would know I meant other people who aren’t transgender, biological man and woman"

Then you said:
"Other’, in this case, means any reasonable individual."

Then you said:
"Other - a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about"

Then you said:
"“‘Other’ in this case means any reasonable individual, ejusdem generis, of the same kind.”"

4 completely different definitions of "other"!

I dont know if anyone told you this, but in debate, one word has one definition, not four different definitions.

Could you please point us to which of these definitions excludes Christians?

Also, you said you are comparing reasonable trans to reasonable others, but in your debate, you obviously compare unreasonable trans to reasonable others in order to throw dirt on reasonable trans.

Then you run away after it was proven that trans are most reasonable as a group. Statistically, you are much more likely to be raped or killed by a Christian.

There are no reasonable others, when trans are the most reasonable group. You are blaming trans for something Christians are famous for. So you dont include Christians as reasonable.

I think I understand now. You have a bad eyesight.

You cant tell difference between:
1. Other’, in this case, means any reasonable individual.
2. Other
a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.

The hint is in "reasonable".

You already conceded about Christians. They are included in other. Now you lie about it. Christians are biological men and women. So yes, Christians are relevant.

Christians are bad and corrupt. Remember all those pedophile priests?

Christians used to execute trans. Who is violating who again?

Christian president literally invaded Iraq. He killed millions of people. Should we forget all that?

You cannot complain about trans. Christians and muslims are worse. You dont attack them, no. Its the trans you attack.

Trans are most peaceful group. The others are the problem. But yes, the poor eyesight.

How many more definition changes? How many more moving goalposts?

Others are Christians and muslims. Pick which do you support.

Your definition included Christians, until you changed it to different.
Run away from the truth, like a pretty girl would.

Well, are you interested in debating this one or not?

Its okay. You dont have to be shy that you accidentally included "Christains" in "others" and then werent able to defend that point and had to say that by "others" you mean reasonable others, such as in this comment:

"Other’, in this case, means any reasonable individual."

You are pretty so you can get away with moving the goal post, changing definitions of words, running away from trouble. You dont need to think since people tend to vote based on looks. Obviously, you will lose this debate. I assume you are alt of Novice.

Now I will take most reasonable trans and compare them to most unreasonable biological women. There are plenty of reasonable trans and unreasonable biological women, so it wont be hard.

I see that you changed the definition so you dont have to defend Christians. Very sadly for you, biological men are often Christians, muslims, chinese or indians really. I like how you included "reasonable individual" to exclude all Christians in the world. Of course, thats called moving the goal post to the point where its funny. You want to compare reasonable people to unreasonable trans to make trans look bad. I have never seen a person doing more cherry picking in my entire life.

You said something about rights of other people. Christians are other people, so its on topic. I am pointing out that Christians are horrible people. You choose to ignore that and attack trans. Trans are least violent of all out there. Of course, truth hurts a lot, doesnt it? If you care about rights, check Christian abuse.

Not just violence. Christians are famous for all sorts of sexual abuses, violations, rape, crime, wars. Really, it was the Christian parents who threw out gay teens on the street making them homeless. Christians are the ones who sentenced homosexuals to death not so long ago. Christians are also famous for scaring their children with hell. But yes, lets not mention all that.

Actually, trans people are least violent as a group. If you are after violation of rights, check Christians.

Trans rights are human rights.

Some of them are female girls tho

These votes are targeting RM, same as those before. I think, considering everything, either allow judges for rated either greatly increase voting requirements. Removing votes after voting period would work as well. If elo is not restored, then it wont work.

Thanks. I didnt realize it was so evil.

Well, if you are going to accept, suggest your own definition first, and I might just put it in description.

You guys like rap battles, no? How about trying this one.

Better, more reasonable, more moral, more believable.

Is there some other position that you want to take?

Christianity vs ???

Or do you want a specific definition of atheism?

Thank you for the clarification. I do need to increase my debate count, but its hard to always think of new arguments. I am glad that I can recycle old arguments. I do keep adding new arguments from time to time, and rebuttals are always different.

Are you willing to debate this one?

Mostly dedication and lack of sleep. Often I have prepared text too.

lol wasnt planned.

I was challenged.

There, I made a debate. Now accept it so we hear what you have to say.

I have no idea what you are even trying to say. If you want to debate, I will make the debate. If not, I have no interest in watching your emotional outbursts listening to how offended you are because someone has a belief that you dislike and because someone is map.

I didnt even read your arguments that you posted here. I dont even know why you bothered writing them.

Okay, what part of "I dont feel like debating in the comments" made you think "this person feels like debating in the comments"? 😀

I have no debate with you. Maybe this topic upsets you, but it was never directed at you.

At least add time to the equation. For example, account must be old at least 30 days old to vote.

Current standard is too easy to bypass for anyone in just 1 day, and to abuse.

We want quality votes, not the mere number.

I agree with your idea to be able to remove votes after a voting period. That idea was proposed before, but never got implemented.

Will this serve as a reason for change in requirements that users need to have to be able to vote on rated debates?

Voting requirements should be higher than doing a few troll debates. This is an obvious example that should serve as a reason.
I have never seen a bigger vote spam than this, and the fact is that these vote spams can change outcomes of any rated debate.

How were those accounts able to vote? Some of them have no activity at all and are a day old.

I dont feel like debating in the comments right now. All those arguments were refuted in the debate itself. If you have the interest, follow the debate.

Well, those are some mean tags.

This was supposed to be a fun debate. Too bad he forfeited

See if this works for you. Let me know if anything needs to be changed.

Good debate. I see that you like debating a variety of topics. Is there another topic you wish to debate? Right now I have some free time for more topics.

I stated which arguments were countered by what. In the end, I did the final conclusion. I dont like bringing my own opinion into the vote. I just write down things and see what counters what.

I will forfeit too, so voters will decide on round 1 alone.

"And I think the point leads to, just because we allow smoking, doesn't mean we should."

That is about safety, yes. I would like if that was dealt with more in the debate itself.

The only thing that I find is generally:

1. You - There is a safety issue. Freedom should be limited because safety.

2. Your opponent - Freedom should not be limited because safety, because we already allow dangerous things and people approve.

So I am not really seeing yet any side outweighting the other on this issue specifically.

Thats why I said I will probably have to judge on other things, such as benefits and honour.

I might vote on this. On the first read, I think Lemming won this mainly due to honour argument being mostly unchallenged. I dont see any real challenge to it.
About freedom, adults are allowed to do things which kill them, such as smoking.
About safety, Bella won on that point, but I feel like it might be outweighted by honour and freedom. I will need to read it a few times to be able to vote.

No, but I usually write in form of:

1. Reasons
2. Conclusion

Or

1. Conclusion
2. Reasons

AI uses similar way of writing, maybe thats why some parts seem similar to AI.

He God.

Pet dragon 🐉

Pet unicorn 🦄

Why cant I have both? 🤔

If my vote is against the rules, please remove it. Sorry to cause trouble. I thought concessions count even if in comments.

1 more vote to seal the deal

This is targeting through voting. Sting and Boba_Tea are troll voters. I cant help but noticing that all Boba_Tea's votes are on your debates and all are against you. Many his votes were removed.

You are Con.

English is most widely used and known, yes.