"A justified action should always be better than not doing the justified action but that in no way suggests that a justified action should always be better than nothing"
Well, this sounds like fun logic.
"Justified action > No justified action" = always true.
"Justified action > nothing" = sometimes false
"Nothing =/= No justified action" = true
So one of these two must be true:
1) Justified action = nothing
2) Nothing > Justified action
I assume you are going for 1), because the 2) is awkward.
"I mean harming people in a way that keeps them from being as free as you."
Thats not what you said at start. At start, you just said harming.
Of course, it still stands that harming yourself harms your children.
"can’t be afraid to harm your children by you dying because everyone dies."
This is not even an argument. Its circular reasoning.
Also, you dying destroys not just your freedom, but also the freedom of your children. Children without parents are more likely to be harmed and to cause harm. Plus, you are forcing others to take care of your children. Others wont care about your children as much, so you put your children at harm.
So yes, when you commit suicide, you are harming your children. If you continued to live, your children would be less harmed.
If you were alone with your children on an island, and you went on with your suicidal activities and ended up dying as a result, your children would starve with no one to take care of them. So your "freedom to be suicidal" would cause harm to your children and to their freedom.
"That’s another point, are you going to outlaw death?"
No. Natural death cannot be prevented in any way yet. Suicide is an action that causes harm and that should be discouraged and condemned.
Thats why saving lives>freedom.
Also, saying "everything is dangerous" just means we should take the least dangerous path. It doesnt mean we should go around being suicidal and everything.
"But what I’m saying is that 5 messages ago you claimed all of that should be illegal."
Because 5 messages ago, I believed they take more life than they save.
"You’re not consistent at all"
The standard remained the same: an increase of life. So yes, I am consistent.
"And my value tends to be freedom over safety yes."
Okay. How do you have freedom without safety?
'As Long as the activity isn’t harming people other than the person willingly engaging in that activity they should be able to do that."
So that means you cant do anything dangerous, since harming yourself would also harm your children. Plus, it would harm people who would have to collect your pieces and bury them after you inevitably die from your suicidal activities.
"Sugar saves lives too, we need sugar to live. Guns save more lives than they take, so they increase life. Drugs save more lives than they take, so drugs increase life."
So its legal then.
"You’re not even consistent with your own viewpoint"
I just proved that I am, since I legalized those as soon as you told me they save more lives than they take.
"yet you’re claiming everyone is inconsistent with theirs"
Most people are inconsistent with their values, yes.
"Life is very complex. It would be insane to think you habe to live your life by one viewpoint. That’s just absurd. The reason you think people are inconsistent is because most of the time they are more realistic than you seem to be. There is no one viewpoint or one right answer. Life is way too complex for that."
True. Nobody is forcing you to be consistent with your values.
Saying "plenty of things kill people = we should let these things keep killing people" is nonsense. I dont see why you feel the need to point out so many situations where lives would be saved if we used my way.
Of course, you still misunderstand some basics.
"you’re claiming you want to ban everything that kills people"
What needs to be explained here is that I would gladly ban everything that decreases life. For example, water can kill people, but banning water would kill all people. So clearly, water doesnt decrease life but increases it.
"You will be forcing people to sit in an empty room"
"People have died from being outside too long, so that would have to be illegal now"
Almost a good idea, but wrong. Sitting in an empty room for the rest of your life would harm life, making you more violent and suicidal. Making entire society that way wouldnt save lives, since then we would have more murders and suicides.
Also, people have to go outside to work.
Plus, even if not wrong, this would be impossible to enforce without using plenty of labor resources. We would literally waste more lives by enforcing this than we would save. In fact, the mere cost of labor would be so high that there would be less labor available for producing things necessary for life.
"People have died from having sex, so that would have to be illegal now. And you can say sex is necessary but it’s not. Have men ejaculate into a cup and artificially impregnate women with that."
Actually, having sex is healthy and saves lives. It makes people less violent and less suicidal. I agree that adultery is to be banned.
"Humans are no longer allowed to be near to each other because they kill each other."
Enforcing that would cause plenty of suicides, along with being impossible to enforce without wasting even more life.
"Religion is now banned because that starts wars"
Even if true, you cant ban a thought. Impossible to enforce.
"Bed sheets, shoe laces, ropes, chains, belts, chords, are also now illegal because people bang themselves with it."
What? How do you bang yourself with shoe laces?
I assume you mean "hang"? Okay, those are banned.
"Sugar is now illegal, meat is now illegal, shape edges are now illegal, scissors are now illegal, knives are now illegal."
So we get a safer world with less deaths? Sounds good to me.
"The reason no one agrees with you is because what you’re saying is nonsense."
No. The reason no one agrees with me is because I am consistent to a viewpoint, where others fail to be consistent with theirs.
No. People are usually inconsistent, so my views would force them to be consistent and thats what bothers them. Thats why many dont accept these views.
They prefer to accept viewpoints such as "freedom", "consent", "self-defense", "self-ownership"... but almost none of them are consistent to these viewpoints, so you could say that many people dont even have a real viewpoint, so naturally as they reject all viewpoints, they will reject mine even more, since my viewpoint is even more difficult to follow.
"Fast food Leads to obesity and heart disease which is the number one cause of death in America, are you going to say that should be illegal?"
Yes.
"Are you going to say snowboarding and skiing should be illegal because people die doing those sports?"
Yes.
"Are you going to say that going to space should be illegal because have died doing that?"
Yes.
"Are you going to say that driving cars should be illegal because people die doing that?"
Yes.
"You can’t protect people from death because you say “life is precious” that’s just not how the world works."
No. I can protect people from death by doing that which prevents death. For example, if I know that driving a car kills people, I simply dont drive a car and I save lives. Its actually amazing how easy it is.
"Water can kill people, food can kill people, sex can kill people, cars can kill people, oxygen can kill people. There’s nothing on earth that can’t find it’s way into a human death. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be free to do things that are dangerous."
Listing all the things that kill people doesnt help your case, but mine. Greater the danger, greater protection needed.
Also, people cant live without water, so banning water would destroy life, not save it.
"who are you to tell me I can’t free solo climb a mountain just because it can possibly kill me"
I wont let you to climb a mountain because that is pointless destruction of life. You are free to do anything except to destroy a life. Its a really simple rule.
"And you can’t just say protecting lives > freedom because you can find many many things that are dangerous and kill people yearly that are legal, like rscing cars, driving motorcycles, etc"
Usually, I would say: those things are bad, so its still
protecting lives > freedom.
However, this is the debate about legality, so we could say that law needs to be consistent.
I believe that arguing "legalizing drugs = protecting lives and freedom" is the best option right now, but consistency of law is good too.
Not really sure how well it compares to alcohol. Banning alcohol was pointless because everyone can make it at home. Like, it was too easy to make in large quantities.
"Lives that had only begun. The other lives have been there for quite awhile. There life is not less important than a life that has barely (if) begun. If anything it would be the life that has been around longer."
No. The child's life is almost as important as that of his parents. The importance of life does not significantly increase as it becomes longer. The parents dont lose life during pregnancy in great great majority of cases, so your argument is pure stupidity. Pregnancy creates life and increases it almost always. Therefore, being raped does not give you the right to kill your child and decrease life by doing so. The only value that your life has is if it gives birth to more life. So when you abort, your life loses value. We could even say that women who abort their children should get death penalty, irrelevant of if raped or not, to discourage others.
I am guessing that the opponent has to argue that there are two or more? I am not even sure if that would be logically possible. Because two interpretations that arrive at opposite conclusions, means one of them must be invalid.
Since Con didnt explain why NATO expansion was a good action when you explained that such action leads to war, the conclusion that we have is that NATO expansion is what caused the war in Ukraine.
Con went off topic instead of trying to disprove that NATO action led to war.
I must first say that my opinion is probably different from the opinion of the majority of the voters here. Therefore, dont take my opinion as more important than theirs.
Your strongest arguments that I find in round 1 is:
"April 2008, Putin said "The appearance of new members in NATO cannot fail to influence security in Europe, and this influence will be negative."
"April 2008, Defense Minister Serdyukov said "The alliance's eastward expansion . . . could lead to the appearance of new dividing lines in Europe and the possibility of new conflicts.""
"2019, Zelensky is elected, with significant support from the West, as there was no pro East candidate of worthiness, and Zelensky appealed to the younger pro EU population."
"2008 Is particular as that was the Bucharest summit, where Georgia and Ukraine were invited to join NATO."
From these arguments, it is obvious that both Ukraine and the West knew that the consequence of the expansion would be war in Ukraine, as it was said to them multiple times. They chose expansion, therefore causing war. This is in itself enough to prove the topic, in my view.
Wrong. What you are really saying is: "I think forgiveness sucks, therefore I wont forgive".
People who dont forgive end up being angry atheists who say that everyone who disagrees with them is oppressing them. So forgiveness is a must for optimizing human behavior and preventing angry atheism.
I practice randomness. I usually forgive the first two attacks, then from that point its punishment or forgiveness depending on how I feel like.
However, I agree that after punishment, you should forgive people and not hold their previous behavior against them.
Of course, if you are forgiving and not punishing bad behavior at all, then people treat you like crap. You become path of least resistance for their jokes, insults and abuse.
I literally have no idea how I won this debate. This was one of those I was certain I would lose before it even started.
Also, I have no idea why my opponent forfeited. The only thing he needed to do was to keep repeating it was harmful and voters would buy it and vote for him.
Islam is bad. Correct. The product of islam is hate. Muslim countries are a failure. Followers of islam commit violence at great scale. The main difference between islam and Christianity is that Christianity was historically much superior. Best and strongest countries in the world are Christian countries. Worst countries in the world are muslim countries.
Islam is based on Quran. Quran is only good as a torture manual. Quran has nothing but the products of the violent teachings. Products of violent teachings are violent followers.
Islam is authoritarian. Every muslim country is authoritarian. However, we dont hate authoritarianism. We hate the weakness of islam. Muslims keep pretending that they are victims, that everyone else is oppressing them. The truth is that muslims are weak. Their religion is a failure.
I agree. Sexual abstinence is the only form of birth control tolerated by God. It is not encouraged by God to be fruitless, but if you want to be fruitless then dont have sex.
You would still be going against God's command, of course. However, the punishment for having sex and then spilling your seed is death. There is no specific punishment for abstinence mentioned, which shows that it is better tolerated by the God.
Abstinence is still sin, but a lesser sin than having sex to destroy your seed.
No, I just found your logic fun to play with, thats all. No need to get offended.
"A justified action should always be better than not doing the justified action but that in no way suggests that a justified action should always be better than nothing"
Well, this sounds like fun logic.
"Justified action > No justified action" = always true.
"Justified action > nothing" = sometimes false
"Nothing =/= No justified action" = true
So one of these two must be true:
1) Justified action = nothing
2) Nothing > Justified action
I assume you are going for 1), because the 2) is awkward.
Well, you have convinced me that drugs should be legal, so thats something.
"What are your beliefs on the Galactic Empire outlawing the sales of Death Sticks?"
I am not sure they can enforce it!
"I mean harming people in a way that keeps them from being as free as you."
Thats not what you said at start. At start, you just said harming.
Of course, it still stands that harming yourself harms your children.
"can’t be afraid to harm your children by you dying because everyone dies."
This is not even an argument. Its circular reasoning.
Also, you dying destroys not just your freedom, but also the freedom of your children. Children without parents are more likely to be harmed and to cause harm. Plus, you are forcing others to take care of your children. Others wont care about your children as much, so you put your children at harm.
So yes, when you commit suicide, you are harming your children. If you continued to live, your children would be less harmed.
If you were alone with your children on an island, and you went on with your suicidal activities and ended up dying as a result, your children would starve with no one to take care of them. So your "freedom to be suicidal" would cause harm to your children and to their freedom.
"That’s another point, are you going to outlaw death?"
No. Natural death cannot be prevented in any way yet. Suicide is an action that causes harm and that should be discouraged and condemned.
Thats why saving lives>freedom.
Also, saying "everything is dangerous" just means we should take the least dangerous path. It doesnt mean we should go around being suicidal and everything.
"But what I’m saying is that 5 messages ago you claimed all of that should be illegal."
Because 5 messages ago, I believed they take more life than they save.
"You’re not consistent at all"
The standard remained the same: an increase of life. So yes, I am consistent.
"And my value tends to be freedom over safety yes."
Okay. How do you have freedom without safety?
'As Long as the activity isn’t harming people other than the person willingly engaging in that activity they should be able to do that."
So that means you cant do anything dangerous, since harming yourself would also harm your children. Plus, it would harm people who would have to collect your pieces and bury them after you inevitably die from your suicidal activities.
Ok, your turn. What is your value? Freedom?
"Sugar saves lives too, we need sugar to live. Guns save more lives than they take, so they increase life. Drugs save more lives than they take, so drugs increase life."
So its legal then.
"You’re not even consistent with your own viewpoint"
I just proved that I am, since I legalized those as soon as you told me they save more lives than they take.
"yet you’re claiming everyone is inconsistent with theirs"
Most people are inconsistent with their values, yes.
"Life is very complex. It would be insane to think you habe to live your life by one viewpoint. That’s just absurd. The reason you think people are inconsistent is because most of the time they are more realistic than you seem to be. There is no one viewpoint or one right answer. Life is way too complex for that."
True. Nobody is forcing you to be consistent with your values.
Saying "plenty of things kill people = we should let these things keep killing people" is nonsense. I dont see why you feel the need to point out so many situations where lives would be saved if we used my way.
Of course, you still misunderstand some basics.
"you’re claiming you want to ban everything that kills people"
What needs to be explained here is that I would gladly ban everything that decreases life. For example, water can kill people, but banning water would kill all people. So clearly, water doesnt decrease life but increases it.
"You will be forcing people to sit in an empty room"
"People have died from being outside too long, so that would have to be illegal now"
Almost a good idea, but wrong. Sitting in an empty room for the rest of your life would harm life, making you more violent and suicidal. Making entire society that way wouldnt save lives, since then we would have more murders and suicides.
Also, people have to go outside to work.
Plus, even if not wrong, this would be impossible to enforce without using plenty of labor resources. We would literally waste more lives by enforcing this than we would save. In fact, the mere cost of labor would be so high that there would be less labor available for producing things necessary for life.
"People have died from having sex, so that would have to be illegal now. And you can say sex is necessary but it’s not. Have men ejaculate into a cup and artificially impregnate women with that."
Actually, having sex is healthy and saves lives. It makes people less violent and less suicidal. I agree that adultery is to be banned.
"Humans are no longer allowed to be near to each other because they kill each other."
Enforcing that would cause plenty of suicides, along with being impossible to enforce without wasting even more life.
"Religion is now banned because that starts wars"
Even if true, you cant ban a thought. Impossible to enforce.
"Bed sheets, shoe laces, ropes, chains, belts, chords, are also now illegal because people bang themselves with it."
What? How do you bang yourself with shoe laces?
I assume you mean "hang"? Okay, those are banned.
"Sugar is now illegal, meat is now illegal, shape edges are now illegal, scissors are now illegal, knives are now illegal."
So we get a safer world with less deaths? Sounds good to me.
"The reason no one agrees with you is because what you’re saying is nonsense."
No. The reason no one agrees with me is because I am consistent to a viewpoint, where others fail to be consistent with theirs.
No. People are usually inconsistent, so my views would force them to be consistent and thats what bothers them. Thats why many dont accept these views.
They prefer to accept viewpoints such as "freedom", "consent", "self-defense", "self-ownership"... but almost none of them are consistent to these viewpoints, so you could say that many people dont even have a real viewpoint, so naturally as they reject all viewpoints, they will reject mine even more, since my viewpoint is even more difficult to follow.
"You would like to live in a dictator ship."
I am already living in a dictatorship.
"You can’t tell me what to do. I am able to pursue happiness however I see fit, that is not your choice to make."
Oh dont worry, my ideas rarely get implemented in the world's law or get accepted by most people.
"Fast food Leads to obesity and heart disease which is the number one cause of death in America, are you going to say that should be illegal?"
Yes.
"Are you going to say snowboarding and skiing should be illegal because people die doing those sports?"
Yes.
"Are you going to say that going to space should be illegal because have died doing that?"
Yes.
"Are you going to say that driving cars should be illegal because people die doing that?"
Yes.
"You can’t protect people from death because you say “life is precious” that’s just not how the world works."
No. I can protect people from death by doing that which prevents death. For example, if I know that driving a car kills people, I simply dont drive a car and I save lives. Its actually amazing how easy it is.
"Water can kill people, food can kill people, sex can kill people, cars can kill people, oxygen can kill people. There’s nothing on earth that can’t find it’s way into a human death. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be free to do things that are dangerous."
Listing all the things that kill people doesnt help your case, but mine. Greater the danger, greater protection needed.
Also, people cant live without water, so banning water would destroy life, not save it.
"who are you to tell me I can’t free solo climb a mountain just because it can possibly kill me"
I wont let you to climb a mountain because that is pointless destruction of life. You are free to do anything except to destroy a life. Its a really simple rule.
"you don’t get to tell people they can’t ride motorcycles because you think safety is more important."
Thats where we disagree.
Saving life > riding motorcycles.
So yes, I am justified in preventing people from destroying life.
"And you can’t just say protecting lives > freedom because you can find many many things that are dangerous and kill people yearly that are legal, like rscing cars, driving motorcycles, etc"
Usually, I would say: those things are bad, so its still
protecting lives > freedom.
However, this is the debate about legality, so we could say that law needs to be consistent.
I believe that arguing "legalizing drugs = protecting lives and freedom" is the best option right now, but consistency of law is good too.
I have to see how Con counters it.
I read it. Strong opening, I would say. Personally, I think that saving lives > freedom, but your argument seems to support both stances.
"with 6 hours of work"
Well, then it does sound easy, given that the person has the knowledge.
The alcohol takes like 5 minutes of actual work to make and requires only 3 things: yeast, water and sugar.
Fermentation can take some time, but you dont have to do anything there. There is no work. Just leave it couple of days to ferment.
Not really sure how well it compares to alcohol. Banning alcohol was pointless because everyone can make it at home. Like, it was too easy to make in large quantities.
Forgot to tag you, sorry.
"Lives that had only begun. The other lives have been there for quite awhile. There life is not less important than a life that has barely (if) begun. If anything it would be the life that has been around longer."
No. The child's life is almost as important as that of his parents. The importance of life does not significantly increase as it becomes longer. The parents dont lose life during pregnancy in great great majority of cases, so your argument is pure stupidity. Pregnancy creates life and increases it almost always. Therefore, being raped does not give you the right to kill your child and decrease life by doing so. The only value that your life has is if it gives birth to more life. So when you abort, your life loses value. We could even say that women who abort their children should get death penalty, irrelevant of if raped or not, to discourage others.
"Actually, you never take into consideration the 'life' depending on how you word it, is being taken away from the parent(s)."
I dont take that into consideration because its false. Abortion takes lives away.
"as the woman being treated as a slave"
Still less important than saving lives.
"If the fetus is apart or inside the woman's body, she is able to treat her body however she pleases."
No. That is still less important than saving lives.
"if she was to commit suicide, it was her body"
Encouraging suicides is less important than saving lives.
"Are we saving lives or are we damaging the ones that already exist?"
Not an argument, since abortion damages lives.
"But he didn't justify life, all was done was practically restating."
He didnt need to justify life. The argument of life beats all other arguments.
His argument was about saving lives.
Your argument was some nonsense about women's difficulties.
Nothing is risk free?
Seriously, what food is risk free? What thing is risk free?
Okay, I will debate it assuming Hs400 wont.
If it wasnt for "Jew me, sue me" I would say sure. But that line I feel could be spinned so much...
Plus, "they dont care about us" could be spinned into who's "they"? Yikes.
More rainbow More rainbow More rainbow
Yes, I will vote after its done.
I will enjoy reading this one.
The guy was a kid in adult's body. And sleepover isnt exactly a crime.
The technology tends to do both harm and good. But sure, it would be nice to have my own robot to do the work for me.
If you wont accept, I will.
I am guessing that the opponent has to argue that there are two or more? I am not even sure if that would be logically possible. Because two interpretations that arrive at opposite conclusions, means one of them must be invalid.
"I don't like putting myself out there blind-folded to whomever debates me but whatever.."
I dont know what that means, but I will agree to participate.
Since Con didnt explain why NATO expansion was a good action when you explained that such action leads to war, the conclusion that we have is that NATO expansion is what caused the war in Ukraine.
Con went off topic instead of trying to disprove that NATO action led to war.
I must first say that my opinion is probably different from the opinion of the majority of the voters here. Therefore, dont take my opinion as more important than theirs.
Your strongest arguments that I find in round 1 is:
"April 2008, Putin said "The appearance of new members in NATO cannot fail to influence security in Europe, and this influence will be negative."
"April 2008, Defense Minister Serdyukov said "The alliance's eastward expansion . . . could lead to the appearance of new dividing lines in Europe and the possibility of new conflicts.""
"2019, Zelensky is elected, with significant support from the West, as there was no pro East candidate of worthiness, and Zelensky appealed to the younger pro EU population."
"2008 Is particular as that was the Bucharest summit, where Georgia and Ukraine were invited to join NATO."
From these arguments, it is obvious that both Ukraine and the West knew that the consequence of the expansion would be war in Ukraine, as it was said to them multiple times. They chose expansion, therefore causing war. This is in itself enough to prove the topic, in my view.
"It is possible to find meaning, purpose, and happiness in life regardless of one's stance on forgiveness or religion."
History disagrees.
"If you disagree, feel free to open a debate about it for me."
No.
"forgiveness doesn't figure into this equation"
Wrong. What you are really saying is: "I think forgiveness sucks, therefore I wont forgive".
People who dont forgive end up being angry atheists who say that everyone who disagrees with them is oppressing them. So forgiveness is a must for optimizing human behavior and preventing angry atheism.
I practice randomness. I usually forgive the first two attacks, then from that point its punishment or forgiveness depending on how I feel like.
However, I agree that after punishment, you should forgive people and not hold their previous behavior against them.
Of course, if you are forgiving and not punishing bad behavior at all, then people treat you like crap. You become path of least resistance for their jokes, insults and abuse.
Fun, but I prefer forgiveness too to be included in my equation, and not simply "I hurt = they hurt".
1 forfeit = not loss, not win.
2 forfeits = loss
No one told me "read Bible" or "be Christian". I ended up finding Bible, reading it and accepting it because it was good.
I literally have no idea how I won this debate. This was one of those I was certain I would lose before it even started.
Also, I have no idea why my opponent forfeited. The only thing he needed to do was to keep repeating it was harmful and voters would buy it and vote for him.
I didnt accept this while thinking: "There is a contradiction".
I accepted this to get a different view on what I think are parts of the Bible some people have found confusing.
This is confirmed by the Bible. Most humans are evil.
"We dont need to take much care for our children anymore"
Look at me mommy, I am a furry.
"Your hatred of Islam"
Islam is bad. Correct. The product of islam is hate. Muslim countries are a failure. Followers of islam commit violence at great scale. The main difference between islam and Christianity is that Christianity was historically much superior. Best and strongest countries in the world are Christian countries. Worst countries in the world are muslim countries.
Islam is based on Quran. Quran is only good as a torture manual. Quran has nothing but the products of the violent teachings. Products of violent teachings are violent followers.
Islam is authoritarian. Every muslim country is authoritarian. However, we dont hate authoritarianism. We hate the weakness of islam. Muslims keep pretending that they are victims, that everyone else is oppressing them. The truth is that muslims are weak. Their religion is a failure.
I agree. Sexual abstinence is the only form of birth control tolerated by God. It is not encouraged by God to be fruitless, but if you want to be fruitless then dont have sex.
You would still be going against God's command, of course. However, the punishment for having sex and then spilling your seed is death. There is no specific punishment for abstinence mentioned, which shows that it is better tolerated by the God.
Abstinence is still sin, but a lesser sin than having sex to destroy your seed.
Its okay, because you were talking about South Korea.