Actually, con himself admitted the effects of banning abortion:
"Medication is the safest means by which to manage an abortion. Other interventions come with additional risks, which get a lot worse in self-managed cases. An abortion ban necessarily reduces or removes access to these medications, leading “[p]atients [to] use unsafe methods… [that] may require lifesaving critical care for sepsis..."
Here, he admits that abortion ban will have the desired effect of punishing women who kill their children.
Where did I say "Pineapple juice"? And what does poisoned water(Coca Cola) have to do with chocolate?
Pineapple has 10-20 grams of sugar per 100 grams of pineapple.
Chocolate usually has 50 grams of sugar per 100 grams of chocolate.
Thats more than double.
Others:
Watermelon has less than 10 grams of sugar in 100 grams.
Banana about 10 in 100 grams.
Raspberries have less than 5 grams of sugar in 100 grams.
Strawberries also less than 5 grams of sugar in 100 grams.
So how exactly is chocolate a preferable choice as a candy compared to these natures candies?
Prison is torture no matter how you turn it. Work or no work, its torture. So using prisoners as slaves probably will not be much different for them, except they will be doing something useful.
Also, this argument makes no sense:
"We do immoral things therefore we ought to do more immoral things? This obviously doesn't follow."
When you do an immoral thing you are saying that immoral things are allowed and that there is no reason for others not to do more of them if they desire, just as you did more of them when you desired. Do you claim you have special rights that others dont have?
I believed so too when I was a child...until I got cavities. Apparently, the toothache outweights the little pleasures that chocolate gives. Going to the dentist isnt fun either. I figured out it is better for me to have my real teeth rather than to have, well, whatever is the replacement.
Also, as I have discovered, a person can live without candy. Also, there seem to be joy in other food too. So the overall "happiness" doesnt seem to be diminished when we take out the candy. At this point, spinach to me tastes like the best thing ever. I have never enjoyed candy as much as I enjoy cooked spinach. Also, I need to mention that watermellon, pineapple, half spoiled bananas and rasberries are the real "candies" of nature. Want a candy? Have some pineapple.
If free will exists, then our choices dont have a cause. If choices dont have a cause, it means they appear out of nothing.
Theists like to say how God created a man, then a man made a choice, but God did not create mans choice.
This would lead to conclusion that man created his own choice because of no reason, out of nothing.
Also, theists like to use circular logic.
Example:
Man is evil.
Why is the man evil?
Because he does bad things.
Why does he do bad things?
He choose to do them.
Why did he choose to do bad things?
Because he is evil.
Theists seem to have no logical answer as to why people choose to do bad things. They always end up in circular logic.
Its impossible to explain why our choices make us evil, if we need to be evil first in order to make such choice. Also, what makes us evil? If its not our choices, then we are not responsible for being evil. If it is our choices, then why did we choose that way if we were not evil before our choice? Did our choice come from nothing? And didnt theists spend a long time claiming how things cant come from nothing? Also, if our choices come from nothing, it means we didnt create them. So we are not responsible for our choices.
The entire free will concept from the standpoint of theism can be summed up as "explanation without explanation".
Their entire theory lays upon assumption that God created the man, but not the part of a man that makes the choices (that part was not designed or created or influenced by God). Instead, it was somehow created by itself, out of nothing.
"The measurement pro should have used is GDP per capita which evaluates living standards and is the best measure for economic growth."
Living standards have nothing to do with GDP per capita. For example, USA has high GDP per capita. But we couldnt say it has high living standards. The very high prices, mass torture in prisons and the annual 60000 murders and suicides surely means they arent that much better than the living standards of a typical warzone.
Donald Trump was the best president you ever had. Maybe if your media(such as CNN) didnt put so much effort into making Trump look like the bad guy, you would be able to see this. Also, if presidents were really charged for crimes, bush and obama would be in jail for a very long time. But since you didnt prosecute someone who killed over a million of people, surely you cant say that you have the right to prosecute Trump for whatever "crime" you think he committed.
Japan is not a rich country. Maybe slightly above poor at best. And South Korea is definitelly not a rich country. Just look at the rent cost. Also check the suicide rates, its funny. I mean, there is no such thing as a rich capitalist country. All capitalist countries are just utterly poor or very close to being poor.
So lets put your argument to actual logic test:
Murder is okay if:
1) if it solves or helps solve overpopulation
2) if the individual is committing it voluntary(!)
3) if its self selective
4) if it terminates unwanted individuals(!)
5) when decision is made by the most relevant stakeholder
6) when it causes least destruction
Well, thats the most retarded argument I ever read. Your argument allows not just abortions, but also killing of any children and eldery and disabled people. It also allows for a person to voluntairly by self selection kill any eldery or child or disabled person they find unwanted, as that solves the overpopulation and hence saves the society and the individuals who are all the most relevant stakeholders while causing least destruction by destroying the most useless members of the society. So basically, your nazi logic has justified eldery murder, death penalty, child murder, murdering of the disabled ones, murder of anyone who is ill and needs care, forced sterilizations...ect. I could also use it to justify forced abortions within families, since no abortions are really voluntary as no fetus consents to be aborted. But in case of forced abortions, there would likely be more people(more volunteers) agreeing to force someone to an abortion. I am pretty sure that forced abortions along with allowing volunteers to kill people are a much quicker way of solving overpopulation and will make lives easier for the rest of us. I prefer the idea that everyone kills within his own family. So basically, if a father wanted a son but he got a daughter, he should be allowed to kill her. It will help with overpopulation, so why not?
"If you are educated about what Communism means then you realize it is an entirely unrealistic utopia."
Maybe you should change the school that educates you. Capitalism killed more people and animals than all other systems combined, destroyed the nature, created unsustainable agriculture, created unhealthy food, established the dictatorship of the rich, created mass exploitation, separated the worker from the means of production and the fruit of his labour, led the world to the point of near total destruction, consistently produced crisis throughout its entire history, increased the suicide and homicide rates to the point which was never seen before...ect.
And no, you cant fix capitalism. The rich control the media and the government. If you think raising the taxes will solve the problem, it wont. Never did, never will. Capitalist media actively promotes hate every day. You cant have peace in a system that has the incentive to promote hate.
Sorry, what part of "most people lie" dont you understand? And you want proof of scientists getting paid to lie? Watch a car commercial. Or wait. I have a better idea. Go to the store. Buy Coca cola. Read label. Does it say anywhere on it "poisoned water"? Because it should. But the scientist who writes content probably thought he wont earn as much money if he wrote such horrible truth on it. Now, thats a "small" example of scientists deceiving people. Who created pesticides, poisons, harmful food, harmed the environment with pollution? All done by our beloved scientists. Not to mention the fact that, thanks to science, we could die in a nuclear war.
And our beloved psychologists? What shall we say about them? They said society will benefit if more people visited psychologists. Well, people listened to them and now the suicide rates are even higher.
And our beloved dentists? Its funny how they didnt even exist for the most part of human history and we seemed to be doing fine without them until a scientist decided that we should have more sugar in our diet and did great research on how to attract children to eat more candy. Today, the scientists all over the world are doing research on how to attract people to buy certain product.
And you think that in society based on money and greed, scientists would be different and not pursue money and not lie or deceive when it suits them? What kind of a fairy tale do you live in? Scientist is just a word for someone who collects facts. To claim that he wont misuse or misrepresent or conceal some facts means to think of him as some angel. Also, it means not to know the history itself.
You dont need to be bribed in order to lie or use deception. But if you have a habbit of lying, getting paid for it does give a motivation to lie more. Scientists who do deceptive research aimed against pedophilia are getting paid. Scientists who do deceptive research about cars are getting paid. Scientists who do deceptive research about improving ads and commercials are getting paid. Almost all scientists, at some point in their life, got paid to lie about something or to cause deception and false ideas. This makes 99% of them liars. You mention nurses, doctors? Show me a nurse who never lied! Show me a doctor who never lied! They are people. People lie and deceive. So when a scientist gets paid to do research against pedophilia, plus if he himself hates pedophilia, its obvious his research will suffer. Now when most of scientists have hate towards pedophilia, its obvious that any scientist who attempts to defend pedophilia will be judged and will have no support and will lose credibility. Thats why we cant have credible research that supports pedophilia. Any research that is supporting pedophilia loses its credibility as soon as it appears, no matter how correct it is.
Scientists work for money. So if someone pays them good amount of money to lie or deceive, why wouldnt they do it? Maybe you assume scientists are angels who cant do anything bad? I know we live in society which worships science as its new God. However, scientists are just people. 99% of people tend to lie and deceive. Lets not forget that scientists often disagree with each other. Scientists have even disagreed on pedophilia. The fact that 99% of scientists oppose to pedophilia means they will either support either accept to do any research which is already determined to discredit pedophilia, while hiding any research which supports it.
The problem with free market and competition is that people will try to discredit others to gain popularity and, or earn money. Pedophiles are easy targets for that.
"super credible well established science publications"
Yeah, considering that 99% of scientists are liars and deceivers who oppose to pedophilia, I am pretty sure your conditions are unrealistic and unachiveable.
You are not making any sense now. But 10 comments ago you claimed its okay to crush little girls to death, so maybe work on that logical problems you have.
I thought you were done, but you seem to be still talking. And still nothing logical comes out of your dirty american mouth. Its like you cant even do basic reasoning.
This reminds me of the days when I was into Christianity. It wasnt that bad. Much better than islam. Prayers are much easier to learn. However, I quit it after a month. It just got boring and repetitive. Reading about Jesus for the first time was fun. After 100 times it got a lot less fun. The stories about Jesus were the only thing in the Bible that made me read it. So once I was over that, it didnt seem to make sense to read it anymore.
">> Maybe you should get a dictionary"
Maybe you should go back to school. But I doubt it will help.
"equivalency," - e.g., "The relationship that holds for two propositions that are either both true or both false, so that the affirmation of one and the denial of the other results in contradiction.""
Yeah, now you pretty much totally failed. Banning cars and allowing pedophilia does not result in contradiction, since pedophilia does much less harm. Only allowing cars and banning pedophilia results in contradiction, as I have shown. So no equivalency. Hence, no false equivalency.
"When you are comparing things as if they are equal in effect in order to substantiate your so-called position, you are equating them."
I never said that cars and pedophilia are equal in effect. In fact, I have in the previous comment clearly stated that cars are much worse. So banning things that do little harm while allowing things that do great harm is a contradiction if your arguments are based on harm. I dont see what you fail to understand. There is no false equivalency here. I dont think you even know what false equivalency is. And no, you cant just name things false without providing reasons. But so far you are acting like an average american, so its fine.
"NO!!! That is NOT my argument."
It literally is your argument. You justify cars. They crush children to death. Hence, you justify crushing children to death to allow cars. But pedophilia is bad because you dont like it. So do you think a little girl can satisfy herself without an adult? How is a little girl supposed to get pleasure?
"I've already given it and in great detail. You're just not equipped to grasp the truth of it."
What great detail? Are you drunk? You just lied about false equivalency for 50 times. What a great detail.
"Cars and meat have absolutely NOTHING to do with pedophilia you clown."
Cars and meat are much worse and cause much more damage. Your position was that pedophilia is bad because it causes damage. Since cars cause much more damage, to remain consistent your position must say that cars are bad too.
At this point, I am explaining things to you as if you were a toddler. But you still fail to understand.
"I'm done with you. I've ran out of patience dealing with your perversions. You're sick and need to seek counseling"
Oh yes, the typical american joe response when he loses an argument.
"False equivalency fallacy. "
Well, maybe you need an eyes check. I never said harm that comes from cars is equal to harm that comes from pedophilia. In fact, I consistently claimed that cars are much worse. You failed to prove that they are not. Well, you didnt even try, to be precise. Like really, you had 0 valid arguments.
Also, you failed to prove that harm which comes from cars is justified. If its not justified and hurts children, why are you approving it? Why dont you ban cars, meat...ect. Do you think its okay to hurt children for your pleasure?
Your argument is that harm is justified when a little girl gets crushed by a car, but when an adult man sexually pleases a little girl thats not justified?
Its obvious that being crushed by a car is worse.
So what is your argument exactly? As far as I can see, you ran out of arguments. You didnt prove that cars or meat are not harmful. I mean, you couldnt prove that even if you wanted. Then you implied its better for a little girl to be crushed to death by a car than to be sexually pleased by an adult. An obvious nonsense, considering that pain from being crushed is much greater. Also, do I need to even mention that if a pedophile doesnt have real sex with a child, but for example just gives her oral and masturbation, its obvious that it causes no physical pain. And if a little girl wants it, then certainly you have no right to judge such a relationship. Especially considering that you claimed how its okay to crush little girls to death.
Also, you didnt explain why harm from pedophilia is greater than harm from cars, meat...ect. So you never had an argument to begin with. I consider you just an average american who thinks he can do so many bad things while pretending to be a good guy. Naturally, considering that you are an american, it was expected that you wont even understand my arguments. Americans dont have lots of education. Most of them still think angels are real.
"False equivalency fallacy. A little girl being sexually abused will live where she would not if crushed by a car."
So cars are more harmful and need to be banned. Unless you claim you would rather have a little girl be crushed by a car than pleased by an adult.
Are you saying its okay to crush a little girl to death then? It seems like the more you talk, the less sense you make. Like most of US presidents!
"Eating meat and all the other nonsensical (illogical) nonsense you espoused is [NOT] on par with pedophilia and sexual abuse of a child/minor."
Eating meat kills you by shortening your life. It also kills animals. It hurts health in general making the damage unfixable.
Cars kill 30000 people every year in your country. How many people did pedophiles kill?
"Your lists of so-called harms to children are not harms on par with sexual abuse by a pedophile and child traffickers in pedophilia."
They are. They cause death and great suffering. So does your entire society. Unless you claim that a little girl being pleased by an adult is worse than little girl being crushed by a car. I know America is uneducated, but this is just too low
"It's called academia, professional experience and personal research for a reason."
Yeah, and I am a hero of the Socialist labor and an honored member of the order of Marx and Lenin.
"those who act on their urges consume child porn, purchase a child for sex, or otherwise take advantage of the vulnerabilities of children."
Its interesting when a pedophile does something to a child, its "taking advantage of", "horrible", "blablabla". But when your society hurts children, its "false equivalency", "doesnt count", "doesnt matter"... Maybe actually create a good society that doesnt hurt children, and someone might believe that you actually care for children.
"they just get killed"
Yeah, thats appropriate punishment for harmless crimes
"because inmates have a code of ethics that leads them to disdain such harm being done to a child."
What harm? And also, since I listed so many ways in which your society hurts children, its not even possible for you to jusify yourself and condemn pedophiles at the same. But you are probably one of those "when I do it, its okay" guys.
"No child allows an adult to "touch them" down there."
Did you question all the children in the world? It seems like you have great knowledge(not really).
"That is NOT my argument. This is nothing short of a strawman argument."
Its not your argument? Then why did you use it? You do understand that if you say that something is bad because its harmful, logical conclusion is that everything that is harmful is bad. Unless your logic is inconsistent. But of course you fail to understand this. Also, being an american is not an excuse. You should work to overcome that.
"Your entire argument is set upon one false equivalency after another"
No. You fail to understand logic.
Thats why you allow harm and condemn it at the same time just because in one case you like and in the other case you dont. So you want to judge pedophiles for what exactly? Even if you proved they cause harm, you cause it too! So whats the difference between you and them? You do it when you like it, they do it when they like it. But lets not forget that its not been proven that pedophilia is harmful and exactly what sexual approaches are harmful to children and what are not.
Now you say: children dont have cognitive ability to have sex with adults without harming themselves or the others without fully appreciating the consequences of their actions.
To put your argument simply:
Action is wrong to be done to a child if:
1) it harms children or others
2) if children dont understand the consequences of their action
3) if children dont have cognitive ability to do the action without 1) and 2).
So child crossing the road is bad, since it fullfils all of the above. So is child eating meat. So is spanking children. So is circumcision. So is religious brainwashing. So is children using internet. So is children driving in cars as passangers. So are any punishments children experience. So is teaching children anything other than 100% truth. So is teasing children. So is wrong for you to drive a car considering you might hit a child and fullfil all 3 conditions above. It is also wrong for you to own a gun. Giving children bad food also fullfils the 3 conditions totally. This is if we apply your logic on children as a group. If we applied it individually to children, even school in some cases proves to be harmful and fullfils all your conditions.
I could think of more things that your logic applies to, and I could probably find even more contradictions, but I think this is enough for now.
You wonder why I make debates about pedophilia, but I wonder why people hate pedophiles so much. I mean, sending them to prison, raping them and beating them for the rest of their lives sounds a bit too much. Especially if a pedophile didnt even have sex with a little girl but just tickled her down there or allowed her to touch him.
I dont care that much if you hate pedophiles, but at least dont lie claiming its because they hurt children.
Its obviously not because of that.
You didnt present reason why children arent allowed to drive, own guns...ect.
I am pretty sure any reason you could come up with would be inconsistent and contradicting, or inaplicable to porn and sex.
When you limit your own rights just to food, water and school, maybe you will have the right to tell children that they should only have those rights and nothing else.
Well, its too bad he forfeited. I was looking forward to reading this debate. I always like to hear other peoples opinions that agree with my own opinion.
If China has violated human rights before, that doesnt mean China will do so again. It just greatly increases the possibility of the new violations. Now, if China constantly violates human rights, that additionally increases the possibility.
Now, if China is famous for violating human rights of its own citizens every day, it becomes highly unlikely that none out of 12 millions of Uyghur muslims experienced bad treatment from China. Hence, the probability argument.
And you didnt really help your case with the "if detained, you are guilty" logic. That logic made no sense. To me, that seemed like an argument Stalin would make. It was refuted by Pro as an excuse to lock up anyone.
Now, the only thing going in your favor was the lack of full proof by the Pro.
But does the win require full proof,or a proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or a probability outweight? Its not reasonable to doubt Pros position with the arguments he presented. The chance that Pro is wrong is actually so low it cant be considered a reasonable doubt.
So the only thing thats left is lack of full proof. But full proof, in my opinion, is not always required to be greatly convinced in something.
If one case has 99.99 percent of chance of being true, its an obvious preference over the opposite case that has 0.01 percent chance of being true. Taking these cases as equal is impossible.
U.S. is not even mentioned in the topic of a debate. But even if it is true, U.S. involvement doesnt lead to conclusion that China is completely innocent or that all Uyghurs are guilty. Just because U.S. is bad, that doesnt make China good.
Its not my fault you accepted a debate with topic that is impossible to disprove.
If the topic said millions of muslims, it would be different. But the topic didnt say what number of innocent Uyghur muslims is being detained. So it can be any number. 1000 or 500 or 100 or 20...
As I said, the only way you could disprove Pros position is by proving that no Uyghur muslims are innocent or that China has some advanced system of detaining only those who are guilty. The first one you didnt even prove, last one was disproved by history of China mentioned by the Pro.
After reading the debate, I was about 99% certain that Pro is right. So how could I vote for you, with the odds working against you?
Again, if you dont agree with my vote, report it and if mods think its not suitable they will remove it.
Also, if there is someone who thinks you have won the debate, that someone can vote for you. I am pretty sure everyone here has the ability to vote.
I already explained why I didnt give point to anyone when it comes to sources.
I can explain it even further.
The sources have no proof.
Cons sources dont disprove Pros position. They only served as counter to Pros sources. But since Pros position didnt depend on sources alone, but was also supported by historical facts of Chinas behavior, negation of Pros position by sources was impossible.
As for the arguments, it was obvious that Con cant possibly prove that all Uyghurs are terrorists, or that only the guilty Uyghurs are detained.
Pro didnt fully prove that innocent Uyghurs are being detained.
But he did prove that China does have a habbit and history of detaining innocent people. Well, not just detaining. Also torturing, killing...ect.
So the chances of being right are on Pros side. Why would I give my vote to Con who has much smaller chance of being right?
And killing children is not a disaster? Cars are one of the least safe modes of transport when applied generally. And it is preciselly because so much is invested in cars, that public transport suffers. And not just the public transport. If everyone replaced cars with scooters that have limited speed, you would see the death rate in traffic fall by over 80%.
This "disaster" would save over a million lives every year world wide.
Lack of cars makes life harder? I dont see how. It literally makes life easier for all those who wont painfully die due to cars existing.
Also, if it did make life harder, it doesnt negate the argument of harm. If you say that harm is okay when it makes life easier, this means you justify harm when it suits you, so harm cannot be used as an argument against pedophilia as some pedophiles can justify harm too when it suits them.
Not to mention, if people actually wanted an easier life, they wouldnt make it so difficult for children by causing them harm. Life is not easier if there is harm. If there is harm, life is harder. So using easier life to justify terrible harm is a contradiction, as easier life is the one with less harm.
You say you need knives? You can use the plastic ones.
You talk about physical safety being unachivable? This is actually only correct when safety causes more harm than it prevents. So what are your arguments against pedophilia then? It cant be consent, because you dont care about childs consent. It cant be harm, as you justify the harm of children when it suits you. So what is left? Practicality and function also depend on harm argument.
And then you say it isnt impractical to ban child adult sex for a society to function? Isnt the best function when there is least harm? And we already proved you dont want the least harm, so you dont want the best function.
And let us just remember that banning pedophilia doesnt stop it. It decreases it, but doesnt stop it. The only way to stop a pedophile from making love to children is to lock him up forever, which is a form of torture far worse than any experienced by most children who did something sexual with pedophiles.
So basically, your only solution is to cause even more harm?
Well, yes, that is another contradiction. Society forces children to go to school because it "benefits" children. But at the same time society does things, I mentioned before, that harm children. So its obvious their interest is not benefit of the children, but rather their own benefit.
If children could choose, they would probably choose school over job if school is actually attractive.
But this depends on society and how much choice it gives to children.
Lets not do anything that harms children. That means no more cars, smoking, guns, corporal punishments, circumcision, internet, electricity, tall buildings, buildings in general, knives, glass... yes, there is plenty of things we must give up upon to protect children. Also no more meat eating, as that harms children too. Well, if you are ready to give up upon these things, then I will believe you want to decrease the harming of children. But if you only mention harm just when it comes to pedophilia, then I must say that your argument is dishonest and inconsistent.
Actually, con himself admitted the effects of banning abortion:
"Medication is the safest means by which to manage an abortion. Other interventions come with additional risks, which get a lot worse in self-managed cases. An abortion ban necessarily reduces or removes access to these medications, leading “[p]atients [to] use unsafe methods… [that] may require lifesaving critical care for sepsis..."
Here, he admits that abortion ban will have the desired effect of punishing women who kill their children.
Where did I say "Pineapple juice"? And what does poisoned water(Coca Cola) have to do with chocolate?
Pineapple has 10-20 grams of sugar per 100 grams of pineapple.
Chocolate usually has 50 grams of sugar per 100 grams of chocolate.
Thats more than double.
Others:
Watermelon has less than 10 grams of sugar in 100 grams.
Banana about 10 in 100 grams.
Raspberries have less than 5 grams of sugar in 100 grams.
Strawberries also less than 5 grams of sugar in 100 grams.
So how exactly is chocolate a preferable choice as a candy compared to these natures candies?
Prison is torture no matter how you turn it. Work or no work, its torture. So using prisoners as slaves probably will not be much different for them, except they will be doing something useful.
Also, this argument makes no sense:
"We do immoral things therefore we ought to do more immoral things? This obviously doesn't follow."
When you do an immoral thing you are saying that immoral things are allowed and that there is no reason for others not to do more of them if they desire, just as you did more of them when you desired. Do you claim you have special rights that others dont have?
I believed so too when I was a child...until I got cavities. Apparently, the toothache outweights the little pleasures that chocolate gives. Going to the dentist isnt fun either. I figured out it is better for me to have my real teeth rather than to have, well, whatever is the replacement.
Also, as I have discovered, a person can live without candy. Also, there seem to be joy in other food too. So the overall "happiness" doesnt seem to be diminished when we take out the candy. At this point, spinach to me tastes like the best thing ever. I have never enjoyed candy as much as I enjoy cooked spinach. Also, I need to mention that watermellon, pineapple, half spoiled bananas and rasberries are the real "candies" of nature. Want a candy? Have some pineapple.
I think I puked a little while reading that.
If free will exists, then our choices dont have a cause. If choices dont have a cause, it means they appear out of nothing.
Theists like to say how God created a man, then a man made a choice, but God did not create mans choice.
This would lead to conclusion that man created his own choice because of no reason, out of nothing.
Also, theists like to use circular logic.
Example:
Man is evil.
Why is the man evil?
Because he does bad things.
Why does he do bad things?
He choose to do them.
Why did he choose to do bad things?
Because he is evil.
Theists seem to have no logical answer as to why people choose to do bad things. They always end up in circular logic.
Its impossible to explain why our choices make us evil, if we need to be evil first in order to make such choice. Also, what makes us evil? If its not our choices, then we are not responsible for being evil. If it is our choices, then why did we choose that way if we were not evil before our choice? Did our choice come from nothing? And didnt theists spend a long time claiming how things cant come from nothing? Also, if our choices come from nothing, it means we didnt create them. So we are not responsible for our choices.
The entire free will concept from the standpoint of theism can be summed up as "explanation without explanation".
Their entire theory lays upon assumption that God created the man, but not the part of a man that makes the choices (that part was not designed or created or influenced by God). Instead, it was somehow created by itself, out of nothing.
Your nice words cannot change my mind.
Yes, you have the right to do so if you want.
"The measurement pro should have used is GDP per capita which evaluates living standards and is the best measure for economic growth."
Living standards have nothing to do with GDP per capita. For example, USA has high GDP per capita. But we couldnt say it has high living standards. The very high prices, mass torture in prisons and the annual 60000 murders and suicides surely means they arent that much better than the living standards of a typical warzone.
Thanks for educating me. I will change my sexual attraction immediatelly.
Donald Trump was the best president you ever had. Maybe if your media(such as CNN) didnt put so much effort into making Trump look like the bad guy, you would be able to see this. Also, if presidents were really charged for crimes, bush and obama would be in jail for a very long time. But since you didnt prosecute someone who killed over a million of people, surely you cant say that you have the right to prosecute Trump for whatever "crime" you think he committed.
Japan is not a rich country. Maybe slightly above poor at best. And South Korea is definitelly not a rich country. Just look at the rent cost. Also check the suicide rates, its funny. I mean, there is no such thing as a rich capitalist country. All capitalist countries are just utterly poor or very close to being poor.
I copied all the points of your argument. Maybe actually read what you write. Its not anyones fault but yours that your argument fails.
So lets put your argument to actual logic test:
Murder is okay if:
1) if it solves or helps solve overpopulation
2) if the individual is committing it voluntary(!)
3) if its self selective
4) if it terminates unwanted individuals(!)
5) when decision is made by the most relevant stakeholder
6) when it causes least destruction
Well, thats the most retarded argument I ever read. Your argument allows not just abortions, but also killing of any children and eldery and disabled people. It also allows for a person to voluntairly by self selection kill any eldery or child or disabled person they find unwanted, as that solves the overpopulation and hence saves the society and the individuals who are all the most relevant stakeholders while causing least destruction by destroying the most useless members of the society. So basically, your nazi logic has justified eldery murder, death penalty, child murder, murdering of the disabled ones, murder of anyone who is ill and needs care, forced sterilizations...ect. I could also use it to justify forced abortions within families, since no abortions are really voluntary as no fetus consents to be aborted. But in case of forced abortions, there would likely be more people(more volunteers) agreeing to force someone to an abortion. I am pretty sure that forced abortions along with allowing volunteers to kill people are a much quicker way of solving overpopulation and will make lives easier for the rest of us. I prefer the idea that everyone kills within his own family. So basically, if a father wanted a son but he got a daughter, he should be allowed to kill her. It will help with overpopulation, so why not?
"If you are educated about what Communism means then you realize it is an entirely unrealistic utopia."
Maybe you should change the school that educates you. Capitalism killed more people and animals than all other systems combined, destroyed the nature, created unsustainable agriculture, created unhealthy food, established the dictatorship of the rich, created mass exploitation, separated the worker from the means of production and the fruit of his labour, led the world to the point of near total destruction, consistently produced crisis throughout its entire history, increased the suicide and homicide rates to the point which was never seen before...ect.
And no, you cant fix capitalism. The rich control the media and the government. If you think raising the taxes will solve the problem, it wont. Never did, never will. Capitalist media actively promotes hate every day. You cant have peace in a system that has the incentive to promote hate.
Your statement. I said its a fact because I dont see a way someone could deny that American government disregards the people.
"Hell, even watching porn at a young age is harmful."
I started watching porn when I was 8. Fun times. I dont see how it harmed me.
Sorry, what part of "most people lie" dont you understand? And you want proof of scientists getting paid to lie? Watch a car commercial. Or wait. I have a better idea. Go to the store. Buy Coca cola. Read label. Does it say anywhere on it "poisoned water"? Because it should. But the scientist who writes content probably thought he wont earn as much money if he wrote such horrible truth on it. Now, thats a "small" example of scientists deceiving people. Who created pesticides, poisons, harmful food, harmed the environment with pollution? All done by our beloved scientists. Not to mention the fact that, thanks to science, we could die in a nuclear war.
And our beloved psychologists? What shall we say about them? They said society will benefit if more people visited psychologists. Well, people listened to them and now the suicide rates are even higher.
And our beloved dentists? Its funny how they didnt even exist for the most part of human history and we seemed to be doing fine without them until a scientist decided that we should have more sugar in our diet and did great research on how to attract children to eat more candy. Today, the scientists all over the world are doing research on how to attract people to buy certain product.
And you think that in society based on money and greed, scientists would be different and not pursue money and not lie or deceive when it suits them? What kind of a fairy tale do you live in? Scientist is just a word for someone who collects facts. To claim that he wont misuse or misrepresent or conceal some facts means to think of him as some angel. Also, it means not to know the history itself.
You dont need to be bribed in order to lie or use deception. But if you have a habbit of lying, getting paid for it does give a motivation to lie more. Scientists who do deceptive research aimed against pedophilia are getting paid. Scientists who do deceptive research about cars are getting paid. Scientists who do deceptive research about improving ads and commercials are getting paid. Almost all scientists, at some point in their life, got paid to lie about something or to cause deception and false ideas. This makes 99% of them liars. You mention nurses, doctors? Show me a nurse who never lied! Show me a doctor who never lied! They are people. People lie and deceive. So when a scientist gets paid to do research against pedophilia, plus if he himself hates pedophilia, its obvious his research will suffer. Now when most of scientists have hate towards pedophilia, its obvious that any scientist who attempts to defend pedophilia will be judged and will have no support and will lose credibility. Thats why we cant have credible research that supports pedophilia. Any research that is supporting pedophilia loses its credibility as soon as it appears, no matter how correct it is.
Scientists work for money. So if someone pays them good amount of money to lie or deceive, why wouldnt they do it? Maybe you assume scientists are angels who cant do anything bad? I know we live in society which worships science as its new God. However, scientists are just people. 99% of people tend to lie and deceive. Lets not forget that scientists often disagree with each other. Scientists have even disagreed on pedophilia. The fact that 99% of scientists oppose to pedophilia means they will either support either accept to do any research which is already determined to discredit pedophilia, while hiding any research which supports it.
The problem with free market and competition is that people will try to discredit others to gain popularity and, or earn money. Pedophiles are easy targets for that.
"super credible well established science publications"
Yeah, considering that 99% of scientists are liars and deceivers who oppose to pedophilia, I am pretty sure your conditions are unrealistic and unachiveable.
Those are all undeniable facts.
You are not making any sense now. But 10 comments ago you claimed its okay to crush little girls to death, so maybe work on that logical problems you have.
I thought you were done, but you seem to be still talking. And still nothing logical comes out of your dirty american mouth. Its like you cant even do basic reasoning.
This reminds me of the days when I was into Christianity. It wasnt that bad. Much better than islam. Prayers are much easier to learn. However, I quit it after a month. It just got boring and repetitive. Reading about Jesus for the first time was fun. After 100 times it got a lot less fun. The stories about Jesus were the only thing in the Bible that made me read it. So once I was over that, it didnt seem to make sense to read it anymore.
">> Maybe you should get a dictionary"
Maybe you should go back to school. But I doubt it will help.
"equivalency," - e.g., "The relationship that holds for two propositions that are either both true or both false, so that the affirmation of one and the denial of the other results in contradiction.""
Yeah, now you pretty much totally failed. Banning cars and allowing pedophilia does not result in contradiction, since pedophilia does much less harm. Only allowing cars and banning pedophilia results in contradiction, as I have shown. So no equivalency. Hence, no false equivalency.
"When you are comparing things as if they are equal in effect in order to substantiate your so-called position, you are equating them."
I never said that cars and pedophilia are equal in effect. In fact, I have in the previous comment clearly stated that cars are much worse. So banning things that do little harm while allowing things that do great harm is a contradiction if your arguments are based on harm. I dont see what you fail to understand. There is no false equivalency here. I dont think you even know what false equivalency is. And no, you cant just name things false without providing reasons. But so far you are acting like an average american, so its fine.
"NO!!! That is NOT my argument."
It literally is your argument. You justify cars. They crush children to death. Hence, you justify crushing children to death to allow cars. But pedophilia is bad because you dont like it. So do you think a little girl can satisfy herself without an adult? How is a little girl supposed to get pleasure?
"I've already given it and in great detail. You're just not equipped to grasp the truth of it."
What great detail? Are you drunk? You just lied about false equivalency for 50 times. What a great detail.
"Cars and meat have absolutely NOTHING to do with pedophilia you clown."
Cars and meat are much worse and cause much more damage. Your position was that pedophilia is bad because it causes damage. Since cars cause much more damage, to remain consistent your position must say that cars are bad too.
At this point, I am explaining things to you as if you were a toddler. But you still fail to understand.
"I'm done with you. I've ran out of patience dealing with your perversions. You're sick and need to seek counseling"
Oh yes, the typical american joe response when he loses an argument.
"False equivalency fallacy. "
Well, maybe you need an eyes check. I never said harm that comes from cars is equal to harm that comes from pedophilia. In fact, I consistently claimed that cars are much worse. You failed to prove that they are not. Well, you didnt even try, to be precise. Like really, you had 0 valid arguments.
Also, you failed to prove that harm which comes from cars is justified. If its not justified and hurts children, why are you approving it? Why dont you ban cars, meat...ect. Do you think its okay to hurt children for your pleasure?
Your argument is that harm is justified when a little girl gets crushed by a car, but when an adult man sexually pleases a little girl thats not justified?
Its obvious that being crushed by a car is worse.
So what is your argument exactly? As far as I can see, you ran out of arguments. You didnt prove that cars or meat are not harmful. I mean, you couldnt prove that even if you wanted. Then you implied its better for a little girl to be crushed to death by a car than to be sexually pleased by an adult. An obvious nonsense, considering that pain from being crushed is much greater. Also, do I need to even mention that if a pedophile doesnt have real sex with a child, but for example just gives her oral and masturbation, its obvious that it causes no physical pain. And if a little girl wants it, then certainly you have no right to judge such a relationship. Especially considering that you claimed how its okay to crush little girls to death.
Also, you didnt explain why harm from pedophilia is greater than harm from cars, meat...ect. So you never had an argument to begin with. I consider you just an average american who thinks he can do so many bad things while pretending to be a good guy. Naturally, considering that you are an american, it was expected that you wont even understand my arguments. Americans dont have lots of education. Most of them still think angels are real.
"False equivalency fallacy. A little girl being sexually abused will live where she would not if crushed by a car."
So cars are more harmful and need to be banned. Unless you claim you would rather have a little girl be crushed by a car than pleased by an adult.
Are you saying its okay to crush a little girl to death then? It seems like the more you talk, the less sense you make. Like most of US presidents!
"Eating meat and all the other nonsensical (illogical) nonsense you espoused is [NOT] on par with pedophilia and sexual abuse of a child/minor."
Eating meat kills you by shortening your life. It also kills animals. It hurts health in general making the damage unfixable.
Cars kill 30000 people every year in your country. How many people did pedophiles kill?
"Your lists of so-called harms to children are not harms on par with sexual abuse by a pedophile and child traffickers in pedophilia."
They are. They cause death and great suffering. So does your entire society. Unless you claim that a little girl being pleased by an adult is worse than little girl being crushed by a car. I know America is uneducated, but this is just too low
"It's called academia, professional experience and personal research for a reason."
Yeah, and I am a hero of the Socialist labor and an honored member of the order of Marx and Lenin.
"Also says the guy who doesn't know who he is talking to."
Well, unless you are a president of the USA, I am not amused.
"those who act on their urges consume child porn, purchase a child for sex, or otherwise take advantage of the vulnerabilities of children."
Its interesting when a pedophile does something to a child, its "taking advantage of", "horrible", "blablabla". But when your society hurts children, its "false equivalency", "doesnt count", "doesnt matter"... Maybe actually create a good society that doesnt hurt children, and someone might believe that you actually care for children.
"they just get killed"
Yeah, thats appropriate punishment for harmless crimes
"because inmates have a code of ethics that leads them to disdain such harm being done to a child."
What harm? And also, since I listed so many ways in which your society hurts children, its not even possible for you to jusify yourself and condemn pedophiles at the same. But you are probably one of those "when I do it, its okay" guys.
"No child allows an adult to "touch them" down there."
Did you question all the children in the world? It seems like you have great knowledge(not really).
"That is NOT my argument. This is nothing short of a strawman argument."
Its not your argument? Then why did you use it? You do understand that if you say that something is bad because its harmful, logical conclusion is that everything that is harmful is bad. Unless your logic is inconsistent. But of course you fail to understand this. Also, being an american is not an excuse. You should work to overcome that.
"Your entire argument is set upon one false equivalency after another"
No. You fail to understand logic.
Thats why you allow harm and condemn it at the same time just because in one case you like and in the other case you dont. So you want to judge pedophiles for what exactly? Even if you proved they cause harm, you cause it too! So whats the difference between you and them? You do it when you like it, they do it when they like it. But lets not forget that its not been proven that pedophilia is harmful and exactly what sexual approaches are harmful to children and what are not.
Now you say: children dont have cognitive ability to have sex with adults without harming themselves or the others without fully appreciating the consequences of their actions.
To put your argument simply:
Action is wrong to be done to a child if:
1) it harms children or others
2) if children dont understand the consequences of their action
3) if children dont have cognitive ability to do the action without 1) and 2).
So child crossing the road is bad, since it fullfils all of the above. So is child eating meat. So is spanking children. So is circumcision. So is religious brainwashing. So is children using internet. So is children driving in cars as passangers. So are any punishments children experience. So is teaching children anything other than 100% truth. So is teasing children. So is wrong for you to drive a car considering you might hit a child and fullfil all 3 conditions above. It is also wrong for you to own a gun. Giving children bad food also fullfils the 3 conditions totally. This is if we apply your logic on children as a group. If we applied it individually to children, even school in some cases proves to be harmful and fullfils all your conditions.
I could think of more things that your logic applies to, and I could probably find even more contradictions, but I think this is enough for now.
You wonder why I make debates about pedophilia, but I wonder why people hate pedophiles so much. I mean, sending them to prison, raping them and beating them for the rest of their lives sounds a bit too much. Especially if a pedophile didnt even have sex with a little girl but just tickled her down there or allowed her to touch him.
I dont care that much if you hate pedophiles, but at least dont lie claiming its because they hurt children.
Its obviously not because of that.
You didnt present reason why children arent allowed to drive, own guns...ect.
I am pretty sure any reason you could come up with would be inconsistent and contradicting, or inaplicable to porn and sex.
Everyone under 18. So yes, toddlers too.
When you limit your own rights just to food, water and school, maybe you will have the right to tell children that they should only have those rights and nothing else.
It was a good thing this debate ended without votes. Time for the next one.
Well, its too bad he forfeited. I was looking forward to reading this debate. I always like to hear other peoples opinions that agree with my own opinion.
I will say it one more time. If you think my vote is invalid, report it. I am not going to have endless debates about debates.
If China has violated human rights before, that doesnt mean China will do so again. It just greatly increases the possibility of the new violations. Now, if China constantly violates human rights, that additionally increases the possibility.
Now, if China is famous for violating human rights of its own citizens every day, it becomes highly unlikely that none out of 12 millions of Uyghur muslims experienced bad treatment from China. Hence, the probability argument.
And you didnt really help your case with the "if detained, you are guilty" logic. That logic made no sense. To me, that seemed like an argument Stalin would make. It was refuted by Pro as an excuse to lock up anyone.
Now, the only thing going in your favor was the lack of full proof by the Pro.
But does the win require full proof,or a proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or a probability outweight? Its not reasonable to doubt Pros position with the arguments he presented. The chance that Pro is wrong is actually so low it cant be considered a reasonable doubt.
So the only thing thats left is lack of full proof. But full proof, in my opinion, is not always required to be greatly convinced in something.
If one case has 99.99 percent of chance of being true, its an obvious preference over the opposite case that has 0.01 percent chance of being true. Taking these cases as equal is impossible.
U.S. is not even mentioned in the topic of a debate. But even if it is true, U.S. involvement doesnt lead to conclusion that China is completely innocent or that all Uyghurs are guilty. Just because U.S. is bad, that doesnt make China good.
Its not my fault you accepted a debate with topic that is impossible to disprove.
If the topic said millions of muslims, it would be different. But the topic didnt say what number of innocent Uyghur muslims is being detained. So it can be any number. 1000 or 500 or 100 or 20...
As I said, the only way you could disprove Pros position is by proving that no Uyghur muslims are innocent or that China has some advanced system of detaining only those who are guilty. The first one you didnt even prove, last one was disproved by history of China mentioned by the Pro.
After reading the debate, I was about 99% certain that Pro is right. So how could I vote for you, with the odds working against you?
Again, if you dont agree with my vote, report it and if mods think its not suitable they will remove it.
Also, if there is someone who thinks you have won the debate, that someone can vote for you. I am pretty sure everyone here has the ability to vote.
I already explained why I didnt give point to anyone when it comes to sources.
I can explain it even further.
The sources have no proof.
Cons sources dont disprove Pros position. They only served as counter to Pros sources. But since Pros position didnt depend on sources alone, but was also supported by historical facts of Chinas behavior, negation of Pros position by sources was impossible.
As for the arguments, it was obvious that Con cant possibly prove that all Uyghurs are terrorists, or that only the guilty Uyghurs are detained.
Pro didnt fully prove that innocent Uyghurs are being detained.
But he did prove that China does have a habbit and history of detaining innocent people. Well, not just detaining. Also torturing, killing...ect.
So the chances of being right are on Pros side. Why would I give my vote to Con who has much smaller chance of being right?
And killing children is not a disaster? Cars are one of the least safe modes of transport when applied generally. And it is preciselly because so much is invested in cars, that public transport suffers. And not just the public transport. If everyone replaced cars with scooters that have limited speed, you would see the death rate in traffic fall by over 80%.
This "disaster" would save over a million lives every year world wide.
Lack of cars makes life harder? I dont see how. It literally makes life easier for all those who wont painfully die due to cars existing.
Also, if it did make life harder, it doesnt negate the argument of harm. If you say that harm is okay when it makes life easier, this means you justify harm when it suits you, so harm cannot be used as an argument against pedophilia as some pedophiles can justify harm too when it suits them.
Not to mention, if people actually wanted an easier life, they wouldnt make it so difficult for children by causing them harm. Life is not easier if there is harm. If there is harm, life is harder. So using easier life to justify terrible harm is a contradiction, as easier life is the one with less harm.
You say you need knives? You can use the plastic ones.
You talk about physical safety being unachivable? This is actually only correct when safety causes more harm than it prevents. So what are your arguments against pedophilia then? It cant be consent, because you dont care about childs consent. It cant be harm, as you justify the harm of children when it suits you. So what is left? Practicality and function also depend on harm argument.
And then you say it isnt impractical to ban child adult sex for a society to function? Isnt the best function when there is least harm? And we already proved you dont want the least harm, so you dont want the best function.
And let us just remember that banning pedophilia doesnt stop it. It decreases it, but doesnt stop it. The only way to stop a pedophile from making love to children is to lock him up forever, which is a form of torture far worse than any experienced by most children who did something sexual with pedophiles.
So basically, your only solution is to cause even more harm?
Well, yes, that is another contradiction. Society forces children to go to school because it "benefits" children. But at the same time society does things, I mentioned before, that harm children. So its obvious their interest is not benefit of the children, but rather their own benefit.
If children could choose, they would probably choose school over job if school is actually attractive.
But this depends on society and how much choice it gives to children.
Lets not do anything that harms children. That means no more cars, smoking, guns, corporal punishments, circumcision, internet, electricity, tall buildings, buildings in general, knives, glass... yes, there is plenty of things we must give up upon to protect children. Also no more meat eating, as that harms children too. Well, if you are ready to give up upon these things, then I will believe you want to decrease the harming of children. But if you only mention harm just when it comes to pedophilia, then I must say that your argument is dishonest and inconsistent.
I stopped with that. What more do you want?