Most people leave the debt to their children, but only I would have decency to punish myself by suicide instead of living and making even more debt by draining resources.
"You're choosing to create debt for the world and making it a worse place to live by killing yourself whereas these people couldn't pay the debt because it was too high for them to afford."
So in both cases, person doesnt pay off the debt but next generation must pay it for him. Only I would have the actual decency to kill myself after such a decision.
What I am saying is a truism. What you are saying is some random complaining which cannot affect the person who borrows money, spends it, and then kills himself.
You must define hate speech, otherwise you will lose the debate if opponent defines hate speech as any speech which results in hurting others and thus reducing actual free speech.
Looks like even 150,000 characters isnt enough to say everything about the issue, but the max limit is 150,000 characters and if I were to put any more arguments in, I would have to throw some out.
I dont know why Pro didnt mention armed population as an actual alternative instead of security services. After reading this debate a couple of times, I feel like it definitely left a lot unmentioned. But in the end, while it definitely did succeed in describing state as harmful and a violator of rights, the transitioning to an alternative system (anarchy) seemed to be left mostly blank other than "if all people choose it, it will happen".
I am hoping that I see another debate in the future with similar topic. I know most people arent anarchs, but anarchy is one of the rare systems which actually isnt based on dictatorship of majority but on equal rights of one and all.
I agree that it would be better if I was dead, since I have no purpose in the world other than mere survival, which is circular since I only exist to exist.
When it comes to debating about Jesus, I would rather debate about if God of the Bible exists, even tho I think that those debates are kinda already covered to a great extent by past debates.
I would very much struggle to think of arguments that are not problem of evil or problem of free will right now.
Statistically, this favors Pro alone.
You end up saving more lives if you nuke when each option is summed up.
Maybe a better topic would be if Jesus appeared to people after his death, if resurrection is true.
I mean, in terms of rights of women, sure.
Thank you.
This needs more than 1 vote
If this was about vegetarianism, then I would lose. But against this, I can even win. Maybe.
Actually, morality doesnt exist.
I thank you.
But morality doesnt matter. What matters is that person gets what he wants. Thats why my position is a truism.
Most inventions were a bad idea. Humans are just too stupid to realize it. Sadly, competition demands inventions.
I think you maybe have reading difficulties.
I have already explained to you that most people in USA voted for 34 trillion debt which their children will have to pay.
Also, you again ignore the fact that person is not affected if his children have to pay. He doesnt have to pay, so its good for him.
Also, shorter but more enjoyable life is preferable to life of hard work and poverty.
Debt still there. You dont have to pay back because people cant pay off the debt after they kill themselves. This is very simple.
Votes
Also, I dont have children, so checkmate Christian!
Most people leave the debt to their children, but only I would have decency to punish myself by suicide instead of living and making even more debt by draining resources.
"You're choosing to create debt for the world and making it a worse place to live by killing yourself whereas these people couldn't pay the debt because it was too high for them to afford."
So in both cases, person doesnt pay off the debt but next generation must pay it for him. Only I would have the actual decency to kill myself after such a decision.
People already created 34 trillion debt which their children will have to pay off, so majority of people agree with me, not you.
Heh
What I am saying is a truism. What you are saying is some random complaining which cannot affect the person who borrows money, spends it, and then kills himself.
Thats irrelevant to you. As long as you dont pay it, you are fine.
You dont need a source.
Just type definition in description and write that that definition must be used.
If you want source, click on the site which offers definition. Dont copy google search link
Trans age too?
You must define hate speech, otherwise you will lose the debate if opponent defines hate speech as any speech which results in hurting others and thus reducing actual free speech.
Looks like even 150,000 characters isnt enough to say everything about the issue, but the max limit is 150,000 characters and if I were to put any more arguments in, I would have to throw some out.
I dont know why Pro didnt mention armed population as an actual alternative instead of security services. After reading this debate a couple of times, I feel like it definitely left a lot unmentioned. But in the end, while it definitely did succeed in describing state as harmful and a violator of rights, the transitioning to an alternative system (anarchy) seemed to be left mostly blank other than "if all people choose it, it will happen".
I am hoping that I see another debate in the future with similar topic. I know most people arent anarchs, but anarchy is one of the rare systems which actually isnt based on dictatorship of majority but on equal rights of one and all.
"They can; all it takes is a bullet to the head."
I know that you want for me to kill myself, but I am not suicidal for some reason.
Prison story is for round 3.
"Talk about how ugly you are and how bad they treated you in prison"
Oh, thats a good one. Definitely going with that.
Can you give me more arguments to use in this debate?
I will use that as my argument too.
It sucks that people cant choose to simply stop existing.
I agree that it would be better if I was dead, since I have no purpose in the world other than mere survival, which is circular since I only exist to exist.
I updated the topic in hope someone accepts.
I will use that as my argument.
When it comes to debating about Jesus, I would rather debate about if God of the Bible exists, even tho I think that those debates are kinda already covered to a great extent by past debates.
I would very much struggle to think of arguments that are not problem of evil or problem of free will right now.
Its impossible to prove a negative, and any evidence which even slightly hints to the existence of Jesus in ancient past wins the debate for Pro.
I oppose healthcare budget because it costs too much.
2 trillions for healthcare?
No thanks.
Paper kills more people than guns?
I mean, what would Con even argue here? Electoral votes are the only thing that matters.
So someone only needs to define "valid" as "green happy butterfly" to win the debate.
You guys like debating me. How about this one.
Seriously, everyone on this Earth is stupid except me and few others, so life for me is just torture.
I wish I was aborted.
It should be 7.
6 year olds shouldnt drink alcohol, but it should be legal for a 7 year old to drink.
After you finish this one, I am gonna make a debate that drinking age should be lowered to 10.
Glad we agree.
No, it should be lowered to 10.
If I started drinking at age 10, it would be much better for me.
OwO
Morality is subjective. You are wrong again. You could have chosen truth.
No.
Morality is subjective, so you can do anything you want.
What if I dont want to?