Given both of you have provided some thoughts (especially you Whiteflames), I'm compelled to also drop some pointers.
1. In terms of what Ben did well, the point of social affirmation was one I understood as strong, and hence strategically (and perhaps uncharitably) granted less consideration. I think it's a good point and, under the definition of GAC provided would qualify - however if push came to shove, I would have made the point of showing that even if social affirmation were successful that this is not synonymous with GAC being holistically good.
2. Personally, out of all the studies and arguments I issued, I did not expect the first study to lose as much mileage as it did. Looking back I think this might have been an oversight from me, given the link could have been expanded on more clearly.
3. Whiteflame - one main point you bring up throughout both Ben and I's points (but mainly mine) was that there lacked a quality study which eliminated the extraneous variables. However, as you admit, this is extremely difficult to find because there hasn't been such a study, and also that such a study would be extremely difficult to conduct. (First, you would have to essentially force some gender dysphoric individuals into not seeking gender affirming care. Second, if you found people with gender dysphoria but didn't want to transition and used them as the control, even that wouldn't really work because of the clear symmetry breaker being that one group wants GAC and the other doesn't).
4. Regarding my logical incongruity point, it was basically an original thought I had, hence, a lot of the links were pretty sketchy, but still I think it's a line of reasoning worth investigating. For instance, you mentioned "within those subsequent years after 2010, a substantial number of those suicides came from those who received GAC". I agree that I am unable to show a clear causal linkage between the two, but I think the argument grants cumulative reasons to suspect something is afoot - it seems fishy that absent an explanation, why this claim of morality when denying transgender individuals treatment does not seem to be ameliorated when a thousand fold increase in such treatment is provided.
Agreed. Just to put it in really plain english, the evidential problem of evil basically just points around in reality and asks "why is this occurring". The logical problem of evil doesn't rely on evidence and looks more into the properties of God - it sees that given his traits, you can basically be certain that anything God wants he will get, and so the world as it is now must be what he wants, because if it wasn't, he could just change it.
That would then get into the distinction between the logical and evidential problem of evil. Whilst you are right that the logical problem of evil would have to discount God necessarily, that is not the case for the evidential problem. If we take the evidential perspective on the holocaust, then you could possibly deny that evil is afoot, though that would be extremely dubious. However, if we use the logical problem of evil, as I elaborated below, it would be possible only if you throw out the entire concept of "evil" - given Gods tri-omni properties, all things which are actual are as he wishes they are obtained, and because his will arbitrates benevolence, there is no such thing as evil at all.
Ultimately I have two hypothesis to consider - the first is that the holocaust is necessary for obtaining some future good which outweighs the initial evil, which we haven't yet experienced and must still patiently wait for, or the holocaust was simply an instance of gratuitous evil. Whilst there is no inherent contradiction, it seems too implausible to take the first example.
1. Philosophical zombies
Although this could resolve the POE, it would be a huge concession which I doubt any serious theist would make. The mass deception itself would call into question the benevolence of God.
2. Supernatural forces
I take it that the tri-omni God is one who can actualise any state of affair which they desire, and so the fact that such demons exist would have to be because God sought for it to be so. You can consider this in the following syllogism:
p1. Evil is defined as a contradiction to god’s nature/sin and ought not be done
p2. Then it follows that evil is that of which OUGHT not be done
p3. God allows all things to occur
p4. These things that occur are purposeful (it’s according to God’s plan)
p5. Given that these things occur purposefully, as they are in accord with God’s plan, these things ought to occur
C: There is no evil (P4 precludes evil which is defined in P2)
3. Butterfly effect
If we take this to be an explanation, then you would be forced to conceded that the holocaust is actually an all things considered good. I would be weary to do this, and would first question why the holocaust was necessary in obtaining certain goods two million years into the future, and how it is that God couldn't just have brought about the good without the gratuitous suffering.
Since you are so gracious as to tell me the things you did wrong, I'll give a two (because unlike you I actually have sounds argument and don't rely on spamming) word of advise.
1. Try a little harder to hide your incompetency by spreading out your copy and pasted sources, as opposed to blitzkrieging them in the last round.
In the first round, you provided 6 sources for your arguments. In the second round, you provided 0 new sources for your arguments (two in the meta debate analysis). In the third and final round, you provided 18 new sources to the substantive of your argument (not even new rebuttal sources, but completely new, [akin to a first round] bearing new arguments). I know the only way you can win is by spamming things you haven't read in the very final round (so then I'm forced to make a closing statement, defend my arguments, rebut your arguments, and address your new sources) but maybe try a little more to hide it (compare this to my third round, in which there is not one single new study introduced).
2. Actually address your oppositions arguments. Another interesting observation of your bad faith - building on the statistics above (you introducing 6 sources in the first round, 0 new in the second and 18 in the last round) what makes your blitzkrieging even more blatant is the fact that whenever a response is issued to your source, you instantly abandon it. For example, in the first round, you made the following substantive claims.
i. With supervision, these reversible drugs safeley and effectively delay a child's development until they are ready.
ii. There is an extremely low prevalence (<1%) of regret in transgender patients after gender affirming surgery.
iii. Gender affirming hormone therapy was consistently found to reduce depressive symptoms and psychological distress.
iv. 73% less likely to experience suicidality when compared to youths who did not receive gender-affirming interventions.
**Every** single one of these are addressed in my second round (check rebuttals 1, 2, 3), where your manipulation of sources, mischaracterising and simple ineptitude is made apparent. After I address your studies, how many of them do you defend? Zero. In this debate, you have not one single time defended a source once. Sure, you defend the claims, by blitzkrieging different sources to prove your point, but not once do you come back and attack my critique of your sources. That is to say, by the third round, every single source you introduced in your first round was abandoned by you. Essentially, the entire debate was a dance, where you brought up a source, I shot it down, and you bring up a new one, thereby implicitly admitting that the sources shot down were truly dead.
Usually, it is in bad faith to mount additional clarifications of your arguments for it might sway the potential voters, though to be fair, being bad faith has never of concern to you. Of course, all of your claims are absolutely and unequivocally incorrect.
1. You made the egregious claim that puberty blockers were "reversible drugs that can safely and effectively delay a child's development until they are ready". I disputed this with seven sources (two of which referred to bone density). You responded by asserting that bone density is not effected in those post pubescent consumers of hormone therapy which is absolutely irrelevant to your initial claim pertaining to children (you of course also ignore the 5 other sources I provided.
2. This is completely irrelevant. I've made this point like 4 times (all of which you've ignored) but GAC is something which effects your **entire life**, and you are making an inference based on a survey (funny that you have to stoop to online responses) which only requires you to have had **some** treatment for two years. So the conditional you are proposing is IF GAC produces happy online respondents within 2 years, THEN GAC is an effective **lifetime** treatment.
3. You absolutely did make this claim. Crying about transphobia being on the rise in your introduction is absolutely a way of poisoning the well, preemptively shielding the undeniable decrease in transgender mental health decrease with untested extraneous variables.
4. I'm not sure if you're actually stupid or you seriously do not understand what I am saying. It seems as though you have not actually read the section which I quoted clearly, highlighting so as to aid you away from your confusion. The line you cited explains what they ought not do, and then **immediately following**, the writer claims "to be responsive to some of the letter writers’ interest" follower by an explanation of what they decided to do, which is "creat(ing) a matched group of individuals with a gender incongruence diagnosis who have not received surgery... found no significant difference in the prevalence of treatment for mood disorders and no significant difference in the prevalence of hospitalization after suicide attempt". I won't be surprised if you're not following, so to dumb it down, the authors said "let's not do this thing", and then "since people have said let's not do this thing, I'll do this other thing" concluding with "this other thing seems to find that GAC doesn't help".
5. This was one of your stupidest moments in the debate. You said "the third study of his measures psychiatric morbidity in general, not gender dysphoria specifically like CON is insinuating" which is absolutely stupid - if you even cared to look at the second line of the study, you would see it said their entire purpose was "to investigate psychiatric morbidity before and after sex reassignment surgery". I don't really care what inference you are trying to make - the fact is, I used this study, to support the notion that transitioning does **not** help, which if it is shown that "no significant difference in psychiatric morbidity or mortality was found between male to female and female to male" is absolutely sound.
Well that was a long time ago and as much as one may not want to admit, Novice has improved exponentially. Furthermore, the topic of Derick is far more on-sided than the debate regarding institutional racism as a whole. All I'm saying is, it'll be an interesting matchup for the both of you.
"Because most of his rebuttals were based off of him trying to disprove my arguments."
Do you then except that your arguments are disproved and that they are wrong?
Going to have to go with Oro for this one. The definition he provided of Roman Catholic Church was literally "the largest Christian church" so it was a tautological loss for CON from the beginning.
In what dictionary does extend mean "I will give you a chance to reply". It clearly gives, especially in this site, an indication that no further arguments need to be made, and that all that has been said is to the sufficient liking of the contender.
If you are interested, I would be happy to engage with you in a debate like this, not out of bad blood or anything personal, but because I think this sort of debate is actually very interesting and unlike anything I have ever participated in. Although, i do understand if you are drained on proving that you are good.
I want to make clear that I don’t think you are a mere 1500 debater - just that you adopted the onus to prove that your resume would elevate anyone at that level to “good” (status quo is that you are 1500). You provided four debate examples to lift yourself out of the status quo, and despite Vici providing compelling refutations for them (that the oppositions are weak, that comedic debates are not indicative of a good debater), it is also quite reasonably argued that even if the debates were extraordinary, there is very little one can do to elevate themself into “good” level in such a small amount of debates. For the examples you provided, I had to think to myself “if a new no profile user came along and performed as you did in them, would I consider them good?” and the answer is no.
If you didn't act like this, you would have won the Barney debate. The very fact that so many people on this site dislikes you renders a vote for you emotionally difficult.
I usually do not look into on going vote dramas, but I think that, in the case of Barney's vote, his mind was made up prior to reading the debate. This is evident in the first line of his RFD, indicating Novice must win the debate with terms used "in plain English", implying that it is impossible for the instigator to win, despite the compelling justification of why a more compelling definition of person ought to be used.
I cannot imagine that anything Novice could have done would have adjusted his adjudication.
I'm not too bother in this instance as the ballot is unaffected by problematic votes, but I think this highlights the underlying issue of the current voting system. It's an issue which is blindingly easy to fix - just establish a time period between the last ballot that is allowed to be cast and subsequently the completion of the debate - say two days, where votes cannot be casted but moderators can impose judgement. If the site user is too busy to do this, moderators can send an announcement stipulating that, for any debate which is in voting period, no votes can be casted in the final two days (in spite of the fact that you physically can), and anyone who does receives harsh punishment. The latter is meant only to temporarily alleviate the issue.
I'm honestly surprised that the likes of Oromagi and Barny's streaks were not unjustly disrupted before their current records.
Change it to - THBT: All things considered, the problem of evil is not a significant problem for the existence of God, (with God being defined as one with the four omni's).
I agree here - the 72 gender they/them movement seriously convolutes the far more serious issue of transgender right - it undermines and makes a joke of some serious mental phenomenons.
I don't mind, although, if such a feature is possible, I think that, if an agreement can be made, FLRW's vote has got to go. Although, I respect that the voting has concluded and am fine with the vote remaining.
"Bones argument that 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization is not true. This is based on a brief filed in the Supreme Court."
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
—Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
—Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
—Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 8
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
— Princeton Education
“Development of human beings with fertilisation a process by which the sperm from the male and the egg from the female unite to give rise to a new organism which is the zygote”
—Dr. T.W Sadler
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoon and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." (1)
-EPM.org
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception”
-Dr. Michelle M. Mathews-Rohs, from Harvard Medical School,
“We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life”
-Ann Furedi, Chief executive of British Pregnancy Advisory Centre, the UK’s larger independent abortion provider.
“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretence that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus”
-Faye Wattleton, longest reigning President of Planned Parenthood
“This (life beginning at conception) all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t a part of the common knowledge”
-Alan Guttmacher, former President of Planned Parenthood, (1933)
Again, thanks a bunch for the debate - I truly enjoyed it. Also, not bothered by the result at all, it's the best I could hope for against someone like you.
You should get an award for the number of votes you churn out.
I'll give voting a go but I had a look and it's a bit messy to adjudicate so I'll see what I can do.
Given both of you have provided some thoughts (especially you Whiteflames), I'm compelled to also drop some pointers.
1. In terms of what Ben did well, the point of social affirmation was one I understood as strong, and hence strategically (and perhaps uncharitably) granted less consideration. I think it's a good point and, under the definition of GAC provided would qualify - however if push came to shove, I would have made the point of showing that even if social affirmation were successful that this is not synonymous with GAC being holistically good.
2. Personally, out of all the studies and arguments I issued, I did not expect the first study to lose as much mileage as it did. Looking back I think this might have been an oversight from me, given the link could have been expanded on more clearly.
3. Whiteflame - one main point you bring up throughout both Ben and I's points (but mainly mine) was that there lacked a quality study which eliminated the extraneous variables. However, as you admit, this is extremely difficult to find because there hasn't been such a study, and also that such a study would be extremely difficult to conduct. (First, you would have to essentially force some gender dysphoric individuals into not seeking gender affirming care. Second, if you found people with gender dysphoria but didn't want to transition and used them as the control, even that wouldn't really work because of the clear symmetry breaker being that one group wants GAC and the other doesn't).
4. Regarding my logical incongruity point, it was basically an original thought I had, hence, a lot of the links were pretty sketchy, but still I think it's a line of reasoning worth investigating. For instance, you mentioned "within those subsequent years after 2010, a substantial number of those suicides came from those who received GAC". I agree that I am unable to show a clear causal linkage between the two, but I think the argument grants cumulative reasons to suspect something is afoot - it seems fishy that absent an explanation, why this claim of morality when denying transgender individuals treatment does not seem to be ameliorated when a thousand fold increase in such treatment is provided.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you Ben, it was an intense debate and we both held our own.
Agreed. Just to put it in really plain english, the evidential problem of evil basically just points around in reality and asks "why is this occurring". The logical problem of evil doesn't rely on evidence and looks more into the properties of God - it sees that given his traits, you can basically be certain that anything God wants he will get, and so the world as it is now must be what he wants, because if it wasn't, he could just change it.
That would then get into the distinction between the logical and evidential problem of evil. Whilst you are right that the logical problem of evil would have to discount God necessarily, that is not the case for the evidential problem. If we take the evidential perspective on the holocaust, then you could possibly deny that evil is afoot, though that would be extremely dubious. However, if we use the logical problem of evil, as I elaborated below, it would be possible only if you throw out the entire concept of "evil" - given Gods tri-omni properties, all things which are actual are as he wishes they are obtained, and because his will arbitrates benevolence, there is no such thing as evil at all.
Ultimately I have two hypothesis to consider - the first is that the holocaust is necessary for obtaining some future good which outweighs the initial evil, which we haven't yet experienced and must still patiently wait for, or the holocaust was simply an instance of gratuitous evil. Whilst there is no inherent contradiction, it seems too implausible to take the first example.
Guarantee HOF.
1. Philosophical zombies
Although this could resolve the POE, it would be a huge concession which I doubt any serious theist would make. The mass deception itself would call into question the benevolence of God.
2. Supernatural forces
I take it that the tri-omni God is one who can actualise any state of affair which they desire, and so the fact that such demons exist would have to be because God sought for it to be so. You can consider this in the following syllogism:
p1. Evil is defined as a contradiction to god’s nature/sin and ought not be done
p2. Then it follows that evil is that of which OUGHT not be done
p3. God allows all things to occur
p4. These things that occur are purposeful (it’s according to God’s plan)
p5. Given that these things occur purposefully, as they are in accord with God’s plan, these things ought to occur
C: There is no evil (P4 precludes evil which is defined in P2)
3. Butterfly effect
If we take this to be an explanation, then you would be forced to conceded that the holocaust is actually an all things considered good. I would be weary to do this, and would first question why the holocaust was necessary in obtaining certain goods two million years into the future, and how it is that God couldn't just have brought about the good without the gratuitous suffering.
I think I've exhausted my interest in God debates, though if you want I could outline some new and better ideas I have with regards to the poe.
Hopefully you have some time to cast a vote, or at least give the two of us your general thoughts.
Citing Israels twitter account as evidence of Israels' moral high ground is a crazy tactic.
If you say so
Since you are so gracious as to tell me the things you did wrong, I'll give a two (because unlike you I actually have sounds argument and don't rely on spamming) word of advise.
1. Try a little harder to hide your incompetency by spreading out your copy and pasted sources, as opposed to blitzkrieging them in the last round.
In the first round, you provided 6 sources for your arguments. In the second round, you provided 0 new sources for your arguments (two in the meta debate analysis). In the third and final round, you provided 18 new sources to the substantive of your argument (not even new rebuttal sources, but completely new, [akin to a first round] bearing new arguments). I know the only way you can win is by spamming things you haven't read in the very final round (so then I'm forced to make a closing statement, defend my arguments, rebut your arguments, and address your new sources) but maybe try a little more to hide it (compare this to my third round, in which there is not one single new study introduced).
2. Actually address your oppositions arguments. Another interesting observation of your bad faith - building on the statistics above (you introducing 6 sources in the first round, 0 new in the second and 18 in the last round) what makes your blitzkrieging even more blatant is the fact that whenever a response is issued to your source, you instantly abandon it. For example, in the first round, you made the following substantive claims.
i. With supervision, these reversible drugs safeley and effectively delay a child's development until they are ready.
ii. There is an extremely low prevalence (<1%) of regret in transgender patients after gender affirming surgery.
iii. Gender affirming hormone therapy was consistently found to reduce depressive symptoms and psychological distress.
iv. 73% less likely to experience suicidality when compared to youths who did not receive gender-affirming interventions.
**Every** single one of these are addressed in my second round (check rebuttals 1, 2, 3), where your manipulation of sources, mischaracterising and simple ineptitude is made apparent. After I address your studies, how many of them do you defend? Zero. In this debate, you have not one single time defended a source once. Sure, you defend the claims, by blitzkrieging different sources to prove your point, but not once do you come back and attack my critique of your sources. That is to say, by the third round, every single source you introduced in your first round was abandoned by you. Essentially, the entire debate was a dance, where you brought up a source, I shot it down, and you bring up a new one, thereby implicitly admitting that the sources shot down were truly dead.
Try harder Benjamin
Usually, it is in bad faith to mount additional clarifications of your arguments for it might sway the potential voters, though to be fair, being bad faith has never of concern to you. Of course, all of your claims are absolutely and unequivocally incorrect.
1. You made the egregious claim that puberty blockers were "reversible drugs that can safely and effectively delay a child's development until they are ready". I disputed this with seven sources (two of which referred to bone density). You responded by asserting that bone density is not effected in those post pubescent consumers of hormone therapy which is absolutely irrelevant to your initial claim pertaining to children (you of course also ignore the 5 other sources I provided.
2. This is completely irrelevant. I've made this point like 4 times (all of which you've ignored) but GAC is something which effects your **entire life**, and you are making an inference based on a survey (funny that you have to stoop to online responses) which only requires you to have had **some** treatment for two years. So the conditional you are proposing is IF GAC produces happy online respondents within 2 years, THEN GAC is an effective **lifetime** treatment.
3. You absolutely did make this claim. Crying about transphobia being on the rise in your introduction is absolutely a way of poisoning the well, preemptively shielding the undeniable decrease in transgender mental health decrease with untested extraneous variables.
4. I'm not sure if you're actually stupid or you seriously do not understand what I am saying. It seems as though you have not actually read the section which I quoted clearly, highlighting so as to aid you away from your confusion. The line you cited explains what they ought not do, and then **immediately following**, the writer claims "to be responsive to some of the letter writers’ interest" follower by an explanation of what they decided to do, which is "creat(ing) a matched group of individuals with a gender incongruence diagnosis who have not received surgery... found no significant difference in the prevalence of treatment for mood disorders and no significant difference in the prevalence of hospitalization after suicide attempt". I won't be surprised if you're not following, so to dumb it down, the authors said "let's not do this thing", and then "since people have said let's not do this thing, I'll do this other thing" concluding with "this other thing seems to find that GAC doesn't help".
5. This was one of your stupidest moments in the debate. You said "the third study of his measures psychiatric morbidity in general, not gender dysphoria specifically like CON is insinuating" which is absolutely stupid - if you even cared to look at the second line of the study, you would see it said their entire purpose was "to investigate psychiatric morbidity before and after sex reassignment surgery". I don't really care what inference you are trying to make - the fact is, I used this study, to support the notion that transitioning does **not** help, which if it is shown that "no significant difference in psychiatric morbidity or mortality was found between male to female and female to male" is absolutely sound.
Make it three rounds and 5000 characters and I'll accept. Also, change the wording to "homosexuality is not moral".
lmao why do these dumb fuck debates as opposed to doing an actual academic topic where your intellects are at clash.
lmao why do these dumb fuck debates as opposed to doing an actual academic topic where your intellects are at clash.
Well that was a long time ago and as much as one may not want to admit, Novice has improved exponentially. Furthermore, the topic of Derick is far more on-sided than the debate regarding institutional racism as a whole. All I'm saying is, it'll be an interesting matchup for the both of you.
You two should really push the as of late lacking quality of debates outside of its current state by debating this topic.
Still want to do the abortion debate where we defend our actual beliefs, or have you realised that formal debating is a wee bit out of your capacity?
"Because most of his rebuttals were based off of him trying to disprove my arguments."
Do you then except that your arguments are disproved and that they are wrong?
Under a week to vote now.
Why did you not refute the rebuttals of Double_R?
Who do you think won Craig vs Carrol?
Bump
Would you be interested in debating the proposition that we ought to recognise one through their sex as opposed to gender?
Nothing would ever convince me of such a silly proposition ;)
Going to have to go with Oro for this one. The definition he provided of Roman Catholic Church was literally "the largest Christian church" so it was a tautological loss for CON from the beginning.
bump
In what dictionary does extend mean "I will give you a chance to reply". It clearly gives, especially in this site, an indication that no further arguments need to be made, and that all that has been said is to the sufficient liking of the contender.
If you are interested, I would be happy to engage with you in a debate like this, not out of bad blood or anything personal, but because I think this sort of debate is actually very interesting and unlike anything I have ever participated in. Although, i do understand if you are drained on proving that you are good.
Thanks for your thoughts!
I want to make clear that I don’t think you are a mere 1500 debater - just that you adopted the onus to prove that your resume would elevate anyone at that level to “good” (status quo is that you are 1500). You provided four debate examples to lift yourself out of the status quo, and despite Vici providing compelling refutations for them (that the oppositions are weak, that comedic debates are not indicative of a good debater), it is also quite reasonably argued that even if the debates were extraordinary, there is very little one can do to elevate themself into “good” level in such a small amount of debates. For the examples you provided, I had to think to myself “if a new no profile user came along and performed as you did in them, would I consider them good?” and the answer is no.
If you didn't act like this, you would have won the Barney debate. The very fact that so many people on this site dislikes you renders a vote for you emotionally difficult.
bump
This was actually a very interesting read. I wish it were longer though.
I usually do not look into on going vote dramas, but I think that, in the case of Barney's vote, his mind was made up prior to reading the debate. This is evident in the first line of his RFD, indicating Novice must win the debate with terms used "in plain English", implying that it is impossible for the instigator to win, despite the compelling justification of why a more compelling definition of person ought to be used.
I cannot imagine that anything Novice could have done would have adjusted his adjudication.
LMAO
I'm not too bother in this instance as the ballot is unaffected by problematic votes, but I think this highlights the underlying issue of the current voting system. It's an issue which is blindingly easy to fix - just establish a time period between the last ballot that is allowed to be cast and subsequently the completion of the debate - say two days, where votes cannot be casted but moderators can impose judgement. If the site user is too busy to do this, moderators can send an announcement stipulating that, for any debate which is in voting period, no votes can be casted in the final two days (in spite of the fact that you physically can), and anyone who does receives harsh punishment. The latter is meant only to temporarily alleviate the issue.
I'm honestly surprised that the likes of Oromagi and Barny's streaks were not unjustly disrupted before their current records.
A(↑)
Change it to - THBT: All things considered, the problem of evil is not a significant problem for the existence of God, (with God being defined as one with the four omni's).
Will be voting.
I agree here - the 72 gender they/them movement seriously convolutes the far more serious issue of transgender right - it undermines and makes a joke of some serious mental phenomenons.
And I ignored that because that is one study - you are ignoring Embryology text books, Princeton Education, and Human Embryology and Teratology.
I hear chit chat, but see an unaccepted debate titled to you?
I don't mind, although, if such a feature is possible, I think that, if an agreement can be made, FLRW's vote has got to go. Although, I respect that the voting has concluded and am fine with the vote remaining.
"Bones argument that 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization is not true. This is based on a brief filed in the Supreme Court."
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
—Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
—Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
—Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 8
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
— Princeton Education
“Development of human beings with fertilisation a process by which the sperm from the male and the egg from the female unite to give rise to a new organism which is the zygote”
—Dr. T.W Sadler
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoon and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." (1)
-EPM.org
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception”
-Dr. Michelle M. Mathews-Rohs, from Harvard Medical School,
“We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life”
-Ann Furedi, Chief executive of British Pregnancy Advisory Centre, the UK’s larger independent abortion provider.
“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretence that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus”
-Faye Wattleton, longest reigning President of Planned Parenthood
“This (life beginning at conception) all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t a part of the common knowledge”
-Alan Guttmacher, former President of Planned Parenthood, (1933)
Okay it's not a very important point, especially as I was saying "4th" to imply that you were an early voter.
Again, thanks a bunch for the debate - I truly enjoyed it. Also, not bothered by the result at all, it's the best I could hope for against someone like you.
Below