Bones

Are you like serious - I'm never this blunt, but that is such a terrible defence. 

If it's that basic then you are willing to debate? I propose: The Free Will defence is not sufficient in refuting the Problem of Evil. 

Thanks Bones for providing us all with such a humorous comment. 

Yet - if God exists - suddenly the atheist is up in arms about evil.   Why?  That is the question.  Somehow what can happen when God does not exist is IMPOSSIBLE to be part of the answer if God does exist.,  Mirrors and smokescreens.  Talk about escapism and denial.  

God gave humanity the ability to do the right thing in their creation. Yet he also gave them the ability to follow their own choices.  Why this is difficult to understand is staggering? 

Free will is the reason for evil.

God's existence does not change the facts about evil.

Want to debate? 

1. God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good.
   
2. Free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (this is what we know as evil).
   
3. Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God.
   

https://strangenotions.com/turning-problem-evil/

very basic

Correct. We would need evidence for a God. What I'm also saying is that the problem of evil wouldn't be a good argument against a Deistic God. 

Yes it has

and btw, Polytheist witch had every right to be rude as this was a retarded question.

But gender is merely a thing of the mind right? Here is my problem. If a person claims that their gender (a societal construct which advocates are keen to distinct from sex which is said to be physical) is wrong, why do they do to change their bodies? If they change their bodies, that means they change their biology which is sex, not gender. 

1. That would be them expressing themselves.

2. Biological sex is more than genitalia. 

Well I guess that's where we principally differ. I wouldn't call my peers sir just because they wanted to. 

There’s the social cohesion aspect which I agree with when being told to use certain gendered pronouns.

You think women, turtles, apricots are all equal peers of yours? It doesn’t come off that way. 

But gender is a social construct manifested by the mind, why do I need a physical costume? 

Gender and transgenderism are not the same thing. Transgenderism is the expression of gender which doesn’t aline with what’s normally expected from biological sex. 

The ones who benefit from illegal murder are hitmen and the rich who have more enemies to kill. Time to make murder legal? 

So do all the people protected by would-be murderers that fear the repercussions, whereas outlawing abortion is both practically inefficient due to back-alley abortions and also cruel on the born generally speaking.

I don't know your life but imagine being born to parents who didn't want you but who kept you out of a sense of pride because giving you up for abortion felt like a 'failure'.

I've got zero issues with adoption but it's generally not the way things go at all and there's then the other issue of forcing the mother to go through it.

I will tell you the reality that you're ignoring, in the US there's zero publicly provided contraception

The whole gender construct thing isn't congruent with reality. A distinction between "labels which describe features of a person" and "adjectives" ought to be recognised. Terms such as "man" and "women" should refer to "men" and "women" and it just so happens that science, as oppose to thought, is a more capable indicator of these traits.  

Even if someone asks to be referred to using totally arbitrary pronouns, and I agree to this convention, we do not necessarily imply anything about the scientific facts about chromosomes etc.

It is a simplistic analogy but it's underlying message is valid. Investments are big risks - if this weren't the case, there would be no homeless - which is why there are big rewards. If you want to look at tangible impact towards a company, it's fair to say that investors liquify companies money. 

I don't disagree that investment in capital plays a valid role in the economy, but I do disagree that this justifies the flat tax.

But this can be applied to literally every rule that is established. By nature of truism, any law which is enforced on a population of diverse culture will result in it effecting one culture more than another, even if it isn't statistically relevant. Out there, some race is most hindered by traffic laws, whether it be white, asian or black yet no one really makes a fuss about it. 

The point is that this dynamic is often entirely ignored by the liberal paradigm of law, and that in relevant cases - such as immigration, prison reform, policing, etc. - these do result in statistically relevant outcomes.

If I had it my way, this is what I would do. 99 percent of abortion which occur are a result of careless sex - only 1 percent are rape/incest. Make abortion legal only for the one percent and dedicate the entirety of the current funding for reintegrating and repairing the damages of the 1 percent. Think about all the money that is being given to irresponsible party goers who get banged on a pile of bean bags in front of 50 people with no care for contraceptives or safe sex - is money better spent on these people or for victims of actual crime? 

The ones who benefit from illegal abortion are back-alley abortion clinics and the rich that have more desperate souls born to exploit.

The victims of outlawing abortion are the babies born unwanted and impoverished to parents incapable of properly raising them.

• Taxing X person a higher percentage Y person means you are taking a larger portion of money from X person. X person's money was acquired through work. Work requires time, therefore, if you do not have X's permission yet you take more of X's money, you are taking their work which is taking their time which is slavery. 
  

Doesn’t this argument prove too much? It seems like:

• It applies to a flat tax as well. 10% of someone with an income of $100,000 is $10,000. 10% of someone with an income of $20,000 is $2,000. If both worked to get their money, taking a larger amount of the first person’s money, by your logic, would be unjust. There’s no reason your principle only applies to proportions and not to amounts. 
  

• It maybe even applies to all taxation, regardless of the amount. If the government is forcibly taking money from you that was acquired through work, without your consent, then you’re taking their work, and that’s equivalent to theft.
  

What about intersex? That would be a third gender

Creationists believe things which are contrary to evidence. Witchcraft does the same. What is relatively a new phenomenon? Creationism? 

That is a very broad and weird definition. Everybody can say that a groups acts against evidence

Witchcraft and Creationism are absolutely not the same

Do you believe that abortion clinics should be publicly run or privately run?

• Creationism should be taught in history or like witchcraft. 
  

Witchcraft and creationism are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Also, what do you mean by "in history". It's a relatively new phenomenon.

Ok what if I identify as an apricot and relate with the pronouns daddy and sir, are you going to respect my gender and call me those things from now on? 

I would say no to calling you daddy (this says more about you than transgenderism) but I would call you sir.

And as for identifying as an apricot, sure, if you have an apricot costume.

There are two genders - I do not accept Two-Spirit or Boi.

Isn't this largely a social construct, or matter of definition though? To say that there "are" two genders, or more than two, isn't it just a matter of opinion? I don't see how this can be decided objectively. It's a matter of how socially we decide to refer to people.

Taxing X person a higher percentage Y person means you are taking a larger portion of money from X person. X person's money was acquired through work. Work requires time, therefore, if you do not have X's permission yet you take more of X's money, you are taking their work which is taking their time which is slavery. 

The problem with this equation is the assumption that people who have money acquired it by work, and that there is a direct association between time worked and profit. In fact, it works almost the opposite way, since those who own capital no longer need to earn money directly though labour. Capitalists gain money through their investments and by their knowledge, not by working for a wage.

Systemic racism, defined as "a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organisation" does not exist because there is no explicit law which targets minorities. However, this definition is quiet counter productive - (most) BLM adherents are not arguing that laws are racist they are arguing that there is large scale racism.

I think it is more complicated than this, and that the laws can be implicitly biased without referring explicitly to race. I would agree that "racism" is a confusing term here, but we could say that the laws have implicit ethnic connotations. For example, imagine a law that banned jazz music and rap music, and only allowed classical and rock. This law does not target any minority, since anyone of any race can make whatever style of music they wish to. However, it is clear that this law would have implicit ethnic content, and that its effect would be to deepen racial divides.

I think on a debate site people can forget that a lot of this shit doesn't really matter at all. Or needn't matter much to them at least. Thoughts on that?

Why bother with beliefs on LGBT at all? The rest are pretty much fine, all a bit of a wank, but what of it. But your ideas on LGBT are antagonistic with nothing really coming back at you or provoking it. Why invest in such ideas at all?

Same goes for abortion. I mean, it doesn't really matter. It's an issue you're going out of your way to have an opinion about. It's not god, you don't believe in god. So, what?

• Children with gender dysphoria should not be allowed to transition. 
  

But why would anyone without dysphoria transition? Does this mean that people can only transition after reaching a certain age? 

What if someone dressed up in a turtle costume? Would they be a turtle? We would call them a turtle in any other context wouldn’t we? 

I would say woman is a gendered word. It relies on gendered characteristics, not biological ones such as a uterus. 

He did not want to have a debate with me on fair and reasonable terms. 

 I do however want a proper debate and to know that the person I am debating understands what a debate is and how it functions. One of the primary things about having a real debate is that parties can recognize when a decent argument arises - but also when they have been beaten fair and square

Other people having opinions

He could have phrased it better, but I don't think he had ill intent towards 'you, so much as your manner of conducting your debates, as he perceived them.

"Look, I don't want to hurt your feelings I think you're a cool dude. Your debates are garbage," - EtrnlVw, #14

I said 'I can understand how people might dislike formal debates,

Which was based on my 'own thoughts of how people in general might prefer not to formally debate themselves. Of EtrnlVw, I don't know his opinion towards debates,

His post appeared to imply your challenges as a juvenile p***ing contest

Ignoring arguments

It's possible to 'address an argument, while not acknowledging it's points, admitting fault in oneself.

My presentation

So EtrnlVw claims you like to threaten people with debates, when you could talk to them instead.

States he doesn't care for that behavior,

And your response to threaten him with a debate and imply that he is a "pussy." - Bones, #16 If he doesn't accept.

Eh

I suppose I can understand you taking offense at your debates being called garbage,