Disabled children typically have person hood. Person hood is the ability to desire continued existence.
Killing a person is wrong because they desire continued existence. Infants younger than one month do not desire continued existence and are not persons
Disabled children typically have person hood. Person hood is the ability to desire continued existence.
Killing a person is wrong because they desire continued existence. Infants younger than one month do not desire continued existence and are not persons
I think you better reread that. Either that or I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I don't recall being pro life or pro euthanasia or moving the goalposts. I said you can cross examine me as well, so feel free to ask me for clarification on anything in the comments
Why in round one did con suggest a replacement definition that was exactly the same as the original definition but with different words to say the exact same thing
You literally say "that" is not what "that" means after I make like 10 statements between 2 posts. It is impossible to just figure out what "that" means
You said nobody would choose to be gay because of the persecution we receive.
You seem to think that we are morally inferior and that the persecution is not worth it.
Persecution is always worth choosing to face, if you are making the right decision. Even if homosexuality is a morally neutral position facing the persecution to help future homos is worth it.
However, we are superior to breeders and therefore if homosexuality is a choice, it is clearly unethical to choose to be straight.
If you are gay, you need to stop self hating. It's okay to be gay, in fact it is better to be gay and I don't care how anti straight I sound. It is worth any persecution to be gay. We have more happiness than straights, a higher average income than straights, we have the benefit of knowing we are not destroying the environment like breeders do. Even if I wasn't gay naturally, I would absolutely put myself in some sort of Gay bootcamp to pray the heteronormativity away.
I was actually thinking of the environmental impacts of children, and facts do not care about your feelings. You'll just have to accept us gays are morally superior to breeders.
That is where you are wrong. It is ethically superior to be a homosexual. Procreation is immoral and by choosing homosexuality you are actually helping around born kids to live in a better world. Being gay is heroic and should be encouraged.
I try to avoid reading debates until they are done. You seemed to apply that if homosexuality is a choice, somehow admitting it would be marginalizing the persecution we face. I think if it is a choice, it would make us that choose homosexuality more heroic
The issue with standard of living is that it doesn't take into consideration things like happiness to name just one. Quality of life would allow more room to debate things like happiness as well as some arguments on suffering I won't get into unless we debate
No, you don't. You should have reread. You are complaining about your recent losses while simultaneously failing to make an effort to understand your opponent's arguments. I read your argument like 5 times, and kept reviewing them over and over to make sure my arguments worked against and with yours. You read mine once. Thaw average person only retains 20% of what they read after the initial reading. Not a good strategy
Just concede if you are going to half ass your arguments and post rebuttals ten minutes after your opponent made his argument. I am frustrated with you for the quick response which didn't allow you to digest what I posted
Why did you just put women in the title of the debate? Is it your opinion men have no place in the discussion as to whether a new born should be murdered or not? Seems kinda sexist to me.
Your argument in the debate is that killing a 4th trimester baby would make it easy to kill adults. Is liberty more important than life, is that why you claim that it is okay for a mother to murder the unborn child?
What do you think should happen to a person who kills their baby after it is born as opposed to before hand. (If it is only like the day after it is born or something)?
Genius move to do a 500 character argument to fool you opponent into similar laziness and the wallop them in round two with a well researched 30k character argument in round 2
Your welcome, but I probably won't vote. I am too biased. The only way I would probably vote in your favor, is if you just completely demolished your opponent. Like not even debatavle, he was just absolutely crushed. That rarely happens in these types of debates
I hate trump with every fiber of my being. I am not sure I can vote fairly but I will try. So hard to be unbiased when voting on a modern day figure of hate. Good luck to both of you
The elites have distracted all of you away from economics, so you can continue to be abused by the oligarchy. The reason why ccupy walstreet failed is because of identity politics. It was a grassroots left-wing and right-wing movement and then was coopted by SJWs to distract you, and you guys are still falling for it. Your enemy is the 1% . Not "muh whites who are all rich and oppress me" or "muh minorities who want free stuff". Get your act together
I am about to post my argument. If you can please wait until the last minute to post yours. If you can't wait, no big deal. It's just a simple request but I will request voters give you a conduct point if you do that in all remaining rounds
Please wait until the last second to post your argument if you can. I will request the voters give you the conduct point if you hold off until the last minute
Disabled children typically have person hood. Person hood is the ability to desire continued existence.
Killing a person is wrong because they desire continued existence. Infants younger than one month do not desire continued existence and are not persons
Disabled children typically have person hood. Person hood is the ability to desire continued existence.
Killing a person is wrong because they desire continued existence. Infants younger than one month do not desire continued existence and are not persons
I think you better reread that. Either that or I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I don't recall being pro life or pro euthanasia or moving the goalposts. I said you can cross examine me as well, so feel free to ask me for clarification on anything in the comments
Your welcome. Looking forward to it
Why in round one did con suggest a replacement definition that was exactly the same as the original definition but with different words to say the exact same thing
You literally say "that" is not what "that" means after I make like 10 statements between 2 posts. It is impossible to just figure out what "that" means
We weren't discussing if people can choose to be gay. We are discussing the ramifications of that being true or somebody believing that.
What is not what that means.. please elaborate. I'm confused
Which thing do you "feel" is made up?
The weaker edge
"Attraction is a social construct and it is racist to not be attracted to minorities"
Also weakeredge
"Who you are attracted to is not a choice"
You said nobody would choose to be gay because of the persecution we receive.
You seem to think that we are morally inferior and that the persecution is not worth it.
Persecution is always worth choosing to face, if you are making the right decision. Even if homosexuality is a morally neutral position facing the persecution to help future homos is worth it.
However, we are superior to breeders and therefore if homosexuality is a choice, it is clearly unethical to choose to be straight.
If you are gay, you need to stop self hating. It's okay to be gay, in fact it is better to be gay and I don't care how anti straight I sound. It is worth any persecution to be gay. We have more happiness than straights, a higher average income than straights, we have the benefit of knowing we are not destroying the environment like breeders do. Even if I wasn't gay naturally, I would absolutely put myself in some sort of Gay bootcamp to pray the heteronormativity away.
I was actually thinking of the environmental impacts of children, and facts do not care about your feelings. You'll just have to accept us gays are morally superior to breeders.
That is where you are wrong. It is ethically superior to be a homosexual. Procreation is immoral and by choosing homosexuality you are actually helping around born kids to live in a better world. Being gay is heroic and should be encouraged.
I try to avoid reading debates until they are done. You seemed to apply that if homosexuality is a choice, somehow admitting it would be marginalizing the persecution we face. I think if it is a choice, it would make us that choose homosexuality more heroic
The issue with standard of living is that it doesn't take into consideration things like happiness to name just one. Quality of life would allow more room to debate things like happiness as well as some arguments on suffering I won't get into unless we debate
Interesting. Why do you think choosing struggle and persecution for what you love is less heroic than being thrust into that situation by genetics?
Thank you.
Would thinking heterosexuality a choice make you heterophobic?
Does it change if it is bigoted if it is also true?
If you win this, please challenge me on the same topic
Actually BOP was not evenly split, so I should have given arguments to RM, but I don't think it matters too much
If he changes standard of living to quality of life I might accept..
Please be up in a few hours, because my R2 will be up tonight. Normally I would require the entire 48 hours for research but you made no effort
No, you don't. You should have reread. You are complaining about your recent losses while simultaneously failing to make an effort to understand your opponent's arguments. I read your argument like 5 times, and kept reviewing them over and over to make sure my arguments worked against and with yours. You read mine once. Thaw average person only retains 20% of what they read after the initial reading. Not a good strategy
Just concede if you are going to half ass your arguments and post rebuttals ten minutes after your opponent made his argument. I am frustrated with you for the quick response which didn't allow you to digest what I posted
I have off tomorrow and will be up several more hours. Hit me with as many questions as you want
This is ultimately a freedom of speech debate. My gut tells me that the holocaust we not be mentioned much at all past the first portion of round one
Sad, but beyond belief is good
Is that picture the guy from beyond belief or the one from star trek?
Why did you just put women in the title of the debate? Is it your opinion men have no place in the discussion as to whether a new born should be murdered or not? Seems kinda sexist to me.
Why manslaughter and not first degree murder? Manslaughter means that the killing is a foreseeable accident.
Your argument in the debate is that killing a 4th trimester baby would make it easy to kill adults. Is liberty more important than life, is that why you claim that it is okay for a mother to murder the unborn child?
What do you think should happen to a person who kills their baby after it is born as opposed to before hand. (If it is only like the day after it is born or something)?
Violating the baby's liberty to not exist?
Can I cross examine you in the comments please?
I would like to know why you agree that women should be allowed to abort their babies,prior to the fourth trimester?
Are you really arguing that abortions are the same as the holocaust? Be they 4th trimester or not?
Explain please
I am pro choice, but not this pro choice. It will be fun to argue anyway
Genius move to do a 500 character argument to fool you opponent into similar laziness and the wallop them in round two with a well researched 30k character argument in round 2
Your welcome, but I probably won't vote. I am too biased. The only way I would probably vote in your favor, is if you just completely demolished your opponent. Like not even debatavle, he was just absolutely crushed. That rarely happens in these types of debates
I hate trump with every fiber of my being. I am not sure I can vote fairly but I will try. So hard to be unbiased when voting on a modern day figure of hate. Good luck to both of you
My thread on the main forum explains why I agree with pro for anybody interested
TLDR I agree with pro
I actually love Jews. I am a marxist and then have been very beneficial at spreading our message
Personal attack
The elites have distracted all of you away from economics, so you can continue to be abused by the oligarchy. The reason why ccupy walstreet failed is because of identity politics. It was a grassroots left-wing and right-wing movement and then was coopted by SJWs to distract you, and you guys are still falling for it. Your enemy is the 1% . Not "muh whites who are all rich and oppress me" or "muh minorities who want free stuff". Get your act together
I am about to post my argument. If you can please wait until the last minute to post yours. If you can't wait, no big deal. It's just a simple request but I will request voters give you a conduct point if you do that in all remaining rounds
Please wait until the last second to post your argument if you can. I will request the voters give you the conduct point if you hold off until the last minute
Your asking con to prove a negative in the description. It's an unfair burden. This is like when Christians ask atheists to prove God does not exist
Actually the definition you have seems fine