The little indented, shaded lines used for quoting a website or your opponent.
I cant show them in the comments section, i dont think, because i dont see the option
I want to apologize for missing the last argument. I was offline for more than 4 days and didn't have time to see your argument. Let's please attempt to continue this debate as if I didn't do something stupid. Forfeit the next round and I will refute your round 1 argument.
Sorry, didn't register your username.
Also, I love the flak in response to a legitimate point in any comment section and logging in today to see two new comments from the people I tagged made me happy.
then how come humans can intentionally and directly influence it?
Also, how can you prove the existence of a diety behind the opaqueness of a self-sufficient process?
1.) Since when does olive oil cure cancer?
2.) Apples provide nutrients, which is what the good cells rely on, but then, the bad cells feed on the good cells. Just because nutrients aren't given directly to the cells doesn't mean they don't get to them.
3.) If apples help our immune system, that doesn't mean god made them that way, it means that humans chose the right fruit. We bent around evolution, it didn't bend around us.
4.) You've gotten me riled up, and I want to challenge you for the same debate
>>lets say i stand in the water a little lake and over millions of years my feat adapted and turned into frog legs. what caused my feat to turn into frog was it the water. there is nothing there that would cause my feat to turn into frog legs. so how could that happen
That isn't how evolution works. If you, and say, 1000 other humans all stood around in that lake for millions of generations, and never breeded with or had interactions with other humans, then, while you would never see a change, when compared to your younger ancestor millions of years later, you would see a reasonable change that makes the newest generation more fit. You wouldn't see frog legs as feet, as that would probably not help, but you would see smaller feet, longer legs, and stronger swimming muscles.
Also, a human would be a bad example for this, as the intelligence we have evolved would suit us for almost all environments and let us adapt intuitively and quickly. If you took, instead, an actual frog, and put it in that lake with a bunch of others of the same species, but isolated it from the rest of the species, then those frogs would eventually produce a generation that fits the environment of the lake as well as possible.
Also, others dying out isn't the only way species evolve. There is also a case of not being able to breed as often. Dogs that shed in the summer and gain hair in the winter are best fit for the current season, and because of that, they get benefits:
1.) Become stronger than dogs burdened by a heavy coat in the heat
2.) Eat more and better with the adapted coat helping them catch food by not tiring them as much
3.) freeze to death less
4.) Generally become stronger and more fit than dogs that don't shed.
Not to insult, but this is taught in 9th grade biology thoroughly and is very certainly not a myth.
I know we aren't supposed to continue replying to each other but I want to prove there is no foul play here.
22 days ago, I was banned from voting because I continued to submit insufficient votes. Yesterday, I was messaged by virtuoso that I was allowed to vote again, so I picked the first debate I saw and voted on it. It still took me about half an hour to make my voting decision, as the debate was really long.
I admit I may have shortened what I meant about the arguments to a non understandable degree, but what I meant by sources was the argument DEBUNKING the sources provided.
By conscious, I mean it is able to manipulate itself (to a degree), and has instinctual but complex reactions to things.
Measuring brain activity is a primary way to tell if they have thoughts, and memories start to be formed and stick around 3-4 (Not that that means you can kill one after birth)
By function independently, I did not get my point across correctly. What I meant by that was a series of things (that I learned in bio) such as:
* Skin starts to harden and protect against light dust.
* Eyes gain clarity and can learn to recognize environments.
* Cardio-respiratory cycle runs on its own accord.
* Skeleton protects and reinforces child's brain and body
* Intestinal tract works, food is taken in through the mouth, processed, and defecated through the rear.
So thank you for the recommendation, but these things are definitely necessary for a child to be alive and growing for more than a couple minutes.
"A baby left on the delivery table will die if not fed by another human."
And a 10 year old will starve if left on the streets by their parents. We aren't completely self sufficient for the first 25 YEARS of our life, but we don't need to be protected with a second layer of skin and bone just to not die.
You did get me there. I see where I contradicted myself. I believe, for clarification, that it would be you'd have to have at least one of those things to be alive, because things that aren't alive (At least in this sense, ignoring the actual 9 or so things you need for your species to be classified as alive) have none of them.
For Dr Franklin, it would be punishing the woman for forcing her to have a baby from sex she didn't consent to, rather than avoiding punishing something that isn't yet a human being.
For guitar slinger, leaving the baby to die is infanticide, and I stated in my first argument that it is different from abortion. Also, the entire purpose of abortion is for couples that really don't want the child do prevent it from being born, not for couples who are on the fence long enough for the child to be born. I am not basing the right to life entirely on someone who loves them. As stated in my arguments, you are classified as alive when you are conscious (24-28 weeks in the womb), function independently (breathe and take nutrients), and have had thoughts/ memories. If a person has none of these things, either they are not alive or don't have reason to live. I bring the same thing to a hypothetical person outside the womb. If they were born brain-dead, require machines for all functions to stay alive, and have nobody willing to pay their medical bills or even visit them, they will be considered non-valuable. A living corpse, basically. In this case, even the hospitals would find it easier to pull the plug, with the final nail (Not the entire reason, just the last one) being that nobody loves or wants them.
Sorry for confusing formatting, couldn't find a good spot for a paragraph break.
(2/2)
Another solution is using GPS to shut down all firearms in proximity/visual range of possible targets. Shut them down in cities, shut them down within 2000 feet of schools. Make the system that shuts the gun down essential to the gun being able to fire in the first place, so it cant be removed. This method will prevent all school shootings if done right. There would still be shootings outside of schools, but an advanced tracking system can let police catch and prevent past and future criminals.
(Future criminals meaning, hypothetically, a 12 year old boy stole his dad's magnum to take revenge on the gang that jumped and killed his older brother by stabbing him to death. A notification is sent to the dad's phone, the dad reports that he didn't take the gun out of his safe, the gun is tracked, and police show up and arrest the boy before he shoots at a crowd of people with the gang members inside.)
The solution to gun violence isn't more guns. Take away weapons that can be used against crowds with ease, track and mark all guns, prepare for the worst and hope for the best, and prevent crimes before they happen.
(1/2)
Looking at the hypothetical, cops have a history of shooting before asking questions. Maybe not all cops do this, but there are certainly some itchy trigger fingers in the force. If a teacher panics even a little and starts shooting on site, they might shoot at a cop, which will cause a firefight between two people on the same side, which might lead to unnecessary injury. Having bright red guns that are tracked and acknowledged in a shooting will help cops determine who the shooter is by more than just body language. Also, I am curious, how many teachers would be armed?
For an example, we can use my school. there's a separate gym building, some portables in a cluster, and 6 pods. There are also classes along many of the in-between halls. There are roughly 2000 students all dispersed among these places at any given time. If the shooter times their attack when everyone is in class, there may be many undefended classrooms "ripe for the picking"
On the other hand, this could be entirely negated if the shooter learned the schedule and struck at lunch or between classes. The teachers would be in their classrooms, but the students would all be in the halls and outside.
Obviously, you can't arm every teacher, because only trained and trusted teachers can have a gun. Even if you had a dozen armed teachers, there are still some weak points that can't be defended.
In the name of solutions, let's consider how this might work.
Cons:
If seen, teachers could be shot by cops who mistakenly believe the teacher is the shooter
The teacher is the one to commit the shooting, and being armed and in school makes it so much easier for them.
The only thing safer than bullets going one way, (Through walls, ricochets, accidental hits) Is bullets going two ways.
Pros:
Adept teachers can quickly put down a shooter if they are able.
there are two armed cops at my school that could put down a shooter (and are redundant to have at least one defender in the event)
Jobs for veterans
Solutions: Armed teachers get bright red custom guns
Armed teachers' weapons are tracked and acknowleged in a shooting.
Guns can only be used by teachers. (Special code or fingerprint ID or something)
Guns can only be loaded by pressing a button that warns the police.
Guns are non-lethal and stun/disable/bind shooters instead of killing them.
Personally I think there might be a technological solution. Certain "safe spots" that shut guns down in areas near schools, guns that only work for the registered owners, guns that track when and how they are fired, but not where, and many more solutions.
What I meant by this is not that the algorithm should be increased or decreased, I mean it should be changed. The youtubers that are "idiots" getting popular is a direct effect of the algorithm being too harsh and only allowing child-friendly content. The idiot youtubers would then fall out through natural community selection, rather than being censored by the algorithm. An example of this is N&A productions, which receives a like-dislike ratio averaging 1-8, as well as multiple viral hate comments and two hate videos. (Which ARE hate but are also totally legitimate, not being hateful for race or accent but instead being hateful for content.)
If youtube were to open up the algorithm and change around the requirements to get on hot, N&A would still be monetized, but other deserving youtubers would earn their spots in trending. My argument is very clear to me, but I probably didn't get it across quite right, so hopefully that will be enough to clarify.
If I took this debate, I would be arguing the point that god doesn't exist. If the instigator is arguing the same thing, I don't want to make the mistake of taking the debate.
ah, my friend, you forget Albus Severus Potter, who was, like his father and namesake, a very bright, cunning boy willing to do anything to reach his goals, yet not forsaking friendship along the way.
I would, but I'm on a school laptop and imageflip is the only unblocked site I can link to. I am not taking my memes from that site, though. I am making them and then posting them to the site and linking the site to this site.
The little indented, shaded lines used for quoting a website or your opponent.
I cant show them in the comments section, i dont think, because i dont see the option
I want to apologize for missing the last argument. I was offline for more than 4 days and didn't have time to see your argument. Let's please attempt to continue this debate as if I didn't do something stupid. Forfeit the next round and I will refute your round 1 argument.
Break it up you three, I am the person who is arguing here.
I am going to take this debate to test my own skill.
I am an atheist, but arguing other people's points can really help me get better at arguing.
Sorry, didn't register your username.
Also, I love the flak in response to a legitimate point in any comment section and logging in today to see two new comments from the people I tagged made me happy.
then how come humans can intentionally and directly influence it?
Also, how can you prove the existence of a diety behind the opaqueness of a self-sufficient process?
here is a picture of an animal with 5 legs. Guess what? It has a handicap that decreases it's ability to survive.
https://imgflip.com/i/334cb7
1.) Since when does olive oil cure cancer?
2.) Apples provide nutrients, which is what the good cells rely on, but then, the bad cells feed on the good cells. Just because nutrients aren't given directly to the cells doesn't mean they don't get to them.
3.) If apples help our immune system, that doesn't mean god made them that way, it means that humans chose the right fruit. We bent around evolution, it didn't bend around us.
4.) You've gotten me riled up, and I want to challenge you for the same debate
>>lets say i stand in the water a little lake and over millions of years my feat adapted and turned into frog legs. what caused my feat to turn into frog was it the water. there is nothing there that would cause my feat to turn into frog legs. so how could that happen
That isn't how evolution works. If you, and say, 1000 other humans all stood around in that lake for millions of generations, and never breeded with or had interactions with other humans, then, while you would never see a change, when compared to your younger ancestor millions of years later, you would see a reasonable change that makes the newest generation more fit. You wouldn't see frog legs as feet, as that would probably not help, but you would see smaller feet, longer legs, and stronger swimming muscles.
Also, a human would be a bad example for this, as the intelligence we have evolved would suit us for almost all environments and let us adapt intuitively and quickly. If you took, instead, an actual frog, and put it in that lake with a bunch of others of the same species, but isolated it from the rest of the species, then those frogs would eventually produce a generation that fits the environment of the lake as well as possible.
Also, others dying out isn't the only way species evolve. There is also a case of not being able to breed as often. Dogs that shed in the summer and gain hair in the winter are best fit for the current season, and because of that, they get benefits:
1.) Become stronger than dogs burdened by a heavy coat in the heat
2.) Eat more and better with the adapted coat helping them catch food by not tiring them as much
3.) freeze to death less
4.) Generally become stronger and more fit than dogs that don't shed.
Not to insult, but this is taught in 9th grade biology thoroughly and is very certainly not a myth.
Fuck, you know you got some hardcore marvel fans when you put a Stan Lee cameo in an online debate.
Just commenting out into the blue: If people aren't careful, the age of consent could be raised to 25
2 hours left dude, I don't want to have another FF win
I know we aren't supposed to continue replying to each other but I want to prove there is no foul play here.
22 days ago, I was banned from voting because I continued to submit insufficient votes. Yesterday, I was messaged by virtuoso that I was allowed to vote again, so I picked the first debate I saw and voted on it. It still took me about half an hour to make my voting decision, as the debate was really long.
I admit I may have shortened what I meant about the arguments to a non understandable degree, but what I meant by sources was the argument DEBUNKING the sources provided.
I will submit my first argument tommorrow
Wait, nevermind, it actually was an error oops
1.) I hate you for intentionally choosing an error as your profile pic.
2.) lol hulk smesh
Get removed my guy lol
No U
Oh I see it, nevermind
I want to point out that Con cherry picked my argument in the third round. I said:
"For people to learn this, they would've had to monitor a baby as it was being aborted, which would probably be more evil than the abortion itself. "
then followed it with:
"But in the spirit of the argument, I will also refute this. "
and gave my rebuttal.
Con only provided rebuttal for the first quote, and ignored the rest.
(Vote Pro)
The bible may teach that, but does that automatically mean it's true?
One day left
By conscious, I mean it is able to manipulate itself (to a degree), and has instinctual but complex reactions to things.
Measuring brain activity is a primary way to tell if they have thoughts, and memories start to be formed and stick around 3-4 (Not that that means you can kill one after birth)
By function independently, I did not get my point across correctly. What I meant by that was a series of things (that I learned in bio) such as:
* Skin starts to harden and protect against light dust.
* Eyes gain clarity and can learn to recognize environments.
* Cardio-respiratory cycle runs on its own accord.
* Skeleton protects and reinforces child's brain and body
* Intestinal tract works, food is taken in through the mouth, processed, and defecated through the rear.
So thank you for the recommendation, but these things are definitely necessary for a child to be alive and growing for more than a couple minutes.
"A baby left on the delivery table will die if not fed by another human."
And a 10 year old will starve if left on the streets by their parents. We aren't completely self sufficient for the first 25 YEARS of our life, but we don't need to be protected with a second layer of skin and bone just to not die.
You did get me there. I see where I contradicted myself. I believe, for clarification, that it would be you'd have to have at least one of those things to be alive, because things that aren't alive (At least in this sense, ignoring the actual 9 or so things you need for your species to be classified as alive) have none of them.
For Dr Franklin, it would be punishing the woman for forcing her to have a baby from sex she didn't consent to, rather than avoiding punishing something that isn't yet a human being.
For guitar slinger, leaving the baby to die is infanticide, and I stated in my first argument that it is different from abortion. Also, the entire purpose of abortion is for couples that really don't want the child do prevent it from being born, not for couples who are on the fence long enough for the child to be born. I am not basing the right to life entirely on someone who loves them. As stated in my arguments, you are classified as alive when you are conscious (24-28 weeks in the womb), function independently (breathe and take nutrients), and have had thoughts/ memories. If a person has none of these things, either they are not alive or don't have reason to live. I bring the same thing to a hypothetical person outside the womb. If they were born brain-dead, require machines for all functions to stay alive, and have nobody willing to pay their medical bills or even visit them, they will be considered non-valuable. A living corpse, basically. In this case, even the hospitals would find it easier to pull the plug, with the final nail (Not the entire reason, just the last one) being that nobody loves or wants them.
Sorry for confusing formatting, couldn't find a good spot for a paragraph break.
And that means 1% are, so it should be granted to those cases.
I would like to argue this on either side because it seems pretty interesting.
I just had PE and I'm exhausted so I'm gonna stop arguing with you and save my written rants for my contender. Your points are all valid though
(2/2)
Another solution is using GPS to shut down all firearms in proximity/visual range of possible targets. Shut them down in cities, shut them down within 2000 feet of schools. Make the system that shuts the gun down essential to the gun being able to fire in the first place, so it cant be removed. This method will prevent all school shootings if done right. There would still be shootings outside of schools, but an advanced tracking system can let police catch and prevent past and future criminals.
(Future criminals meaning, hypothetically, a 12 year old boy stole his dad's magnum to take revenge on the gang that jumped and killed his older brother by stabbing him to death. A notification is sent to the dad's phone, the dad reports that he didn't take the gun out of his safe, the gun is tracked, and police show up and arrest the boy before he shoots at a crowd of people with the gang members inside.)
The solution to gun violence isn't more guns. Take away weapons that can be used against crowds with ease, track and mark all guns, prepare for the worst and hope for the best, and prevent crimes before they happen.
(1/2)
Looking at the hypothetical, cops have a history of shooting before asking questions. Maybe not all cops do this, but there are certainly some itchy trigger fingers in the force. If a teacher panics even a little and starts shooting on site, they might shoot at a cop, which will cause a firefight between two people on the same side, which might lead to unnecessary injury. Having bright red guns that are tracked and acknowledged in a shooting will help cops determine who the shooter is by more than just body language. Also, I am curious, how many teachers would be armed?
For an example, we can use my school. there's a separate gym building, some portables in a cluster, and 6 pods. There are also classes along many of the in-between halls. There are roughly 2000 students all dispersed among these places at any given time. If the shooter times their attack when everyone is in class, there may be many undefended classrooms "ripe for the picking"
On the other hand, this could be entirely negated if the shooter learned the schedule and struck at lunch or between classes. The teachers would be in their classrooms, but the students would all be in the halls and outside.
Obviously, you can't arm every teacher, because only trained and trusted teachers can have a gun. Even if you had a dozen armed teachers, there are still some weak points that can't be defended.
Physically impossible for most of them to be terrorists, much less all of them.
There aren't two pro options, but I am not taking a right or left wing solution, instead I am arguing my own solution versus either option
In the name of solutions, let's consider how this might work.
Cons:
If seen, teachers could be shot by cops who mistakenly believe the teacher is the shooter
The teacher is the one to commit the shooting, and being armed and in school makes it so much easier for them.
The only thing safer than bullets going one way, (Through walls, ricochets, accidental hits) Is bullets going two ways.
Pros:
Adept teachers can quickly put down a shooter if they are able.
there are two armed cops at my school that could put down a shooter (and are redundant to have at least one defender in the event)
Jobs for veterans
Solutions: Armed teachers get bright red custom guns
Armed teachers' weapons are tracked and acknowleged in a shooting.
Guns can only be used by teachers. (Special code or fingerprint ID or something)
Guns can only be loaded by pressing a button that warns the police.
Guns are non-lethal and stun/disable/bind shooters instead of killing them.
Personally I think there might be a technological solution. Certain "safe spots" that shut guns down in areas near schools, guns that only work for the registered owners, guns that track when and how they are fired, but not where, and many more solutions.
can you make another of this debate? I want to argue the points of atheism.
I guess, technically. In my case, the Legends Never Die remix would be viable.
Will do.
Ah! I'm sorry! Can I forfeit or withdraw or something? Or should we change it to Seven Lions Vs. Alan Walker?
Stop! Thief! I will get the weeaboo police force on you!
I will take this debate, and argue that Alan Walker is a better EDM creator than Seven Lions.
Thank you for the vote, it really made my day to see I got my points across in the perspective of another user.
What I meant by this is not that the algorithm should be increased or decreased, I mean it should be changed. The youtubers that are "idiots" getting popular is a direct effect of the algorithm being too harsh and only allowing child-friendly content. The idiot youtubers would then fall out through natural community selection, rather than being censored by the algorithm. An example of this is N&A productions, which receives a like-dislike ratio averaging 1-8, as well as multiple viral hate comments and two hate videos. (Which ARE hate but are also totally legitimate, not being hateful for race or accent but instead being hateful for content.)
If youtube were to open up the algorithm and change around the requirements to get on hot, N&A would still be monetized, but other deserving youtubers would earn their spots in trending. My argument is very clear to me, but I probably didn't get it across quite right, so hopefully that will be enough to clarify.
If I took this debate, I would be arguing the point that god doesn't exist. If the instigator is arguing the same thing, I don't want to make the mistake of taking the debate.
I can't disable votes but we can disregard them
I support con, but I'm not sure if the instigator is con or pro
You got me there. Generally, they are correctly represented, but universally, no. Same as you might have nice Nazis or mean gay people.
It's imageflip. Just follow the links. The app I'm using to make the memes is photoshop
ah, my friend, you forget Albus Severus Potter, who was, like his father and namesake, a very bright, cunning boy willing to do anything to reach his goals, yet not forsaking friendship along the way.
I would, but I'm on a school laptop and imageflip is the only unblocked site I can link to. I am not taking my memes from that site, though. I am making them and then posting them to the site and linking the site to this site.
Yes hello fellow birds