But my bias is in FAVOR of pro.
NONETHELESS, I have to aknowledge that con has won that because of the way pro phrased his resolution. The pay gap, as a statistic, DOES exist, even though it accounts for nothing and is no example of patriarchy.
Con pointed this one out with his first argument, well done!
Pro could HAVE np arguments, because he was doomed to lose from the very resolution. Resolution proves con right, i can't physically provide any point with either of them
Barney's answer in the coments is so brief, that everything he has written seems like a logical falalcy (unless he explains more).
I will just briefly answer one specifci part.
"When you're literally talking about the Federal Government doing something so widespread, you don't get more systemic than that."
The federal government is not one organism and being. In reality, A TINY TINY TINY percentage of EMPLOYESS (either higher in the ranks or not) were responsible for the 0.06 cent deficit in the governmental industry.
What's more, any federal employess that were discovered doing something like this were tried and convicted if proven guilty.
So. Jews started believing in Yahweh. We, christians, truthfully believe that the God came to earth as jesus. Ok, from then on; Muslims DO STILL Prey to Yahweh, however, they falsely believe that He, for whatever reason, would still write a thrid book and use another prophet. All in all, muslims believe in the One True God, but falsely apply characteristics, holy books and prophets to Him. So the Qur'an is still false monsieur.
1) In the OT (recognised by Hebrews), the lord is named Yahweh.
2) In both the old and new Testament (christian), the lord is name Yawheh. However, we christians believe that this God is a trinity. Nonetheless, we still pray to the same god, since he is included in the OT, which is included in our canon.
3) Muslims claim that the Qur'an is the third and final god written version of the previous two (and still soemwhat holy) books, OT and NT. Arabic Christian bibles dedicated for Arab Christians name god as "Allah". Allah literally means "God". It isn't yet another name like Zeus for example.
From all this, we can find out that all three Abrahamic religions believe in the same God, however, me, as a christian, I believe we have interpreted him the best out of the three religions.
In case anyone is interested, here is what my reply to Barney's R1 would have been. Had I been able to meet the deadline, this debate would have DEFINITELY been won by me. Not only is this a beautiful argument, but my R3 is also devastating for his point...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Lw64EMSFLfND9KgmsXuqhx63vggSCDx1FelvY6j4ghU/edit
It is a shame that he HAS to win it because I forfeited one round too many... (2 to be exact)
BARNEY'S R5 should not be trusted. They make a claim that they not prove, besides the fact that abortion is murder.
Also, his R4 is also weak, since he doesn't disrpove how exactly one can measure all the variables jointly, he just says it CAN BE by a "skilled" statistic analysist.
A) Who defines "skilled"
B) How in the world can they do that? You cannot!!!
@Sir.Lancelot
We can both drop this debate and create a new one, as we both have forfeited rounds (me 2 of them, you 1).
And this will end in a tie.
New debate will have SIMILAR topic, not the same, and I will make you the contender. If you want you can accept it. I just want to note that there is no point in continuing this since to many forfeitures have already happened...
A) We are talking specifically about the god of the abrahamic religions, but any being that created the universe (for example yahweh) is suitable. However, since Pluto for example does not appear to have created the universe, he is out of the picture.
NOTE: If we continue this debate and, despite my forfeiture, any of the voters believe I am the winner, feel free to vote for me. However, as it isn't right to forfeit, I consider myself lost, even though I (consider myself to) have better arguments.
hey you did a mistake. it is better we both drop all of our rounds, because it is just 2 arguments for each and you have wasted one of your own. It's better for you to create a 4-5 round debate, same resolution and BoP, so as you drop your R1 argument and I drop my R4 or R5 argument in order for both os us to have three to 4 full debating rounds...
and make the world limit 30.000 because it will be a long read...
1) If you can provide a source, I might change my mind.
2) this "may" is key here nonetheless.
3) too small sample nonetheless
4) even if all this is true, it still is true that the vast majority of trans individuals are so due to
a) being mentally ill
b) having suffered trauma
c) being "trendy", yes that is a thing.
YET it doesn't disprove my case, even if it were true. You CAN'T actually change your sex, no matter what you do and there is no need for you to try to change your physical appearance (SEX) to reflect more of your mental state. I mean, it is paradoxical that the same people who cry that it is different (sex and gender), change one to match the other...
QUESTION: What did I do to prove I'm a bad Christian?
QUESTION: When did I disagree with you? I absolutely agree.
NOTE: There are varying degress of faith, I just recently got involved with religion, previous agnostic.
NOTE: Relax, I'm 14 and people like you paint a bad picture of faithful individiuals. Respectfully.
NOTE: Not only most women are not AS capable as men at being leaders, most women also don't have the desire/will to rise at the top in the first place.
"God is real". And my burden of proof won't be to PROVE that god is real, something impossible by human methods. My BoP will be to disprove any other possibilities (example: atheism), and thus it will be logically deducted that God is real, by necessity.
I would like the resolution to be changed. This is a bait resolution that pro can't prove. Proving His existence is not possible and is also different from whether or God really exists. We know he exists because of logical thinking and the lack of any other possibilities (i.g. that all this is natural, uncreated, something impossible). HOWEVER, to PROVE something you have to use scientific measure which is fallible in this case. Science refers to something physical, something that obeys laws of physics, while God is eternal, uncreated, omnipresent, immaterial, all-knowing and isn't bound to any restrictions.
There is something in the brain that determines SEXUAL ORIENTATION. It is perfectly natural to be gay, although rarer.
There is no scientific proof that (Sexual identity) transgenderism/gender dysphoria is attributable to biology, although it can be attributed to mental illness.
1) In case you can change your vote, I believe you have to do it for the following reasons;
@AleutianTexan
1) In the resolution, I said trans people ARE delusional. I didn't say that trans people WILL BE delusional.
2) In ally my syllogisms and further arguments I used present tenses ONLY.
All these, if not providing a rock solid time framework, at least VERY VERY HEAVILY imply it.
Finally, the fact that con had to turn to arguments based around the time the debate is happening, it is only fair to say that I my arguments couldn't be disproven by them. Doesn't that make my case superior and am I not worth an extra point?
If you disagree about my definition of women, then you should consider that beings who can't drive SELF-DENTIFY as women, so if you do not agree that they are women, you are a BIGOT!
1. just leave it
2. an illness is still a... "unique characteristic"(trait)(unique in the sense of not being normal and only held by few people)of a person, even though it is not positive. And yes homosexuality is BOTH a trait and a practice, otherwise gay people would be asexual, not having intercourse. If it was only a trait, it would be bad to say it is wrong. Since it is also a practice, however, their arguments remains valid.
(I personally don't think being gay is bad, there are some exceptions where it is bad, bored to go into detail).
What does drop a point mean? Assuming it means don't support it well, I would say he hasn't dropped it, it is a valid explanation that when something disrupts the function of an individual, it is wrong. And I do agree with his definition of disorder.(oh no "their" definition because God forbid we assume their gender lol Oh and did I JUST REFERENCE GOD?) (sorry not trying to be cocky, just voicing my concerns over wokeness).
And what you said about how people with various illnesses did not CHOOSE to have these illnesses, however they can be defined as wrong, I reply;
1) It isn't wrong to be sick
2) Homosexuality is a PRACTICE. An ilness is a TRAIT. Homosexuality is the ACTUAL PRACTICE of something that disrupts a human's behavior and function. In that sense, con is tottaly right.
HOWEVER, I personally Do believe that homosexuality is wrong but I also believe that no one has the right to stop these people to do whatever they want in their HOUSES (not some pride parades). Afterall, we live in a free country, well you at least 'cause I live in greece
Well, although con has done a pretty good job so far, they have failed to portray if correlation between HIV and homosexuality is also a causation. It could be that the CHOICES of gays (during sex) make them more vulnerable to HIV and not that just by practicing homosexual intercourse, gays are more likely to catch it.
I believe men and women are on balance equal and should be treated as such.
That is precisely why I am NOT a feminist.
I am an MRA.
Also, most feminists do not hate men willingly, tey are tricked into it by feminism and are misinformed.
E.G. the famous pay gap that doesn't exist.
I choose con. Oh, and please put a conservative debate so I have to go against my own belief lol.
but as i said, not too big of a topic, as it is only 1000 words and for fun
1. they still have different PERSONALITIES, which makes them unique
2. They still have at least ONE piece od DNA, which makes them UNIQUE. One unique piece of DNA is enough for a person to be considered unique and thus for someone else to be morally wrong to kill them.
No matter how many zillions of factions there are, they are all man-haters, since ALL feminist factions have at least this ONE common belief;
There is a patriarchy aimed at benefitting men and subjugating women.
Anyone who believes this is a feminist, and therefore a man-hater, or at least are ignorant.
*Vote pro*.
THE REST OF THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO INFLUENCE THE VOTING PROCESS, JUST MY AFTERTHOUGHTS.
--------------
First of all,
I SAID that english ain't my first language and I'm pracitsing it. So, by delusional AND dillusional I imagined they both meant "believe in a lie".
AGAIN, since con doesn't have any argument and refers to technicalities and word mistakes in my part, I WOULD BE forced to surrender.
Also, con said that there is NO way for me to prove, even in the PRESENT, that gender transition surgeries can't actually change ones gender and brings up the multiverse as an example. Well, in ORDER to PROVE or DISPROVE something, it has to exist. As we know of, the multiverse does not exist, nor does the future (yet). From what we DO know of, NO gender transition surgery can change a person's gender/sex.
Finally, the point con made about nordic countries and how my definition's parameters could be examined independently, I have to say this.
Nordic countries and trans people is is NO way the same or a similar example.
A more close example to the case of being trans would be;
To be human, you have to possess human dna AND be of the nature to produce a gamete AND have 46 chromosomes AND have one heart etc.
If you were a being with all the above but with 30 chromosomes, you would not be human.
But my bias is in FAVOR of pro.
NONETHELESS, I have to aknowledge that con has won that because of the way pro phrased his resolution. The pay gap, as a statistic, DOES exist, even though it accounts for nothing and is no example of patriarchy.
Con pointed this one out with his first argument, well done!
Pro could HAVE np arguments, because he was doomed to lose from the very resolution. Resolution proves con right, i can't physically provide any point with either of them
Barney's answer in the coments is so brief, that everything he has written seems like a logical falalcy (unless he explains more).
I will just briefly answer one specifci part.
"When you're literally talking about the Federal Government doing something so widespread, you don't get more systemic than that."
The federal government is not one organism and being. In reality, A TINY TINY TINY percentage of EMPLOYESS (either higher in the ranks or not) were responsible for the 0.06 cent deficit in the governmental industry.
What's more, any federal employess that were discovered doing something like this were tried and convicted if proven guilty.
Oh God the logical fallacies at play here!
ok.
So. Jews started believing in Yahweh. We, christians, truthfully believe that the God came to earth as jesus. Ok, from then on; Muslims DO STILL Prey to Yahweh, however, they falsely believe that He, for whatever reason, would still write a thrid book and use another prophet. All in all, muslims believe in the One True God, but falsely apply characteristics, holy books and prophets to Him. So the Qur'an is still false monsieur.
1) In the OT (recognised by Hebrews), the lord is named Yahweh.
2) In both the old and new Testament (christian), the lord is name Yawheh. However, we christians believe that this God is a trinity. Nonetheless, we still pray to the same god, since he is included in the OT, which is included in our canon.
3) Muslims claim that the Qur'an is the third and final god written version of the previous two (and still soemwhat holy) books, OT and NT. Arabic Christian bibles dedicated for Arab Christians name god as "Allah". Allah literally means "God". It isn't yet another name like Zeus for example.
From all this, we can find out that all three Abrahamic religions believe in the same God, however, me, as a christian, I believe we have interpreted him the best out of the three religions.
In case anyone is interested, here is what my reply to Barney's R1 would have been. Had I been able to meet the deadline, this debate would have DEFINITELY been won by me. Not only is this a beautiful argument, but my R3 is also devastating for his point...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Lw64EMSFLfND9KgmsXuqhx63vggSCDx1FelvY6j4ghU/edit
It is a shame that he HAS to win it because I forfeited one round too many... (2 to be exact)
BARNEY'S R5 should not be trusted. They make a claim that they not prove, besides the fact that abortion is murder.
Also, his R4 is also weak, since he doesn't disrpove how exactly one can measure all the variables jointly, he just says it CAN BE by a "skilled" statistic analysist.
A) Who defines "skilled"
B) How in the world can they do that? You cannot!!!
@Sir.Lancelot
We can both drop this debate and create a new one, as we both have forfeited rounds (me 2 of them, you 1).
And this will end in a tie.
New debate will have SIMILAR topic, not the same, and I will make you the contender. If you want you can accept it. I just want to note that there is no point in continuing this since to many forfeitures have already happened...
A) We are talking specifically about the god of the abrahamic religions, but any being that created the universe (for example yahweh) is suitable. However, since Pluto for example does not appear to have created the universe, he is out of the picture.
will probably vote pro on this one...
NOTE: If we continue this debate and, despite my forfeiture, any of the voters believe I am the winner, feel free to vote for me. However, as it isn't right to forfeit, I consider myself lost, even though I (consider myself to) have better arguments.
And you can win this one
Can I recreate this debate with ONE WEEK TIME FOR EaCH ROUND? I can't keep up, sorry. However, we can just copy paste already existing arguments.
thanks
hey you did a mistake. it is better we both drop all of our rounds, because it is just 2 arguments for each and you have wasted one of your own. It's better for you to create a 4-5 round debate, same resolution and BoP, so as you drop your R1 argument and I drop my R4 or R5 argument in order for both os us to have three to 4 full debating rounds...
and make the world limit 30.000 because it will be a long read...
1) If you can provide a source, I might change my mind.
2) this "may" is key here nonetheless.
3) too small sample nonetheless
4) even if all this is true, it still is true that the vast majority of trans individuals are so due to
a) being mentally ill
b) having suffered trauma
c) being "trendy", yes that is a thing.
YET it doesn't disprove my case, even if it were true. You CAN'T actually change your sex, no matter what you do and there is no need for you to try to change your physical appearance (SEX) to reflect more of your mental state. I mean, it is paradoxical that the same people who cry that it is different (sex and gender), change one to match the other...
QUESTION: What did I do to prove I'm a bad Christian?
QUESTION: When did I disagree with you? I absolutely agree.
NOTE: There are varying degress of faith, I just recently got involved with religion, previous agnostic.
NOTE: Relax, I'm 14 and people like you paint a bad picture of faithful individiuals. Respectfully.
NOTE: Not only most women are not AS capable as men at being leaders, most women also don't have the desire/will to rise at the top in the first place.
"God is real". And my burden of proof won't be to PROVE that god is real, something impossible by human methods. My BoP will be to disprove any other possibilities (example: atheism), and thus it will be logically deducted that God is real, by necessity.
+ one week for each argument because it is a complicated topic. One week, not two days
I would like the resolution to be changed. This is a bait resolution that pro can't prove. Proving His existence is not possible and is also different from whether or God really exists. We know he exists because of logical thinking and the lack of any other possibilities (i.g. that all this is natural, uncreated, something impossible). HOWEVER, to PROVE something you have to use scientific measure which is fallible in this case. Science refers to something physical, something that obeys laws of physics, while God is eternal, uncreated, omnipresent, immaterial, all-knowing and isn't bound to any restrictions.
There is something in the brain that determines SEXUAL ORIENTATION. It is perfectly natural to be gay, although rarer.
There is no scientific proof that (Sexual identity) transgenderism/gender dysphoria is attributable to biology, although it can be attributed to mental illness.
1) In case you can change your vote, I believe you have to do it for the following reasons;
@AleutianTexan
1) In the resolution, I said trans people ARE delusional. I didn't say that trans people WILL BE delusional.
2) In ally my syllogisms and further arguments I used present tenses ONLY.
All these, if not providing a rock solid time framework, at least VERY VERY HEAVILY imply it.
Finally, the fact that con had to turn to arguments based around the time the debate is happening, it is only fair to say that I my arguments couldn't be disproven by them. Doesn't that make my case superior and am I not worth an extra point?
If you disagree about my definition of women, then you should consider that beings who can't drive SELF-DENTIFY as women, so if you do not agree that they are women, you are a BIGOT!
yes
1. just leave it
2. an illness is still a... "unique characteristic"(trait)(unique in the sense of not being normal and only held by few people)of a person, even though it is not positive. And yes homosexuality is BOTH a trait and a practice, otherwise gay people would be asexual, not having intercourse. If it was only a trait, it would be bad to say it is wrong. Since it is also a practice, however, their arguments remains valid.
(I personally don't think being gay is bad, there are some exceptions where it is bad, bored to go into detail).
Guys, for around a week or a week and a half, I will only have time for some troll debates, up to 1000 words.
VOTE PRO. CON FORFEITED
What does drop a point mean? Assuming it means don't support it well, I would say he hasn't dropped it, it is a valid explanation that when something disrupts the function of an individual, it is wrong. And I do agree with his definition of disorder.(oh no "their" definition because God forbid we assume their gender lol Oh and did I JUST REFERENCE GOD?) (sorry not trying to be cocky, just voicing my concerns over wokeness).
And what you said about how people with various illnesses did not CHOOSE to have these illnesses, however they can be defined as wrong, I reply;
1) It isn't wrong to be sick
2) Homosexuality is a PRACTICE. An ilness is a TRAIT. Homosexuality is the ACTUAL PRACTICE of something that disrupts a human's behavior and function. In that sense, con is tottaly right.
HOWEVER, I personally Do believe that homosexuality is wrong but I also believe that no one has the right to stop these people to do whatever they want in their HOUSES (not some pride parades). Afterall, we live in a free country, well you at least 'cause I live in greece
Well, although con has done a pretty good job so far, they have failed to portray if correlation between HIV and homosexuality is also a causation. It could be that the CHOICES of gays (during sex) make them more vulnerable to HIV and not that just by practicing homosexual intercourse, gays are more likely to catch it.
THANKS MAN/WOMAN
REALLY HELPFUL!!!
Once I complete this one and the other one I have on gun policy, I'll let you know.
Once I complete this one and the other one I have on gun policy, I'll let you know.
I believe men and women are on balance equal and should be treated as such.
That is precisely why I am NOT a feminist.
I am an MRA.
Also, most feminists do not hate men willingly, tey are tricked into it by feminism and are misinformed.
E.G. the famous pay gap that doesn't exist.
Ok, just leave round 5 empty in your part. (so that we both write 4 arguments each).
I choose con. Oh, and please put a conservative debate so I have to go against my own belief lol.
but as i said, not too big of a topic, as it is only 1000 words and for fun
Beware of that tone first of all.
Secondly, MEDICALLY INDUCED MURDER is a unique human example. Accidental miscarriages are not our topic.
1. they still have different PERSONALITIES, which makes them unique
2. They still have at least ONE piece od DNA, which makes them UNIQUE. One unique piece of DNA is enough for a person to be considered unique and thus for someone else to be morally wrong to kill them.
RESPONSE TO OTHER PERSON
No matter how many zillions of factions there are, they are all man-haters, since ALL feminist factions have at least this ONE common belief;
There is a patriarchy aimed at benefitting men and subjugating women.
Anyone who believes this is a feminist, and therefore a man-hater, or at least are ignorant.
*Vote pro*.
THE REST OF THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO INFLUENCE THE VOTING PROCESS, JUST MY AFTERTHOUGHTS.
--------------
First of all,
I SAID that english ain't my first language and I'm pracitsing it. So, by delusional AND dillusional I imagined they both meant "believe in a lie".
AGAIN, since con doesn't have any argument and refers to technicalities and word mistakes in my part, I WOULD BE forced to surrender.
Also, con said that there is NO way for me to prove, even in the PRESENT, that gender transition surgeries can't actually change ones gender and brings up the multiverse as an example. Well, in ORDER to PROVE or DISPROVE something, it has to exist. As we know of, the multiverse does not exist, nor does the future (yet). From what we DO know of, NO gender transition surgery can change a person's gender/sex.
Finally, the point con made about nordic countries and how my definition's parameters could be examined independently, I have to say this.
Nordic countries and trans people is is NO way the same or a similar example.
A more close example to the case of being trans would be;
To be human, you have to possess human dna AND be of the nature to produce a gamete AND have 46 chromosomes AND have one heart etc.
If you were a being with all the above but with 30 chromosomes, you would not be human.