These are called Privileges(except for the gun one, that is disputed). You can't just appoint any kid to be a truck driver or a pilot or a power plant manager. They have to be crazy talented to even pass the interview.
Either way, the fact Best.Korea stresses on kids being able to have sex and watch other people having sex on par with food and water almost, it is baffling.
What is next? Children having rights to run hydrolyctic dams and nuclear plants? Children having the right to drive 18-wheeler trucks and aero biplanes? Children having rights to wield guns and kill people?
You are the first one I know to demand for such right, and you probably isn't even a child!
Children rights activists should be fighting for education, water, food, etc, and not this. Technically Children do have the right to watch porn, they can access it.
Eh, don't know if he is around or anything, but you can always hit someone up for a debate on the same topic, the worst case scenario is they don't accept.
I was in a school(where they confiscate phones and has extremely bad internet) and the best device I could have was a hidden Iphone 5. I simply refuse to read all these whatever it is if I don't have internet connection on my laptop!
How rational would you act in a cave while not being a professional cave explorer? See? I am not the local Wi-fi master.
Because the Taiwanese "appeared" to agree but actually plotted separatism. Back in like the 70s and 80s the relationships were much more lax. It is their fault. Let's move to the DMs for further discussion, ay?
The people there doesn't want to be because a lightly-regulated market for textbooks is selling separatist stuff propagandized by a group of selfish politicians who just likes capitalism...I guess, under the trope that they think "China has no rights" (They are true, China would not allow them to make unreasonable amounts of profit off of THIS) so they turn to the US. They twist historical facts and make so that they paint China as tyrannical (incorrectly).
And the textbook become bestsellers and the people are brainwashed despite them not supposed to.
I firmly stand that we should probably tell addicts why recovery programs are good for them and they should join, but drugging people is like pulling random men from streets and then tell them forcefully they are a part of the US navy.
Yeah, if we interpret the topic moderately --- not extremely semantically, like I do in many cases, I agree with you.
You are willing to drug addicts to get into rehab. Look, in China, being a drug dealer is punishable for death or imprisonment for life, but even then nobody says anything as radical as this unironically.
My point being: Your idea is rad. I haven't seen your proof of this but I am against tranquilizing addicts to put them under rehab, all day, everyday.
"So the only thing thats left is lack of full proof. But full proof, in my opinion, is not always required to be greatly convinced in something."
Yes, and this is why you should not be voting Pro. Pro has agreed with the BoP to be on Pro, so the middle ground, which is likely what we have here according to you, actually favors Con.
Obviously Pro can just bring up proof of 2 suspects of the Uyghur ethnicity that turned out didn't commit crimes, but he never did that. We can't just assume we have created all that is possible under some lining foundation. An unused argument is one unused. Literally all of us except you knows that Pro needs full proof, or, just borderline, the best proof wins, not just probability.
"But does the win require full proof,or a proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or a probability outweight? Its not reasonable to doubt Pros position with the arguments he presented. The chance that Pro is wrong is actually so low it cant be considered a reasonable doubt."
What are we doing here? Picking sides or justifying them? We are DEBATING. The best argument wins. You did not show that. Pro did not use this probability argument either, so what you are doing is actually PICKING SIDES AND INVENTING A NEW POINT FOR THE SIDE, which is frowned upon on this site. You are supposed to show that Pro has the better set of points if you vote in favor of him, not because his side is easier to win.
I suggest taking off your colored sunglasses and read my arguments again. I have wrote:
)an argument from tautology that only guilty people are detained if any
)that just because China’s history here doesn’t mean there is automatically someone detained there.
)Pro has the BoP, which he admits
It is one thing that you consider my sources not able to outweigh the other, and another to disregard my evidence and just speak from probability(especially since you admit Pro has no full proof, which he is supposed to have). The first one is fair, the second not so much.
I am strongly for you voting again. If you vote against me with a more credible verdict, I will take it, but I will not accept it if my reason for a loss is THIS.
You are dismissing my sources just because an unrelated thing China did. That is the opposite of what I told you o do.
There has been no evidence that China manipulated this event(only speculation), but there are several showing that the US did, with hard-to-fake evidence. Using what you used as a reason is arguably biased. Explain it further.
Fair enough. Although, my sources should be judged by how much supporting evidence it has, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because it is "Chinese" or "its author is involved in other conspiracies", because then the fault is on the author if anything at all, and not on the supporting evidence.
IDK if you can see this before voting, but PLEASE do not walk into this debate voting with the mentality that the western media is auto-true, that China is already going with it. Please don't vote with prior bias common in the west. Don't come in it thinking it obviously did or didn't. Vote as impartial as possible, don't take sides.
News reports to me are just hubs of sources like Wiki. Most western media on this topic majorly quotes Zenz the questionably infamous scholar while Grayzone has a wide array of evidence.
I am not defending Grayzone, I am defending Grayzone's citations, which is untouched by Pro. Grayzone sure does cite a hella lot of stuff, whether we like it or not. It is what it cites that is valuable to me, not Grayzone itself. Same with Chinese blogposts that are just screenshots of non-Chinese sourcing.
Dismissing them just because they are Chinese or their author is affiliated with some conspiracies is logically fallacious. I say it isn't a Chinese source because Pro has essentially prevented me from doing so(and Chinese reports generally has no citations because it assumes we already agree with them). Just because I say so does not effectively weaken my argument.
I would consider a vote passable if it in any way weighs the sources and points. Best.korea did not do this and started judging at the standpoint disregarding most evidence, while admitting Pro didn't have full proof.
We judge on who has the better proof, and sources are an important consideration here. Maybe christianm is right here, but you can't just vote like that.
The BoP is on Pro which he agrees, so that requires full proof. Also, if you can see my sources, by the end, most of them are obvious non-Chinese evidence, even if they are included in Chinese media.
Yeah, thanks to you too. Ironically, this debate has made me MORE confident in my stance because I have never seen this many sources supporting my position before this research. Before this I thought the western media had a point and generally didn't care(due to it not being a problem in China so I didn't see reports on this for a long time).
I just accepted this debate thinking either I will be blasted so quickly or I will get an easy GG but your move of cutting me off CGTN was a good move and made me think a lot harder on this one, especially on a computer where the main browser is Baidu.
First I would appreciate you for being this fast and be a catalyst for my thinking. Second, I am surprised that there hasn't been any anti-chinese language used here, you are just citing sources you think are true and speaking in a relatively objective tone. This conversation has been more civil than any I have had before about this topic.
Change it, in the title and the description. The best case is that you are deducted S&G because you misspelt in the TITLE, and the worst case is that someone exploits this hole, says people cannot think "crytically" due to it is not an existent word, and win. I have been that someone before, believe it or not. Do it, I suggest, if you want a chance of winning.
Eh, it isn't that big of a problem. The problem is that all VPNs were automatically classified as Non-Chinese so I couldn't download them easily. I had to borrow my mom's phone to look up some sources but at least it is possible. If I didn't have a backup I would have never accepted this so quickly.
But still, even if I think China is not guilty for this, I just disagree with the fact that I can't watch cute puppy dog and kitty cat videos on Youtube. Surely I am just pissed. Maybe I will eventually wear out but I am content with Dart still running.
It has never been more hilarious that the local setbacks on the internet will make this argument 5x more difficult to write due to I can't just visit Pro's sources.
No, if you are a Chinese internet agent, you can come freely, you can even fine me and arrest me. I am literally being denied opportunity to prove the innocence of my country by the same barriers meant to do aligned missions. There has and will be no doubt that I would long for such barriers to be removed.
At this point I believe you are either an alt of Type1 or an alt of Wylted. Even if you are not, the fact that you believe in this shows, and this isn't what we call exactly "good".
Just realized this was 1000. Cutting words was painful. I just thought it was 10,000 and came up with 4 different arguments before realizing I can't fit it inside.
please?
Pretty sure almost all individuals in China are left-leaning. I haven't looked up statistics, it is just something I think could be brought up.
Do other species have abortions? Just asking, not picking sides.
This debate clearly needs quality votes.
Bump, this needs votes.
False dichotomy, hmm?
Need votes, plz
So that is twice a day if anything. Most clocks are 12 houred.
It is 6 AM and 6PM, not 18AM.
This debate needs more votes.
These are called Privileges(except for the gun one, that is disputed). You can't just appoint any kid to be a truck driver or a pilot or a power plant manager. They have to be crazy talented to even pass the interview.
Either way, the fact Best.Korea stresses on kids being able to have sex and watch other people having sex on par with food and water almost, it is baffling.
What is next? Children having rights to run hydrolyctic dams and nuclear plants? Children having the right to drive 18-wheeler trucks and aero biplanes? Children having rights to wield guns and kill people?
You are the first one I know to demand for such right, and you probably isn't even a child!
Children rights activists should be fighting for education, water, food, etc, and not this. Technically Children do have the right to watch porn, they can access it.
What if one of them uses knuckledusters? What if one of them uses dicks? No clarification, no clarification. Clouded, Hmm?
Also, you have sourced basically nothing except two which does not exactly support your view
You have time to say this & justification in arguments soon. The comment section does not matter. If you think I am wrong, go for it.
Eh, don't know if he is around or anything, but you can always hit someone up for a debate on the same topic, the worst case scenario is they don't accept.
I was in a school(where they confiscate phones and has extremely bad internet) and the best device I could have was a hidden Iphone 5. I simply refuse to read all these whatever it is if I don't have internet connection on my laptop!
How rational would you act in a cave while not being a professional cave explorer? See? I am not the local Wi-fi master.
Actually, that would be the violation of the agreement.
Eventually, Kars stopped thinking.
Because the Taiwanese "appeared" to agree but actually plotted separatism. Back in like the 70s and 80s the relationships were much more lax. It is their fault. Let's move to the DMs for further discussion, ay?
The people there doesn't want to be because a lightly-regulated market for textbooks is selling separatist stuff propagandized by a group of selfish politicians who just likes capitalism...I guess, under the trope that they think "China has no rights" (They are true, China would not allow them to make unreasonable amounts of profit off of THIS) so they turn to the US. They twist historical facts and make so that they paint China as tyrannical (incorrectly).
And the textbook become bestsellers and the people are brainwashed despite them not supposed to.
I did. You can do your own thing now, and I move on with mine.
Yeah, I am with China here, like I always do.
I firmly stand that we should probably tell addicts why recovery programs are good for them and they should join, but drugging people is like pulling random men from streets and then tell them forcefully they are a part of the US navy.
Yeah, if we interpret the topic moderately --- not extremely semantically, like I do in many cases, I agree with you.
You are willing to drug addicts to get into rehab. Look, in China, being a drug dealer is punishable for death or imprisonment for life, but even then nobody says anything as radical as this unironically.
My point being: Your idea is rad. I haven't seen your proof of this but I am against tranquilizing addicts to put them under rehab, all day, everyday.
"So the only thing thats left is lack of full proof. But full proof, in my opinion, is not always required to be greatly convinced in something."
Yes, and this is why you should not be voting Pro. Pro has agreed with the BoP to be on Pro, so the middle ground, which is likely what we have here according to you, actually favors Con.
Obviously Pro can just bring up proof of 2 suspects of the Uyghur ethnicity that turned out didn't commit crimes, but he never did that. We can't just assume we have created all that is possible under some lining foundation. An unused argument is one unused. Literally all of us except you knows that Pro needs full proof, or, just borderline, the best proof wins, not just probability.
"But does the win require full proof,or a proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or a probability outweight? Its not reasonable to doubt Pros position with the arguments he presented. The chance that Pro is wrong is actually so low it cant be considered a reasonable doubt."
What are we doing here? Picking sides or justifying them? We are DEBATING. The best argument wins. You did not show that. Pro did not use this probability argument either, so what you are doing is actually PICKING SIDES AND INVENTING A NEW POINT FOR THE SIDE, which is frowned upon on this site. You are supposed to show that Pro has the better set of points if you vote in favor of him, not because his side is easier to win.
I suggest taking off your colored sunglasses and read my arguments again. I have wrote:
)an argument from tautology that only guilty people are detained if any
)that just because China’s history here doesn’t mean there is automatically someone detained there.
)Pro has the BoP, which he admits
It is one thing that you consider my sources not able to outweigh the other, and another to disregard my evidence and just speak from probability(especially since you admit Pro has no full proof, which he is supposed to have). The first one is fair, the second not so much.
I am strongly for you voting again. If you vote against me with a more credible verdict, I will take it, but I will not accept it if my reason for a loss is THIS.
"we ought to live"
No. We eventually die.
You are dismissing my sources just because an unrelated thing China did. That is the opposite of what I told you o do.
There has been no evidence that China manipulated this event(only speculation), but there are several showing that the US did, with hard-to-fake evidence. Using what you used as a reason is arguably biased. Explain it further.
Did you even read my argument?
Fair enough. Although, my sources should be judged by how much supporting evidence it has, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because it is "Chinese" or "its author is involved in other conspiracies", because then the fault is on the author if anything at all, and not on the supporting evidence.
@ALL
IDK if you can see this before voting, but PLEASE do not walk into this debate voting with the mentality that the western media is auto-true, that China is already going with it. Please don't vote with prior bias common in the west. Don't come in it thinking it obviously did or didn't. Vote as impartial as possible, don't take sides.
News reports to me are just hubs of sources like Wiki. Most western media on this topic majorly quotes Zenz the questionably infamous scholar while Grayzone has a wide array of evidence.
I am not defending Grayzone, I am defending Grayzone's citations, which is untouched by Pro. Grayzone sure does cite a hella lot of stuff, whether we like it or not. It is what it cites that is valuable to me, not Grayzone itself. Same with Chinese blogposts that are just screenshots of non-Chinese sourcing.
Dismissing them just because they are Chinese or their author is affiliated with some conspiracies is logically fallacious. I say it isn't a Chinese source because Pro has essentially prevented me from doing so(and Chinese reports generally has no citations because it assumes we already agree with them). Just because I say so does not effectively weaken my argument.
"does it just mean the onus is on me to show that China is probably detaining innocent people?"
yeah that. That is the general concensus of users here.
I would consider a vote passable if it in any way weighs the sources and points. Best.korea did not do this and started judging at the standpoint disregarding most evidence, while admitting Pro didn't have full proof.
We judge on who has the better proof, and sources are an important consideration here. Maybe christianm is right here, but you can't just vote like that.
The BoP is on Pro which he agrees, so that requires full proof. Also, if you can see my sources, by the end, most of them are obvious non-Chinese evidence, even if they are included in Chinese media.
So yeah, delete it, probably.
Yeah, thanks to you too. Ironically, this debate has made me MORE confident in my stance because I have never seen this many sources supporting my position before this research. Before this I thought the western media had a point and generally didn't care(due to it not being a problem in China so I didn't see reports on this for a long time).
I just accepted this debate thinking either I will be blasted so quickly or I will get an easy GG but your move of cutting me off CGTN was a good move and made me think a lot harder on this one, especially on a computer where the main browser is Baidu.
Eh, I doubt any drug rehab center would first drug a person to come.
Forcing someone to do something can be seen as nonexistent. It is always their choice to obey you, they voluntarily did.
First I would appreciate you for being this fast and be a catalyst for my thinking. Second, I am surprised that there hasn't been any anti-chinese language used here, you are just citing sources you think are true and speaking in a relatively objective tone. This conversation has been more civil than any I have had before about this topic.
Change it, in the title and the description. The best case is that you are deducted S&G because you misspelt in the TITLE, and the worst case is that someone exploits this hole, says people cannot think "crytically" due to it is not an existent word, and win. I have been that someone before, believe it or not. Do it, I suggest, if you want a chance of winning.
What is crytically? There is no such word in the dictionary.
This is a question.
What are you Con to? That Pro's argument is not the best one he could have given?
Eh, it isn't that big of a problem. The problem is that all VPNs were automatically classified as Non-Chinese so I couldn't download them easily. I had to borrow my mom's phone to look up some sources but at least it is possible. If I didn't have a backup I would have never accepted this so quickly.
But still, even if I think China is not guilty for this, I just disagree with the fact that I can't watch cute puppy dog and kitty cat videos on Youtube. Surely I am just pissed. Maybe I will eventually wear out but I am content with Dart still running.
It has never been more hilarious that the local setbacks on the internet will make this argument 5x more difficult to write due to I can't just visit Pro's sources.
No, if you are a Chinese internet agent, you can come freely, you can even fine me and arrest me. I am literally being denied opportunity to prove the innocence of my country by the same barriers meant to do aligned missions. There has and will be no doubt that I would long for such barriers to be removed.
This has to be satire.
Are you even trying? Well, makes sense for such little defense for such a topic because you aren't supposed to defend it.
This is made for me isn’t it.
At this point I believe you are either an alt of Type1 or an alt of Wylted. Even if you are not, the fact that you believe in this shows, and this isn't what we call exactly "good".
Just realized this was 1000. Cutting words was painful. I just thought it was 10,000 and came up with 4 different arguments before realizing I can't fit it inside.