My opinion in that specific situation would be disappointment at the very least, quite likely more than that.
Most humans 'don't tend to help people though,
Least not all the time,
Beyond most humans expected willpower, possibly beyond expected 'care.
People 'have their money, their possessions,
Don't sell all of it and help the poor,
Walk by the homeless, the drugged,
Don't fight in wars,
Launch crusades of help in their neighborhoods.
. . .
Arguably abortion is not 'quite 'like seeing a baby drowning in a pond,
At the very least human perception/culture/reaction to it is different.
A pond is also pretty easy to wade in save the baby,
Not like it's a pond of acid.
Many Pro Life individuals also have lines they draw of where they are against abortion,
Rape, for some of them,
Compared to where they see the existence of the Yet Born in abortions of convenience, as being created in an act of callous disregard of the Yet born.
(Tossed the baby into the pond)
I don't think it is wrong/unexpected of Pro Life individuals for push for laws that help people,
As opposed to Pro Life individuals suffering great pain to help only who they can help individually.
Eh, some people don't want to adopt abused kids either,
Doesn't mean people are wrong to push for laws that take kids from parents that beat/starve/neglect their kids.
I 'think I recall Clausewitz mentions something about science and art, in his On War book.
Ooh, after Googling that a bit in variation, and reading the description in this debate, I'm interested in how this debate might go.
I don't think I've 'thought much about the concept of art.
Kouen's sources didn't fit either quite. Kouen's 'might have, if they had made more arguments, but as they were, I thought them incomplete, hence I didn't give Kouen any points for sources.
I did not think your sources fit either, albeit I thoughts they fit 'worse than Kouen's, because I did not read anywhere in your sources, statements on whether abortion was 'murder or not.
Your articles made statements for abortion not to be criminal, and a right to medically necessary procedures, but this is not the same as stating whether abortion is murder/killing.
Nor whether they considered fertilization the start of human life.
Though it 'is possible I did not read your sources in depth enough, which 'would be a fault on me, and is possible to have occurred.
However, I don't see those 'highlighted in your round 1 gray box quotes either.
. . .
I would argue that personhood is 'often a crux for abortion debates.
. . .
Language and concepts can be vague, bleed into each other.
. . .
I mentioned it in my vote, because Kouen specifically stated his source supported when human 'life started, that's where a vaguery might be,
And where many Pro Choice individuals might have attacked his arguments.
. .
Can one 'murder what is 'not a person?
Arguably one can 'kill life, or even inanimate objects from a certain point of view.
But 'murder,
Though shall not kill,
Usually speaks of 'humans, of persons.
Not trees, art, desks, 'pieces of humans, nor even animals other than humans,
But 'people, individuals.
. . .
I suppose there are ways your sources could have fit in later arguments,
But not in the one you made in round 1, stating that,
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which is the largest group of reproductive scientists and members of the medical field, does not agree that abortion is murder."
Oh I would say myself , that Mr.BrotherD.Thomas has broken the CoC, not you.
Personally, I 'think Mr.BrotherD.Thomas is pretending to be a Christian, and mocking Christianity and Christians in parody.
(Though I 'could be wrong)
1,
"You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is either intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable, so long it is clear that they are parodies and do not parody other site users." - DART COC
Alas I cannot 'prove this,
Hence the not 'clear it is parody.
2,
"Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest. This includes wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones experiences physical harm." - DART COC
"Jesus and I are going to have a lot of fun with this pseudo-christian named "Public-Choice," but it will be at his embarrassing expense in front of the membership for sure!"
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas #18
To me sounds that he's targeting you, intending and 'trying to embarrass you.
3,
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions." - DART COC
Invectives is defined by Webster as "insulting or abusive language." It can also refer to an abusive expression or speech.
"Dolts, Stupid, Fool, Buffoonery, DUMB ASS, DUMBFOUNDED, NEWB, CRYBABY, sniveling"
Are all 'repeatedly used by Mr.BrotherD.Thomas in this 'one comment section alone.
4,
"Spam is prohibited, and any overtly repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam." - DART COC
Their posts are generic and ever the same, spamming paragraphs of insults.
. . . .
I say again,
Even if 'you Public-Choice have thick skin,
I do not think it is right to let such individuals as Mr.BrotherD.Thomas have free reign,
To go about insulting and targeting users.
Observe his words to swordburial17 here,
"Heads up, we're going to have a lot of fun with YOU like we did with the other disgusting camel herder Muslim tigerlord, where you will now take his place, so "chain up" because your ride in this forum is going to be real bumpy at your expense!" - BrotherD.Thomas #45 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9532-non-fallacious-defenses-of-muhammad?page=2
I would like to state that Mods seem to take reports from the targets of harassment more seriously than bystander reports of harassment.
I would also like to argue that it is better for the community if individuals who break the DART Code of Conduct are held responsible,
Even if 'you have thick skin towards them,
'Not reporting certain actions by them,
Allows them to act that way towards other users.
@Barney
In some ways a debate is nicer without participants giving lengthy explanation, that one might already be aware of,
Enough to reference fact/claim/study/idea.
@NoOneInParticular
Argument, not arguement.
Stupid spellcheck user, not 'looking close enough at the words, before changing arguement to agreement.
Easier to convince others,
Good to try to see 'truth for oneself, rather than just assume what may be false.
A manga called Liars Game, had a character who encouraged doubting other people,
“People SHOULD be doubted. Many people misunderstand this concept. Doubting people is just a part of getting to know them. What many people call ‘trust’ is really just giving up on trying to understand others, and that very act is far worse than doubting. It is actually ‘apathy.”
― Shinobu Kaitani, Liar Game, Volume 4
And I remember the Bible mentioning false prophets.
New International Version
"and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people."
https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-11.htm
If it warns people against false prophets, presumably people are being encouraged to not accept without question, what is said by others.
When I say 'kind of,
People with mental illness, can have some pretty big leaps in logic,
Feelings that come upon them, driven by disorder.
Not that religion is an illness or disorder,
I'm just musing on faith, certainty held in an idea.
. .
Course 'unlike a meth addict or individual with schizophrenia,
I imagine many people of religious belief might change their beliefs,
Were proof or a threshold of convincing be done.
Same as an atheist might become a theist, with the same proof or threshold convincing be done.
But it's not 'so easy a proof, one way or the other perhaps,
Various life experiences, presuppositions, leading to conclusions.
'Many groups of people alternatively legalize then illegalize, then legalize actions. And so on.
Though I admit I myself, for a fondness of using the crowds actions to gauge my own.
Still, that we're doing something 'now, doesn't itself make an action good, to my thinking.
Thanks for voting, I admit since I ended up losing to Sir.Lancelot,
I hope a bit to lose all three of these duel debates,
As a sometimes all or nothing person,
Also be a bit funny to see no wins in my profile.
What would you say Lightbringer69's edge was?
I admit I view the debate as a fair bit subjective towards voters,
While dueling may encourage or discourage this or that value,
What the voter might lean towards is 'their own value, and whichever debater in their arguments encourages it.
@#10 #11 #12
Action is not the same as understanding,
Even slugs and plants avoid pain,
Express in actions that they are ideally functioning.
True, some humans lack empathy,
Whether the care of others, or the understanding.
I wouldn't say culture is a 'fallacy,
'Does fall under intelligence though,
As greater intelligence may allow greater culture and longer culture.
Still, intelligence then simply becomes one of the 'many ways humans are, as rule of thumb separated.
If a dog acquired intelligence, high social skills, could make us 'believe they were sentient,
Many people would want to treat the dog as a person, give the dog human rights.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Classification, to my mind, is tricky,
But still, in practicality, something we use.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interesting use of history,
To argue against actions such as agriculture.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If it makes you feel better about the people Average_Person tagged in comment #3,
I think all those people will vote honestly in the debate, without bias forAverage_Person, if they vote.
RFV Part 2
Average_Person Con R2
Con 'does use sources,
I'm unsure whether animals 'lack understanding though.
Hm, reading second source, collective cognition, I disagree,
Animals communicate states of the world, or can lie about states of the world,
Though less advanced than humans, and one still questions whether the animals 'understand.
Still there is room for Pro to argue.
Pro sources can be argued against easily,
So Sources still a tie, due to definitions in earlier rounds.
Humans 'are a different type of animal,
Con gives many examples of actions humans can take that many other animals cannot,
Though arguably many animals such as spiders, are able to do something many other animals cannot,
But this is reason spiders get a classification, course some spiders don't make webs.
Hm. . . But even if one classifies humans as animals,
Is this any reason 'not to eat and tyrannize other animals?
Empathy I suppose,
Though many animals eat each other,
One of Cons arguments is higher empathy, higher understanding.
Con makes points on their definition arguments and on fallacy of composition.
Though I still imagine that items get classified 'based on traits and compositions.
That one compares and predicts other items, partially based on past items, comparisons, compositions.
Still, a coffee machine is matter, we are matter, doesn't mean they are the same in all ways, way material is put together is different, types of material.
Hm, interesting use of robots, to argue classification.
Ah, this is the last round, my vote is going to Con definitely,
More rounds 'maybe Pro could manage a tie, 'maybe,
But Con is going pretty strong, and it is the final round.
RFD
Arguements,
My vote goes to Con,
If debate had remained whether humans can be classified biologically as animals,
Con might have had a harder time,
But Pro themself, in my view, opened up the 'meaning of animal in R2,
Also the debate description and round 1 leaving the 'meaning of animal somewhat vague in debate.
Sources are a tie, as many of Cons other than definitions could be argued against.
Legibility, both understandable.
Conduct, both polite in debate.
If you read this far,
Feel free to vote on any of my debates,
Whether for, or against me.
Couple more Quotes that came to mind, not that I 'agree with them, they just came to mind.
"A virus." - Agent Smith
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm
RFV Part 1
Interesting description,
I wonder if 'spiritual arguments count,
Not that I'm particularly spiritual.
MonkeyBara Pro R1
A definition of animal, noting humans fit definition.
"98.8 percent of their DNA" reminds me of,
"Bleach is healthy. It's mostly water. And we're mostly water. Therefore, we're bleach." Nathan Explosion
But of course Pro is not saying we are chimps, but that we are animals,
Humans are partially liquid maybe.
Average_Person Con R1
It 'does help when debate creators have BOP and some detail in the description, though I am lazy debater myself.
Con uses definitions counting on vagueness of debate description,
As a number of definitions and uses of the word animal, excludes human from the word.
Sadly I don't understand the math example,
But I 'have heard of the fallacy of composition, not that I consider 'all 'things a fallacy.
Hm, Pro not saying similarity makes us chimps,
Still, probably organisms that hardly share far less DNA with us,
So maybe DNA similar not reason enough to use as animal argument. (Still Con says slightly different)
MonkeyBara Pro R2
I wonder what MonkeyBara would expect Con to look like, following MonkeyBara's ideal debate description.
I can only 'imagine, but not know,
That this debate has come about because of times people differentiate themselves from animals,
Such as when humans eat animals, and say it's fine because humans are not animals.
I doubt they are saying humans are not MonkeyBara's first definition,
But rather they are differentiating humans from 'animals for other reasons.
Of 3) (Shrug) Primates is some kind of biology classification, lot's of different primates that can't interbreed, breeding is one of the ways some people define different species.
(But this is my argument, not Cons)
Ah, some explanatory of Pro debate reasons,
Arguably, humans are 'still classified as animals by biologists, I'm 'pretty sure,
Not 'plants, for example.
Classification is tricky, insects still animals, plants still organisms,
But differences are cause for different treatment.
Even if animals other than humans can still reach toddler intelligence, there would still be reason to treat them differently,
They would not be interchangeable with humans,
Raise a chimp as a human, not going to work,
Though more a rule of thumb,
As I 'think I recall Pro stating later on, we still treat toddlers and the mentally challenged as human,
But there are various reasons for this, may be Con addresses later.
3) We're 'still animals,
Yet 'not animals,
Words have many senses, definitions,
At this point in the debate, I'm leaning heavily towards Con,
Reason for, is that Pro 'themself, is opening up different reasons that humans are not considered animals,
Which opens up room for Cons definitions to be seen as valid,
Debate becomes no longer 'just whether humans are biologically animal.
Thanks for voting.
Seems clear that you read everything, weighed everything, by stating what was said,
Only thing people might say, is you don't say 'why Pro or Con saying this or that, was a better or worse argument.
It resulted in a tie, because no one voted,
And the system is not programmed to recognize when someone doesn't post an argument,
Even if it 'did though,
The individual who 'did post arguments,
Might be posting gibberish, for all the program would know, if it's just checking for posted or not.
I didn't think Bella3sp game any strong examples or logic of societies wrecked by dueling,
But still, appreciate you voting on the debate.
I 'expected her to give examples of militaries banning dueling, due to officer death during war,
Though I'd have argued many military takes a lot of rights away from people, doesn't mean the freeman should have those rights taken away,
Additionally I'd have argued dueling simply could have followed different rules (Some historical examples of such), or been suspended temporarily during war.
@MyOwnVote
Though I mention The Widow’s Offering,
Maybe also should mention,
"Warning Against the Teachers of the Law
38 As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012&version=NIV
Sure The Widow’s Offering makes one think of how much a person is 'actually giving of themself, philosophical,
Rich man through the eye of a needle and all that,
Easy for people to take 'advantage of giving in others though,
Not really 'good for poor people to be even poorer,
Though 'general idea of giving is good, 'is held by society.
Society ought also want those givers to be helped themselves.
Oh no, I'm being serious, and just forgot or never knew if you were a guy or girl,
People's use of the word gender just has me confused at times, so I just put both in there. Sex/Gender.
I'd say ideologically I view myself more on your side, in 'this debate,
'Generally speaking,
But I also think you didn't do yourself favors in your structuring of the debate.
It's on my to do list,
Higher up, due to time limit, is vote on one of Devon and Bella3sp's debates,
Also higher up is enjoy myself through food, reading comics, watching/Listening to YouTube,
Working and procrastinating on my video game, my writing, reading various threads,
Still, I fully intend to vote on this debate before it's timer runs out.
ponikshiy R3
It 'does seem to me that actions have more often Burdens of Proof,
But I'm still treating Burden of Proof as neutral,
'Too many human actions,
Actions outside 'norm, one could argue are more action, than action within a norm.
I see 3rd interpretation,
That there are reasonable reasons for Circumcision,
Slainte has not 'yet made strong culture argument, though examples in culture were given,
Slainte 'has made medical exception argument.
I disagree with ponikshiy 'superstition claim,
Culture and Religion don't quite equivalate with superstition.
Saying "invisible sky fairy" irritates me, though an Atheist myself,
I view the belief in God, as more nuanced than that.
Still my irritation is sidebar, I'm just noting that emotion influences voting, though voting is 'supposed to be objective, humans are not, so much.
Still, line might work well on Anti-Theists.
. .
Of argument objectively though, Culture and Religion don't quite equivalate with superstition.
ponikshiy makes fair point that while Slainte shows examples where people endure pain,
Slainte could better show why these actions were 'worthwhile,
Though Slainte examples 'do erode ponikshiy claim that Circumcision 'must not be, because of pleasure focus.
Slainte needs better arguments for 'reasons, 'values, people take action of Circumcision.
ponikshiy accident argument is not strong without a better source.
ponikshiy makes fair argument of children an consent,
Though Slainte medical necessity argument 'does sidestep this a bit,
Vagueness of debate 'is a problem, though I will probably vote for 'generally 'speaking, Circumcision should or should not be,
I've been noting the vagueness throughout the debate, as it 'Does allow voters and opponent more room to define debate as they see.
Slainte R3
While Slainte 'has given those 5 reasons,
Only 'health did Slainte give in depth argument,
Not that Slaintes other reasons were 'bad,
But it would have strengthened them, to justify the examples more.
'Yes debate was bit vaguely put,
But vague debates aren't dangerous 'only for person making debate,
'Yes, Slainte gave reasons for Circumcision,
But Slainte did not justify them in depth,
People can have 'bad reasons for an action,
Having 'just a reason,
Is not as strong as a 'demonstrated justified reason.
Conclusion,
Debate is vague,
But I interpret the BoP on both,
Interpret debate 'not as legal action, but as good idea or not action,
In my view, ponikshiy went more in depth with justifying their points than Slainte,
While I do think Slainte has 'material for good points,
I 'don't think Slainte 'uses that material as effectively as they could,
Does not 'describe norms varying by culture,
Does not 'describe why body modifications are good,
Slainte gives examples, but does not 'follow through, is my view.
My vote goes to ponikshiy.
Lastly, because I like talking about my own views sometimes,
Here's an old debate of mine, via the WayBackMachine,
https://web.archive.org/web/20210802144543/https://www.debate.org/debates/Circumcision-on-male-infants-is-immoral-unless-medically-necessary./1/
ponikshiy R1
1. Mine feels fine.
2. Weird is subjective.
3. Accidents 'can happen, but need be proved common enough to be concern.
4. Needs be 'proven harm.
Slainte R1
Though adults might consensually modify their bodies,
Doesn't mean it's a 'good idea,
If one looks at it from some angles.
ponikshiy 'seems to be more arguing whether the 'action is good,
Than the 'freedom to 'take said action.
Ah, sneaky Slainte, "Nowhere in the description or resolution does is this argument restricted to children"
ponikshiy R2
I disagree that it's a forfeit,
If Slainte can give reasons for people to take the action,
Might push debate arguments into neutral, if not for Slainte's side,
I'm inclined to see Burden of Proof as 'neutral, myself,
But one 'can view debate as (There is no reason for circumcision),
I view it more as Circumcision vs NonCircumcision .
Silly superstitions 'everywhere,
But maybe this is nihilistic of me,
More normally speaking,
Slainte 'will need to address this argument by ponikshiy,
'Show necessity/reason/good of modification.
Slainte 'could stand to more address 'all of ponikshiy's 4 points in R1,
Though Slainte 'did address point 4 by sidestep,
And indirect addressed 2, by examples of what is normal varies in culture.
Slainte R2
Fair point, still time for Slainte to address points of ponikshiy R1.
ponikshiy has not made argument that Circumcision should be 'banned,
Slainte also needs to show 'reasons people do body modifications.
ponikshiy title and arguments are vague enough, that they can be seen as argument to take action or not,
'Not arguments that Circumcision should be banned.
Slainte 'does address accidents here,
Notes ponikshiy need prove data shows that Circumcision is dangerous.
. .
Slainte does not address ponikshiy source regarding accidents in R1,
But regardless ponikshiy source does not show complications as 'likely,
"death is an extremely unlikely complication of neonatal circumcision, but it has been reported."
Slainte makes medical necessity argument,
Though this is more in 'exceptional cases than norm of cases,
Debate is vague enough that this is reasonable argument,
Though ponikshiy arguments thus far 'imply they are thinking more of Circumcision for cultural or cosmetic reasons,
Well, this is reason people sometimes like well defined title and description,
(Though I am lazy debater myself)
People often enjoy competition,
Enjoy winning,
Doesn't matter if arm wrestling or debate on philosophy.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additionally the act of debate often compels an individual to take a deeper look at both sides of an issue,
The 'obligation of debate, and to debate well,
Leads to research,
To well formed thought, articulated speech.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sometimes one prefers to take a moment to think,
Before acting,
Questions whether their action is 'right.
Or, . .
One might see it as good to convince others,
Change 'their actions.
. .
Personally I just enjoy thinking on subjects, at times.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LGBTQ, is topical,
Though some of it 'is from individuals a bit 'fixed on it.
. .
Websites in 'general, I would expect,
Have periods of interest in certain subjects,
Great spawn of threads on the 'same subject for a number of years,
Until not so longer relevant.
. .
People arguing against LGBTQ, aren't saying 'kill them,
Even in the past recent history,
People fine with don't ask, don't tell,
Leaving people to their own devices.
. .
It's 'what the LGBTQ movement is 'doing, that currently has some people riled.
I don't feel like voting right this moment,
Maybe won't later either,
I just wanted to post my thoughts on your round 1,
Not that my thoughts are great,
But I enjoy posting them anyhow sometimes, once thought of.
I would argue that not all Christians believe in Hell as some fire pit of eternal torment,
Nor do all Christians believe God literally resides in the Heavens/Sky.
I am unsure what you mean by the 'modern age of science,
That people were clueless as to how the world around them really worked,
Or that Humans had no knowledge about atoms,
"Democritus (/dɪˈmɒkrɪtəs/; Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning "chosen of the people"; c. 460 – c. 370 BC) was an Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher from Abdera, primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe.[1] None of his work has survived."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus
Of course Dēmókritos example can be rebutted, but Intelligence_06 takes debate another course.
. . .
The Old Testament, 'seems to me an impressive record of history, poetry, and philosophy,
I say 'seems, because I don't know that much of it.
. .
I don't think Jews look upon their religions writings the same some Christians do,
History is passed down through people, different history books exist, different science books,
But this is not to say their claims do not exist.
Even if it is not 'exact,
One person says there was a man named Dan who did this and that,
Another person says there was a man named Dann who did this and that,
We might say a man named Dan and a man named Dann could not have existed at the same time,
But 'roughly 'someone did,
If Dan/Dann had been a criminal at some crime scene,
Police would not say oh a word contradiction and ignore,
They would focus on there being a man at the crime scene, 'likely a man with a name possibly or similar to Dan/Dann.
. . . . . . . . .
"Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.[10][11]
Some scholars estimate that there are about 30 surviving independent sources written by 25 authors who attest to Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
2000 years ago, was a 'long time ago.
. . . . . . . . .
What qualifies as a miracle,
And who can say what 'happened long ago?
Take the Red Sea,
Waters may recede provided circumstance provides,
Provide a crossing,
Or return and drown an army.
Modern miracles for some people, include merely surviving a car crash,
Problem with these arguments of mine here, of course are an Atheistic bent,
One might argue an invisible gardener absurd,
Or that my arguments are the opposite of anthromorphizing,
But I'm rambling, well, I'm not a Christian.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I suppose a different argument might be an event doesn't happen for a long period of time,
So people assume it never existed to begin with.
I view Intelligence_06 as an intelligent person,
Their arguments 'do make sense,
And it's fair for people to encourage other's to use airtight debate titles, definitions, description.
But I prefer more laid back debates myself,
Would rather point out such in the comments if it 'really needs be,
And think it more 'friendly, to debate people as they 'intended to be debated.
Well,
They're topical for people,
It was 'Really interesting,
Back when I was reading through DDO,
The oldest debates I mean,
One could see people discussing past topical events,
So curious to see conversations of laws, events, people,
That many take for granted now.
One of the reasons I'm against the 'banning of some people currently.
Though,
I 'am for a regulating some of them,
Spamming topics, as though they are taking up 10 tables in a bar, when they only need 1.
No one's 'making anyone interact with anyone 'now.
I'd say the problem is more people taking up an obnoxious amount of space.
If someone 'really dislikes another individual,
Just block them, and have blocks prevent a person from posting in a thread that was made by someone who blocked them.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
While the argument ban any opinion I disagree with may not be 'wrong,
In the sense of preserving one's own value,
It becomes argument for 'any group, to not allow free discussion.
Rights for Blacks?
Guess the racists ought to have refused people freedom of speech,
Course many 'did,
But that's not the point.
The point is people protest against being denied free speech for 'their beliefs,
Yet cry for it at any belief they disagree with.
. .
Well, not 'any belief.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Really though,
It's interesting, to go through conversations from years ago.
Imagine going back a thousand years,
And having 'detailed information of people's beliefs, arguments, conversations.
Detailed more than some slight record,
Some censored record,
Or people only of one mind discussing a subject.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Although I suppose even now it could be interesting,
Provided I went to some website with different enough culture than my own.
Well,
Lightbringer69's biggest errors, were in not continuing the debate to the end,
And making insults during the debate.
. .
Also might have been some translation troubles for him,
Possibly caused by my wording on the subject,
Certainly my round 1 had errors, (I used it from a long past debate of mine, and didn't check for errors).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bella3sp,
Had a bit of scheduling trouble, looks to me,
Her round 2 also tripped me a bit,
The layout of it I'd say,
Felt fragmented I'd say,
Not that that's good or bad,
I just have a harder time dealing with 'many points at once.
Children,
I thought she could have used historical examples,
Gang knife fights for instance,
West Side Story but real, I 'imagine there's historical documents somewhere.
What we 'raise kids 'into,
Well,
Societies often have so 'many different groups,
With ideas of what is right.
She had a point about bravery and Brooks,
But didn't quite follow it enough, I 'think.
Some people may lack 'fear,
Yet not choose to fight,
Not 'honorable maybe, but not 'necessarily a lack of bravery.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Really though,
I had higher hopes for me in our debate, Sir.Lancelot.
But maybe I should have seized more on your argument of suicide, (Which I saw as an error on your part)
Or fully addressed your hypothetical examples in fiction.
I do think you argued better than the other two duel debates,
But that also made me 'try more myself,
Bring up more sources and argument.
I also felt more firing all cylinders,
I don't mind Bella3sp taking two weeks,
But can be easier to stay more in mind of a topic, if there isn't too long a gap of time.
Still win or lose I'm glad of the debate,
One wants for other people's opinions of their arguments,
Can be easy to overestimate oneself wrongly.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So long as people have 'constant consent in a system,
I 'might not mind any law allowed or prevented.
Barring that which cannot 'have constant consent.
I don't mind groups making laws,
So long as people can leave,
Though I might not want to live in a number of groups.
I like the right to a gun,
Think it should be a right in other groups,
But other groups have different wants than me,
More objectively,
Some groups would have more a reason to remove it,
Just I wouldn't want to live in said group.
@DavidAZ
I think myself, many later Atheists only give slight or shallow thought to religion and God in their childhood and teenage years,
Maybe even their adult years.
I also think many, (Though not all) are bitter,
Though reasons vary.
The one's who 'are bitter though,
Well, when one is angry, even less likely they 'think about the arguments given by their opponent,
Just applies to most people on any topic,
Viewing the other as the enemy, or something hateful, stupid, reduces objective consideration.
. . .
I'm not bitter about religion, then 'or now,
But I didn't think about it 'much as a kid,
Nor when I questioned it,
Nor now while I don't believe it.
@Intelligence_06
Why do you debate like this?
Azeal's meaning is clear enough to me.
(Shrug)
People have different views of what is moral, what is harmful,
The kids can read LGBT themes as adults, 'if they choose,
'Or as kids if their parents support such.
Oh no, 'three debates is more than enough for me,
On this subject,
Barring my making a long winded comment on YouTube somewhere.
Though it 'is good to switch sides for debate subjects,
Adds to knowledge of the subject,
'Can remove close minded view of a subject, advocating 'both sides,
Can show to self whether one 'really understands the view in opposition to one's own.
. . .
Population though 'is a modern concern of people,
'And an old concern of people, regarding dueling,
All the nobles dead of dueling,
All the officers in war dead of dueling,
. .
Which 'was an argument I was expecting from one of the Cons in these three debates,
I don't 'remember anyone making it though,
Though people 'did mention concerns about having too few people,
Well,
'People aren't 'so likely to kill each other I think,
Nor do they 'matter so much as officers, in the sense of function and vital need in war.
Also the other arguments I made,
About aggression outlet,
Possible the common man's wages would increase with less competing labor.
. . . . . .
Still, I enjoyed the debate,
And might not have watched that one two hour YouTube video on Uruguay if not for this specific debate,
Not that I needed more research for you, and not Bella3sp or Lightbringer69,
Can be good to keep improving each additional debate on a subject,
Also,
Since you seemed confident,
I thought a need to try to change up my arguments a bit,
Not so much 'better, but different,
In case you had a view on my angle of attack and were thinking, yes, yes, counterpunch when he uses 'that argument.
Darn,
But thank you for your vote,
Not trying to change your vote with the below,
I just like stating my thoughts at times.
I'd suppose dueling 'can be harmful to the body,
But thought I made enough argument for it being beneficial to soul/honor, society, it is more beneficial than harmful.
Same with the freedom over harm,
But ah well.
@Why is appreciation and power given to the children of Kings?
I'll suppose 5 random reasons for some people would be,
1 Government 'exists,
2 Inheritance exists,
3 Elites exist,
4 What is 'Right, hardens,
5 Blood and Proxy Appreciation exists.
1 Government 'exists,
Societies tend to have 'some sort of government,
Societies often prefer safe and secure government.
Tying leadership to a royal family,
Might lend toward preventing warlords and tribal conflict.
The King dies,
Powerful people might say, why not me?
But they cannot,
For leadership was tied to the bloodline,
The King's eldest son is the King,
No warlord conflict then. Stability.
. .
A course there's a problem if the son is evil, insane, stupid.
And various other problems. But problems in many governments.
2 Inheritance exists,
Chiefs and Kings often, but not always,
Had the power to pass down their possession of the Kingdom.
Possessions 'becomes oneself, in a fashion.
3 Elites exist,
In older times, and even some modern times,
Those with the means,
Have the time and ability to better train and educate their young,
Generally speaking, and specifically speaking in Ruling.
. .
The assumption is made that the descendent is better equipped than some others.
4 What is 'Right, hardens,
People get used to an idea, a behavior, a value.
5 Blood and Proxy Appreciation exists.
Appreciation for the King of old, can lead to protecting that which is connected to him, by blood, by Icon, or love.
We are in some views, our ancestors immortality itself, represented as a symbol, an item cared for, many times reconstructed in similar shape or value.
@NoOneInParticular
Why does the Chieftain exist?
Give to me, my fellows, power,
For I have the qualities you need,
Massed, milling about as you are,
You will not accomplish,
So give in to me your following,
And in return, be led to prosperity.
. . .
Course 'qualities vary,
Prosperity too.
Strength of arm, bravery, wisdom, charisma, intelligence, knowledge, ruthlessness, inhumanity, humanity, politics, luck.
Wealthy kingdom, many Rights, glad to be alive or Only the King wealthy, few Rights, Fear, but 'alive.
Thanks for voting,
No formal complaints about your vote,
Nor any wish you change it.
Still I like stating my personal views sometimes, below is meant more lighthearted, than serious.
Bah, Romeo is fictional.
The reality of the modern world,
Legal to commit suicide,
Legal to gamble away one's livelihood,
Legal to modify one's body,
Dueling just not a 'current fad.
If two people look upon a raging torrent of a river,
First say's,
"There is not no way we can just wade across that safely without any preparation.
Look at the raging torrent and history of people who drown crossing this river when it's like this."
Second says,
"So you're saying it's safe despite the dangerous reasons you gave after you said it was safe?
Okay then, I'll try crossing."
Second guy drowns.
. . .
But no,
That doesn't happen,
Because most people would catch on to the first guy's meaning,
Even if First 'did use a double negative.
@Sir.Lancelot
Thanks for the debate,
I've been enjoying three debates on the same subject more than I thought I would.
@NoOneInParticular
Hm, darn, I forgot to change Lance and Con to Sir.Lancelot, in round 4,
And Lance to Sir.Lancelot, in round 5,
I noticed this debate I can copy and paste usernames when posting my round, so that the User names are blue,
But Lance and Con were supposed to be placeholders, not what I meant to use,
Not that it 'matters much,
But I like to remember my intention, ah well.
Vote Part 2
Savant, R2
Framework:
Burdens:
Majority rule isn't great, but frankly Might is Right,
It's good when Right makes Might,
And people acquiesce to laws for moralities sake, even when stronger,
But I'm not convinced that majority rule is 'so immoral.
Of course it 'can be,
But against such times are when Right makes Might.
Also minority percents being strong enough that it's not worth Majority risking it.
5. “Morality/Ethics”:
Sir.Lancelot 'did make some arguments on how immigrants could harm current citizens.
6. “Difficulty Status”:
Savant makes a fair point that able and ought are different,
And of course unable 'can turn into able with time.
Makes the argument that only the worst need be kept out, worth considering.
7. “Needs for Immigration Laws”:
Crime operating when there is laws against is of course classic,
But letting people in freely only get's rid of letting people in illegally crime,
'Not all the other crime.
Current citizens 'would be able to apply for government aid easier, (Probably)
And of course there is 'national economic gains (At citizen cost)
Sir.Lancelot R2
quantity = quality.
Quantity 'Generally quantity is good for a nation,
Not necessarily the natives.
Rebuttal 1 - Equality
I wouldn't say it's a 'reversal of who matters,
But it 'is a refusal to allow people to care for their own over others.
A big Claim of Savant's was that the person buying food did no harm.
Savant R3
Framework:
Action and Inaction are both actions.
1. Does Denying Entry to Noncitizens Unjustly Harm Anyone?
I agree, compared to what they 'could have, immigrants situation can often be worse than if they had immigrated.
One's mind 'does go to some ultra rich elite, refusing to give up what they have,
Though comparatively many Americans may be better off than some countries,
It's still not the 'best, many of us 'still have to work to live.
And I think that helping from far away is a better solution, but Sir.Lancelot never uses this argument that I recall.
2. What is the Net Effect of Denying Entry to the Majority of Immigrants?
The nation 'would be stronger,
But I'm not convinced the natives would be stronger for it.
3. Which Position is More Egalitarian?
Well, there's equality then there's equality.
If a Dad by effort or luck provides a better home for his kid than another Dad,
The other Dad and kid may want the home of the first Dad (Fairness)
But equal end, ignores the suffering and risk of acquirement,
Thus not equal.
but Sir.Lancelot doesn't use this argument.
Sir.Lancelot R3
The U.S. does not have a duty
Makes argument that there is no duty.
My thoughts.
A 'Big Claim by Savant, was that there was no harm to the natives by letting in immigrants.
I think that's the biggest pivot point in this debate,
But one I'm unsure on after reading,
Maybe it's more clear than I see it,
But I've never claimed to be a good voter.
Savant makes arguments that it helps nation at 'large, Probably true,
Sir.Lancelot makes claims it harms natives, 'maybe true, but pivot point.
I think that Sir.Lancelot could have made better evidence of how natives are supposedly harmed,
But even that by the question becoming murky for me, the debate becomes neutral tie.
Vote Part 1
Savant, R1
Framework:
Yes, Harm is 'generally considered bad.
Citizens vs. Noncitizens:
Well, not 'just by where one is born, an American can be born of American parents, even in another country, as in literally their parents had American citizenship and traveled, then had their kid.
America 'does accept people who are 'born in America, even if their parents are illegal, I think.
Course then there's that problem with 'young illegal immigrants who grow up in America, American, but I'm rambling.
Black's place of birth, for many of them 'was America,
Thus many did not want to leave.
There's human rights, and then there's national rights,
Rights vary based on context.
Marketplace Thought Experiment:
Misses out on how much immigrants change and can threaten a nation.
Additionally, a food stand could be built near the immigrants location, instead of 'having to allow them to move in.
Benefits to Immigrants:
I cannot deny there are benefits for the immigrants,
(When they receive fair treatment and rights)
Effect on Economy:
There 'can be a positive effect of immigration,
Though the 'Only benefit I view as 'vital, is the military one gained from those benefits,
Which I 'still think harms the original citizens.
Ownership of Public Spaces:
This is asserted by Savant, more than proven,
I think it's a gray area.
Sir.Lancelot R1
Majority - More than half:
Preamble:
Sir.Lancelot making argument that 'enough of the necessary laws prevent people that we 'ought keep out.
Morality/Ethics:
Makes the argument that there is danger to the scenario of letting immigrants in.
Though of course the question one has to this, is are the immigrants 'such a danger, or 'more a danger than our own citizens?
I think yes, but still, Sir.Lancelot has to justify own points.
Difficulty Status:
Accountability is a fair point, we monitor even our own citizens,
And of the bare minimum checks, might be difficult to check the backgrounds of 'everyone who wants in. (Maybe)
Needs for Immigration Laws:
Makes a point of harm to Americans by 'too many people being let in,
Which they could have used examples of natives harmed by immigration in history (If there are any)
Course he used modern day source arguments on employment, which is something.
I think Savant has some fair points to consider,
In fairness and benefit, to immigrant and native,
So does Sir.Lancelot,
In fairness towards the native, and harm to the native.
@Sir.Lancelot
I've noticed you're an active debater,
One I've thought,
Well I hope I don't debate them,
I'd have to effort, try, and improve myself, To match them.
@NoOneInParticular
Hm, forums,
Active in Wylted's presidential campaign.
Have published books.
Writing books, another sign of effort/skill in an area,
Mentioned Star Wars a few times,
I suppose Star Wars has duels, but they're more fights that happen to be one on one,
Unless one goes into more media than the movies.
Too many debates to read, currently with what else I'm doing in life,
I think I'll read and watch David S. Parker talk about dueling in Uruguay,
Then post my round 2 in 0-3 days.
Thanks for voting,
What are your thoughts on dueling?
Given your vote that Con is the easier side,
It would look that you consider dueling as a proposition has massive holes in it.
Overpopulation,
If humans cause the extinction of many other species,
Because of how many places and in such density as we live,
I view us as overpopulated,
Mind you, this thought is more for the view of exploitation, than care for the other species.
Can't exploit something if it's gone.
I also view the lack of free land available to be picked from, for people,
As another sign of too many people,
Though admittedly that also requires a change in society/government.
And true I didn't make any justifications, sources, for Earth being overpopulated or not,
And maybe even my above aren't convincing.
Dueling Type,
There being such a wide variety of dueling,
I didn't think it a vital aspect of the debate,
Compared to what I assume most people object to,
The killing and the death.
Maybe the injury, lack of workers, peer pressure,
But I assume it's mostly the perceived murder/killing, loss of potential life lived, that bothers people.
Consent,
I 'do think the argument of people being overwhelmed is decent,
But I'm not fully convinced myself, hence the emotion tied to decision argument,
Currently a gray/unsure area in my thoughts.
Thanks for voting,
I wasn't even going to ask for votes on this debate, as I felt I stumbled about so much in it,
But I appreciate your voting.
I'm curious though,
Of your thoughts on dueling?
To me,
Seems if one places Freedom and Self determination highly,
The 'damage it might cause to the participants is mitigated.
Of damage to family,
Mitigated by laws 'regulating whose allowed to duel.
Of society,
Mitigated by valuing Freedom and Self determination above it.
. . .
I wasn't highly convinced by the Honor Killings argument of Con,
Because different cultures 'have similar institutions, but run them different,
Some prisons are torture prisons,
Some are nice,
Makes prisons more neutral than good or bad, by the bad.
. . Unless there was some strong argument of the good near always turning bad, maybe.
The argument I found hard from Con,
Was their stating the stupidity or jerkishness of dueling in some cases,
Such as spilling coffee on someone, minor insults, think skin, so on.
But to me that seems more a question of whether the individual 'ought do it,
Than whether they should be 'allowed to do it.
My opinion in that specific situation would be disappointment at the very least, quite likely more than that.
Most humans 'don't tend to help people though,
Least not all the time,
Beyond most humans expected willpower, possibly beyond expected 'care.
People 'have their money, their possessions,
Don't sell all of it and help the poor,
Walk by the homeless, the drugged,
Don't fight in wars,
Launch crusades of help in their neighborhoods.
. . .
Arguably abortion is not 'quite 'like seeing a baby drowning in a pond,
At the very least human perception/culture/reaction to it is different.
A pond is also pretty easy to wade in save the baby,
Not like it's a pond of acid.
Many Pro Life individuals also have lines they draw of where they are against abortion,
Rape, for some of them,
Compared to where they see the existence of the Yet Born in abortions of convenience, as being created in an act of callous disregard of the Yet born.
(Tossed the baby into the pond)
I don't think it is wrong/unexpected of Pro Life individuals for push for laws that help people,
As opposed to Pro Life individuals suffering great pain to help only who they can help individually.
Somehow your question and statement go over my head,
Can you rephrase them?
Eh, some people don't want to adopt abused kids either,
Doesn't mean people are wrong to push for laws that take kids from parents that beat/starve/neglect their kids.
Lot of geometry/math in Islamic art I've heard.
I 'think I recall Clausewitz mentions something about science and art, in his On War book.
Ooh, after Googling that a bit in variation, and reading the description in this debate, I'm interested in how this debate might go.
I don't think I've 'thought much about the concept of art.
Kouen's sources didn't fit either quite. Kouen's 'might have, if they had made more arguments, but as they were, I thought them incomplete, hence I didn't give Kouen any points for sources.
I did not think your sources fit either, albeit I thoughts they fit 'worse than Kouen's, because I did not read anywhere in your sources, statements on whether abortion was 'murder or not.
Your articles made statements for abortion not to be criminal, and a right to medically necessary procedures, but this is not the same as stating whether abortion is murder/killing.
Nor whether they considered fertilization the start of human life.
Though it 'is possible I did not read your sources in depth enough, which 'would be a fault on me, and is possible to have occurred.
However, I don't see those 'highlighted in your round 1 gray box quotes either.
. . .
I would argue that personhood is 'often a crux for abortion debates.
. . .
Language and concepts can be vague, bleed into each other.
. . .
I mentioned it in my vote, because Kouen specifically stated his source supported when human 'life started, that's where a vaguery might be,
And where many Pro Choice individuals might have attacked his arguments.
. .
Can one 'murder what is 'not a person?
Arguably one can 'kill life, or even inanimate objects from a certain point of view.
But 'murder,
Though shall not kill,
Usually speaks of 'humans, of persons.
Not trees, art, desks, 'pieces of humans, nor even animals other than humans,
But 'people, individuals.
. . .
I suppose there are ways your sources could have fit in later arguments,
But not in the one you made in round 1, stating that,
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which is the largest group of reproductive scientists and members of the medical field, does not agree that abortion is murder."
From my current viewpoint.
Oh I would say myself , that Mr.BrotherD.Thomas has broken the CoC, not you.
Personally, I 'think Mr.BrotherD.Thomas is pretending to be a Christian, and mocking Christianity and Christians in parody.
(Though I 'could be wrong)
1,
"You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is either intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable, so long it is clear that they are parodies and do not parody other site users." - DART COC
Alas I cannot 'prove this,
Hence the not 'clear it is parody.
2,
"Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest. This includes wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones experiences physical harm." - DART COC
"Jesus and I are going to have a lot of fun with this pseudo-christian named "Public-Choice," but it will be at his embarrassing expense in front of the membership for sure!"
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas #18
To me sounds that he's targeting you, intending and 'trying to embarrass you.
3,
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions." - DART COC
Invectives is defined by Webster as "insulting or abusive language." It can also refer to an abusive expression or speech.
"Dolts, Stupid, Fool, Buffoonery, DUMB ASS, DUMBFOUNDED, NEWB, CRYBABY, sniveling"
Are all 'repeatedly used by Mr.BrotherD.Thomas in this 'one comment section alone.
4,
"Spam is prohibited, and any overtly repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam." - DART COC
Their posts are generic and ever the same, spamming paragraphs of insults.
. . . .
I say again,
Even if 'you Public-Choice have thick skin,
I do not think it is right to let such individuals as Mr.BrotherD.Thomas have free reign,
To go about insulting and targeting users.
Observe his words to swordburial17 here,
"Heads up, we're going to have a lot of fun with YOU like we did with the other disgusting camel herder Muslim tigerlord, where you will now take his place, so "chain up" because your ride in this forum is going to be real bumpy at your expense!" - BrotherD.Thomas #45 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9532-non-fallacious-defenses-of-muhammad?page=2
I would like to state that Mods seem to take reports from the targets of harassment more seriously than bystander reports of harassment.
I would also like to argue that it is better for the community if individuals who break the DART Code of Conduct are held responsible,
Even if 'you have thick skin towards them,
'Not reporting certain actions by them,
Allows them to act that way towards other users.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
@Barney
In some ways a debate is nicer without participants giving lengthy explanation, that one might already be aware of,
Enough to reference fact/claim/study/idea.
@NoOneInParticular
Argument, not arguement.
Stupid spellcheck user, not 'looking close enough at the words, before changing arguement to agreement.
I'd agree it's often good to have 'reasons. .
Easier to convince others,
Good to try to see 'truth for oneself, rather than just assume what may be false.
A manga called Liars Game, had a character who encouraged doubting other people,
“People SHOULD be doubted. Many people misunderstand this concept. Doubting people is just a part of getting to know them. What many people call ‘trust’ is really just giving up on trying to understand others, and that very act is far worse than doubting. It is actually ‘apathy.”
― Shinobu Kaitani, Liar Game, Volume 4
And I remember the Bible mentioning false prophets.
New International Version
"and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people."
https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-11.htm
If it warns people against false prophets, presumably people are being encouraged to not accept without question, what is said by others.
@NoOneInParticular
Can faith 'avoid having evidence and reason?
I'd suppose it can, 'kind of myself.
But if one views this world as one of causation, or cause and effect,
People's faith, are going to have reasons for why they are held.
Course then there's that word 'primary.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When I say 'kind of,
People with mental illness, can have some pretty big leaps in logic,
Feelings that come upon them, driven by disorder.
Not that religion is an illness or disorder,
I'm just musing on faith, certainty held in an idea.
. .
Course 'unlike a meth addict or individual with schizophrenia,
I imagine many people of religious belief might change their beliefs,
Were proof or a threshold of convincing be done.
Same as an atheist might become a theist, with the same proof or threshold convincing be done.
But it's not 'so easy a proof, one way or the other perhaps,
Various life experiences, presuppositions, leading to conclusions.
'Many groups of people alternatively legalize then illegalize, then legalize actions. And so on.
Though I admit I myself, for a fondness of using the crowds actions to gauge my own.
Still, that we're doing something 'now, doesn't itself make an action good, to my thinking.
Still, I am glad for the feedback and the vote.
Thanks for voting, I admit since I ended up losing to Sir.Lancelot,
I hope a bit to lose all three of these duel debates,
As a sometimes all or nothing person,
Also be a bit funny to see no wins in my profile.
What would you say Lightbringer69's edge was?
I admit I view the debate as a fair bit subjective towards voters,
While dueling may encourage or discourage this or that value,
What the voter might lean towards is 'their own value, and whichever debater in their arguments encourages it.
@#10 #11 #12
Action is not the same as understanding,
Even slugs and plants avoid pain,
Express in actions that they are ideally functioning.
True, some humans lack empathy,
Whether the care of others, or the understanding.
I wouldn't say culture is a 'fallacy,
'Does fall under intelligence though,
As greater intelligence may allow greater culture and longer culture.
Still, intelligence then simply becomes one of the 'many ways humans are, as rule of thumb separated.
If a dog acquired intelligence, high social skills, could make us 'believe they were sentient,
Many people would want to treat the dog as a person, give the dog human rights.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Classification, to my mind, is tricky,
But still, in practicality, something we use.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interesting use of history,
To argue against actions such as agriculture.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If it makes you feel better about the people Average_Person tagged in comment #3,
I think all those people will vote honestly in the debate, without bias forAverage_Person, if they vote.
RFV Part 2
Average_Person Con R2
Con 'does use sources,
I'm unsure whether animals 'lack understanding though.
Hm, reading second source, collective cognition, I disagree,
Animals communicate states of the world, or can lie about states of the world,
Though less advanced than humans, and one still questions whether the animals 'understand.
Still there is room for Pro to argue.
Pro sources can be argued against easily,
So Sources still a tie, due to definitions in earlier rounds.
Humans 'are a different type of animal,
Con gives many examples of actions humans can take that many other animals cannot,
Though arguably many animals such as spiders, are able to do something many other animals cannot,
But this is reason spiders get a classification, course some spiders don't make webs.
Hm. . . But even if one classifies humans as animals,
Is this any reason 'not to eat and tyrannize other animals?
Empathy I suppose,
Though many animals eat each other,
One of Cons arguments is higher empathy, higher understanding.
Debate 'could tie, but depends on Pro arguments later on maybe.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Con makes points on their definition arguments and on fallacy of composition.
Though I still imagine that items get classified 'based on traits and compositions.
That one compares and predicts other items, partially based on past items, comparisons, compositions.
Still, a coffee machine is matter, we are matter, doesn't mean they are the same in all ways, way material is put together is different, types of material.
Hm, interesting use of robots, to argue classification.
Ah, this is the last round, my vote is going to Con definitely,
More rounds 'maybe Pro could manage a tie, 'maybe,
But Con is going pretty strong, and it is the final round.
RFD
Arguements,
My vote goes to Con,
If debate had remained whether humans can be classified biologically as animals,
Con might have had a harder time,
But Pro themself, in my view, opened up the 'meaning of animal in R2,
Also the debate description and round 1 leaving the 'meaning of animal somewhat vague in debate.
Sources are a tie, as many of Cons other than definitions could be argued against.
Legibility, both understandable.
Conduct, both polite in debate.
If you read this far,
Feel free to vote on any of my debates,
Whether for, or against me.
Couple more Quotes that came to mind, not that I 'agree with them, they just came to mind.
"A virus." - Agent Smith
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm
RFV Part 1
Interesting description,
I wonder if 'spiritual arguments count,
Not that I'm particularly spiritual.
MonkeyBara Pro R1
A definition of animal, noting humans fit definition.
"98.8 percent of their DNA" reminds me of,
"Bleach is healthy. It's mostly water. And we're mostly water. Therefore, we're bleach." Nathan Explosion
But of course Pro is not saying we are chimps, but that we are animals,
Humans are partially liquid maybe.
Average_Person Con R1
It 'does help when debate creators have BOP and some detail in the description, though I am lazy debater myself.
Con uses definitions counting on vagueness of debate description,
As a number of definitions and uses of the word animal, excludes human from the word.
Sadly I don't understand the math example,
But I 'have heard of the fallacy of composition, not that I consider 'all 'things a fallacy.
Hm, Pro not saying similarity makes us chimps,
Still, probably organisms that hardly share far less DNA with us,
So maybe DNA similar not reason enough to use as animal argument. (Still Con says slightly different)
MonkeyBara Pro R2
I wonder what MonkeyBara would expect Con to look like, following MonkeyBara's ideal debate description.
I can only 'imagine, but not know,
That this debate has come about because of times people differentiate themselves from animals,
Such as when humans eat animals, and say it's fine because humans are not animals.
I doubt they are saying humans are not MonkeyBara's first definition,
But rather they are differentiating humans from 'animals for other reasons.
Of 3) (Shrug) Primates is some kind of biology classification, lot's of different primates that can't interbreed, breeding is one of the ways some people define different species.
(But this is my argument, not Cons)
Ah, some explanatory of Pro debate reasons,
Arguably, humans are 'still classified as animals by biologists, I'm 'pretty sure,
Not 'plants, for example.
Classification is tricky, insects still animals, plants still organisms,
But differences are cause for different treatment.
Even if animals other than humans can still reach toddler intelligence, there would still be reason to treat them differently,
They would not be interchangeable with humans,
Raise a chimp as a human, not going to work,
Though more a rule of thumb,
As I 'think I recall Pro stating later on, we still treat toddlers and the mentally challenged as human,
But there are various reasons for this, may be Con addresses later.
3) We're 'still animals,
Yet 'not animals,
Words have many senses, definitions,
At this point in the debate, I'm leaning heavily towards Con,
Reason for, is that Pro 'themself, is opening up different reasons that humans are not considered animals,
Which opens up room for Cons definitions to be seen as valid,
Debate becomes no longer 'just whether humans are biologically animal.
Thanks for voting.
Seems clear that you read everything, weighed everything, by stating what was said,
Only thing people might say, is you don't say 'why Pro or Con saying this or that, was a better or worse argument.
Still, I appreciate your reading and voting.
It resulted in a tie, because no one voted,
And the system is not programmed to recognize when someone doesn't post an argument,
Even if it 'did though,
The individual who 'did post arguments,
Might be posting gibberish, for all the program would know, if it's just checking for posted or not.
I didn't think Bella3sp game any strong examples or logic of societies wrecked by dueling,
But still, appreciate you voting on the debate.
I 'expected her to give examples of militaries banning dueling, due to officer death during war,
Though I'd have argued many military takes a lot of rights away from people, doesn't mean the freeman should have those rights taken away,
Additionally I'd have argued dueling simply could have followed different rules (Some historical examples of such), or been suspended temporarily during war.
@MyOwnVote
Though I mention The Widow’s Offering,
Maybe also should mention,
"Warning Against the Teachers of the Law
38 As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012&version=NIV
Sure The Widow’s Offering makes one think of how much a person is 'actually giving of themself, philosophical,
Rich man through the eye of a needle and all that,
Easy for people to take 'advantage of giving in others though,
Not really 'good for poor people to be even poorer,
Though 'general idea of giving is good, 'is held by society.
Society ought also want those givers to be helped themselves.
Oh no, I'm being serious, and just forgot or never knew if you were a guy or girl,
People's use of the word gender just has me confused at times, so I just put both in there. Sex/Gender.
I'd say ideologically I view myself more on your side, in 'this debate,
'Generally speaking,
But I also think you didn't do yourself favors in your structuring of the debate.
Heh,
Quite possible I knew it in the past but forget,
But jah, not knowing or forgetting your sex/gender, was a reason for me saying they.
It's on my to do list,
Higher up, due to time limit, is vote on one of Devon and Bella3sp's debates,
Also higher up is enjoy myself through food, reading comics, watching/Listening to YouTube,
Working and procrastinating on my video game, my writing, reading various threads,
Still, I fully intend to vote on this debate before it's timer runs out.
ponikshiy R3
It 'does seem to me that actions have more often Burdens of Proof,
But I'm still treating Burden of Proof as neutral,
'Too many human actions,
Actions outside 'norm, one could argue are more action, than action within a norm.
I see 3rd interpretation,
That there are reasonable reasons for Circumcision,
Slainte has not 'yet made strong culture argument, though examples in culture were given,
Slainte 'has made medical exception argument.
I disagree with ponikshiy 'superstition claim,
Culture and Religion don't quite equivalate with superstition.
Saying "invisible sky fairy" irritates me, though an Atheist myself,
I view the belief in God, as more nuanced than that.
Still my irritation is sidebar, I'm just noting that emotion influences voting, though voting is 'supposed to be objective, humans are not, so much.
Still, line might work well on Anti-Theists.
. .
Of argument objectively though, Culture and Religion don't quite equivalate with superstition.
ponikshiy makes fair point that while Slainte shows examples where people endure pain,
Slainte could better show why these actions were 'worthwhile,
Though Slainte examples 'do erode ponikshiy claim that Circumcision 'must not be, because of pleasure focus.
Slainte needs better arguments for 'reasons, 'values, people take action of Circumcision.
ponikshiy accident argument is not strong without a better source.
ponikshiy makes fair argument of children an consent,
Though Slainte medical necessity argument 'does sidestep this a bit,
Vagueness of debate 'is a problem, though I will probably vote for 'generally 'speaking, Circumcision should or should not be,
I've been noting the vagueness throughout the debate, as it 'Does allow voters and opponent more room to define debate as they see.
Slainte R3
While Slainte 'has given those 5 reasons,
Only 'health did Slainte give in depth argument,
Not that Slaintes other reasons were 'bad,
But it would have strengthened them, to justify the examples more.
'Yes debate was bit vaguely put,
But vague debates aren't dangerous 'only for person making debate,
'Yes, Slainte gave reasons for Circumcision,
But Slainte did not justify them in depth,
People can have 'bad reasons for an action,
Having 'just a reason,
Is not as strong as a 'demonstrated justified reason.
Conclusion,
Debate is vague,
But I interpret the BoP on both,
Interpret debate 'not as legal action, but as good idea or not action,
In my view, ponikshiy went more in depth with justifying their points than Slainte,
While I do think Slainte has 'material for good points,
I 'don't think Slainte 'uses that material as effectively as they could,
Does not 'describe norms varying by culture,
Does not 'describe why body modifications are good,
Slainte gives examples, but does not 'follow through, is my view.
My vote goes to ponikshiy.
Lastly, because I like talking about my own views sometimes,
Here's an old debate of mine, via the WayBackMachine,
https://web.archive.org/web/20210802144543/https://www.debate.org/debates/Circumcision-on-male-infants-is-immoral-unless-medically-necessary./1/
ponikshiy R1
1. Mine feels fine.
2. Weird is subjective.
3. Accidents 'can happen, but need be proved common enough to be concern.
4. Needs be 'proven harm.
Slainte R1
Though adults might consensually modify their bodies,
Doesn't mean it's a 'good idea,
If one looks at it from some angles.
ponikshiy 'seems to be more arguing whether the 'action is good,
Than the 'freedom to 'take said action.
Ah, sneaky Slainte, "Nowhere in the description or resolution does is this argument restricted to children"
ponikshiy R2
I disagree that it's a forfeit,
If Slainte can give reasons for people to take the action,
Might push debate arguments into neutral, if not for Slainte's side,
I'm inclined to see Burden of Proof as 'neutral, myself,
But one 'can view debate as (There is no reason for circumcision),
I view it more as Circumcision vs NonCircumcision .
Silly superstitions 'everywhere,
But maybe this is nihilistic of me,
More normally speaking,
Slainte 'will need to address this argument by ponikshiy,
'Show necessity/reason/good of modification.
Slainte 'could stand to more address 'all of ponikshiy's 4 points in R1,
Though Slainte 'did address point 4 by sidestep,
And indirect addressed 2, by examples of what is normal varies in culture.
Slainte R2
Fair point, still time for Slainte to address points of ponikshiy R1.
ponikshiy has not made argument that Circumcision should be 'banned,
Slainte also needs to show 'reasons people do body modifications.
ponikshiy title and arguments are vague enough, that they can be seen as argument to take action or not,
'Not arguments that Circumcision should be banned.
Slainte 'does address accidents here,
Notes ponikshiy need prove data shows that Circumcision is dangerous.
. .
Slainte does not address ponikshiy source regarding accidents in R1,
But regardless ponikshiy source does not show complications as 'likely,
"death is an extremely unlikely complication of neonatal circumcision, but it has been reported."
Slainte makes medical necessity argument,
Though this is more in 'exceptional cases than norm of cases,
Debate is vague enough that this is reasonable argument,
Though ponikshiy arguments thus far 'imply they are thinking more of Circumcision for cultural or cosmetic reasons,
Well, this is reason people sometimes like well defined title and description,
(Though I am lazy debater myself)
People often enjoy competition,
Enjoy winning,
Doesn't matter if arm wrestling or debate on philosophy.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additionally the act of debate often compels an individual to take a deeper look at both sides of an issue,
The 'obligation of debate, and to debate well,
Leads to research,
To well formed thought, articulated speech.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sometimes one prefers to take a moment to think,
Before acting,
Questions whether their action is 'right.
Or, . .
One might see it as good to convince others,
Change 'their actions.
. .
Personally I just enjoy thinking on subjects, at times.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LGBTQ, is topical,
Though some of it 'is from individuals a bit 'fixed on it.
. .
Websites in 'general, I would expect,
Have periods of interest in certain subjects,
Great spawn of threads on the 'same subject for a number of years,
Until not so longer relevant.
. .
People arguing against LGBTQ, aren't saying 'kill them,
Even in the past recent history,
People fine with don't ask, don't tell,
Leaving people to their own devices.
. .
It's 'what the LGBTQ movement is 'doing, that currently has some people riled.
I don't feel like voting right this moment,
Maybe won't later either,
I just wanted to post my thoughts on your round 1,
Not that my thoughts are great,
But I enjoy posting them anyhow sometimes, once thought of.
I would argue that not all Christians believe in Hell as some fire pit of eternal torment,
Nor do all Christians believe God literally resides in the Heavens/Sky.
I am unsure what you mean by the 'modern age of science,
That people were clueless as to how the world around them really worked,
Or that Humans had no knowledge about atoms,
"Democritus (/dɪˈmɒkrɪtəs/; Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning "chosen of the people"; c. 460 – c. 370 BC) was an Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher from Abdera, primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe.[1] None of his work has survived."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus
Of course Dēmókritos example can be rebutted, but Intelligence_06 takes debate another course.
. . .
The Old Testament, 'seems to me an impressive record of history, poetry, and philosophy,
I say 'seems, because I don't know that much of it.
. .
I don't think Jews look upon their religions writings the same some Christians do,
History is passed down through people, different history books exist, different science books,
But this is not to say their claims do not exist.
Even if it is not 'exact,
One person says there was a man named Dan who did this and that,
Another person says there was a man named Dann who did this and that,
We might say a man named Dan and a man named Dann could not have existed at the same time,
But 'roughly 'someone did,
If Dan/Dann had been a criminal at some crime scene,
Police would not say oh a word contradiction and ignore,
They would focus on there being a man at the crime scene, 'likely a man with a name possibly or similar to Dan/Dann.
. . . . . . . . .
"Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.[10][11]
Some scholars estimate that there are about 30 surviving independent sources written by 25 authors who attest to Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
2000 years ago, was a 'long time ago.
. . . . . . . . .
What qualifies as a miracle,
And who can say what 'happened long ago?
Take the Red Sea,
Waters may recede provided circumstance provides,
Provide a crossing,
Or return and drown an army.
Modern miracles for some people, include merely surviving a car crash,
Problem with these arguments of mine here, of course are an Atheistic bent,
One might argue an invisible gardener absurd,
Or that my arguments are the opposite of anthromorphizing,
But I'm rambling, well, I'm not a Christian.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I suppose a different argument might be an event doesn't happen for a long period of time,
So people assume it never existed to begin with.
You're not likely to get my vote for such tactics.
I view Intelligence_06 as an intelligent person,
Their arguments 'do make sense,
And it's fair for people to encourage other's to use airtight debate titles, definitions, description.
But I prefer more laid back debates myself,
Would rather point out such in the comments if it 'really needs be,
And think it more 'friendly, to debate people as they 'intended to be debated.
Well,
They're topical for people,
It was 'Really interesting,
Back when I was reading through DDO,
The oldest debates I mean,
One could see people discussing past topical events,
So curious to see conversations of laws, events, people,
That many take for granted now.
One of the reasons I'm against the 'banning of some people currently.
Though,
I 'am for a regulating some of them,
Spamming topics, as though they are taking up 10 tables in a bar, when they only need 1.
No one's 'making anyone interact with anyone 'now.
I'd say the problem is more people taking up an obnoxious amount of space.
If someone 'really dislikes another individual,
Just block them, and have blocks prevent a person from posting in a thread that was made by someone who blocked them.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
While the argument ban any opinion I disagree with may not be 'wrong,
In the sense of preserving one's own value,
It becomes argument for 'any group, to not allow free discussion.
Rights for Blacks?
Guess the racists ought to have refused people freedom of speech,
Course many 'did,
But that's not the point.
The point is people protest against being denied free speech for 'their beliefs,
Yet cry for it at any belief they disagree with.
. .
Well, not 'any belief.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Really though,
It's interesting, to go through conversations from years ago.
Imagine going back a thousand years,
And having 'detailed information of people's beliefs, arguments, conversations.
Detailed more than some slight record,
Some censored record,
Or people only of one mind discussing a subject.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Although I suppose even now it could be interesting,
Provided I went to some website with different enough culture than my own.
Well,
Lightbringer69's biggest errors, were in not continuing the debate to the end,
And making insults during the debate.
. .
Also might have been some translation troubles for him,
Possibly caused by my wording on the subject,
Certainly my round 1 had errors, (I used it from a long past debate of mine, and didn't check for errors).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bella3sp,
Had a bit of scheduling trouble, looks to me,
Her round 2 also tripped me a bit,
The layout of it I'd say,
Felt fragmented I'd say,
Not that that's good or bad,
I just have a harder time dealing with 'many points at once.
Children,
I thought she could have used historical examples,
Gang knife fights for instance,
West Side Story but real, I 'imagine there's historical documents somewhere.
What we 'raise kids 'into,
Well,
Societies often have so 'many different groups,
With ideas of what is right.
She had a point about bravery and Brooks,
But didn't quite follow it enough, I 'think.
Some people may lack 'fear,
Yet not choose to fight,
Not 'honorable maybe, but not 'necessarily a lack of bravery.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Really though,
I had higher hopes for me in our debate, Sir.Lancelot.
But maybe I should have seized more on your argument of suicide, (Which I saw as an error on your part)
Or fully addressed your hypothetical examples in fiction.
I do think you argued better than the other two duel debates,
But that also made me 'try more myself,
Bring up more sources and argument.
I also felt more firing all cylinders,
I don't mind Bella3sp taking two weeks,
But can be easier to stay more in mind of a topic, if there isn't too long a gap of time.
Still win or lose I'm glad of the debate,
One wants for other people's opinions of their arguments,
Can be easy to overestimate oneself wrongly.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So long as people have 'constant consent in a system,
I 'might not mind any law allowed or prevented.
Barring that which cannot 'have constant consent.
I don't mind groups making laws,
So long as people can leave,
Though I might not want to live in a number of groups.
I like the right to a gun,
Think it should be a right in other groups,
But other groups have different wants than me,
More objectively,
Some groups would have more a reason to remove it,
Just I wouldn't want to live in said group.
@DavidAZ
I think myself, many later Atheists only give slight or shallow thought to religion and God in their childhood and teenage years,
Maybe even their adult years.
I also think many, (Though not all) are bitter,
Though reasons vary.
The one's who 'are bitter though,
Well, when one is angry, even less likely they 'think about the arguments given by their opponent,
Just applies to most people on any topic,
Viewing the other as the enemy, or something hateful, stupid, reduces objective consideration.
. . .
I'm not bitter about religion, then 'or now,
But I didn't think about it 'much as a kid,
Nor when I questioned it,
Nor now while I don't believe it.
@Intelligence_06
Why do you debate like this?
Azeal's meaning is clear enough to me.
(Shrug)
People have different views of what is moral, what is harmful,
The kids can read LGBT themes as adults, 'if they choose,
'Or as kids if their parents support such.
I'd say I'm a fan of free speech and academic freedom,
But there are places speech get's limited,
Places academia get's limited.
I 'would put it to a vote, in a Parent Teacher Association,
If there 'is a minority as you say,
Then the vote won't pass.
But if a majority of parents and teachers 'do think it harmful to the children,
Then it 'ought be banned.
Oh no, 'three debates is more than enough for me,
On this subject,
Barring my making a long winded comment on YouTube somewhere.
Though it 'is good to switch sides for debate subjects,
Adds to knowledge of the subject,
'Can remove close minded view of a subject, advocating 'both sides,
Can show to self whether one 'really understands the view in opposition to one's own.
. . .
Population though 'is a modern concern of people,
'And an old concern of people, regarding dueling,
All the nobles dead of dueling,
All the officers in war dead of dueling,
. .
Which 'was an argument I was expecting from one of the Cons in these three debates,
I don't 'remember anyone making it though,
Though people 'did mention concerns about having too few people,
Well,
'People aren't 'so likely to kill each other I think,
Nor do they 'matter so much as officers, in the sense of function and vital need in war.
Also the other arguments I made,
About aggression outlet,
Possible the common man's wages would increase with less competing labor.
. . . . . .
Still, I enjoyed the debate,
And might not have watched that one two hour YouTube video on Uruguay if not for this specific debate,
Not that I needed more research for you, and not Bella3sp or Lightbringer69,
Can be good to keep improving each additional debate on a subject,
Also,
Since you seemed confident,
I thought a need to try to change up my arguments a bit,
Not so much 'better, but different,
In case you had a view on my angle of attack and were thinking, yes, yes, counterpunch when he uses 'that argument.
Out of curiosity,
How did you feel about the population argument in 'this debate regarding dueling?
Both in the sense of 'number of people overall,
And in creating a higher turnover, of individuals in higher ranks within society?
Alas, but ah well.
Darn,
But thank you for your vote,
Not trying to change your vote with the below,
I just like stating my thoughts at times.
I'd suppose dueling 'can be harmful to the body,
But thought I made enough argument for it being beneficial to soul/honor, society, it is more beneficial than harmful.
Same with the freedom over harm,
But ah well.
Oh that's a shame, that John00's a no show.
My view is that Con ought have an overwhelming advantage in this debate.
@Why is appreciation and power given to the children of Kings?
I'll suppose 5 random reasons for some people would be,
1 Government 'exists,
2 Inheritance exists,
3 Elites exist,
4 What is 'Right, hardens,
5 Blood and Proxy Appreciation exists.
1 Government 'exists,
Societies tend to have 'some sort of government,
Societies often prefer safe and secure government.
Tying leadership to a royal family,
Might lend toward preventing warlords and tribal conflict.
The King dies,
Powerful people might say, why not me?
But they cannot,
For leadership was tied to the bloodline,
The King's eldest son is the King,
No warlord conflict then. Stability.
. .
A course there's a problem if the son is evil, insane, stupid.
And various other problems. But problems in many governments.
2 Inheritance exists,
Chiefs and Kings often, but not always,
Had the power to pass down their possession of the Kingdom.
Possessions 'becomes oneself, in a fashion.
3 Elites exist,
In older times, and even some modern times,
Those with the means,
Have the time and ability to better train and educate their young,
Generally speaking, and specifically speaking in Ruling.
. .
The assumption is made that the descendent is better equipped than some others.
4 What is 'Right, hardens,
People get used to an idea, a behavior, a value.
5 Blood and Proxy Appreciation exists.
Appreciation for the King of old, can lead to protecting that which is connected to him, by blood, by Icon, or love.
We are in some views, our ancestors immortality itself, represented as a symbol, an item cared for, many times reconstructed in similar shape or value.
@NoOneInParticular
Why does the Chieftain exist?
Give to me, my fellows, power,
For I have the qualities you need,
Massed, milling about as you are,
You will not accomplish,
So give in to me your following,
And in return, be led to prosperity.
. . .
Course 'qualities vary,
Prosperity too.
Strength of arm, bravery, wisdom, charisma, intelligence, knowledge, ruthlessness, inhumanity, humanity, politics, luck.
Wealthy kingdom, many Rights, glad to be alive or Only the King wealthy, few Rights, Fear, but 'alive.
Thanks for voting,
No formal complaints about your vote,
Nor any wish you change it.
Still I like stating my personal views sometimes, below is meant more lighthearted, than serious.
Bah, Romeo is fictional.
The reality of the modern world,
Legal to commit suicide,
Legal to gamble away one's livelihood,
Legal to modify one's body,
Dueling just not a 'current fad.
Why not put it under legibility?
If two people look upon a raging torrent of a river,
First say's,
"There is not no way we can just wade across that safely without any preparation.
Look at the raging torrent and history of people who drown crossing this river when it's like this."
Second says,
"So you're saying it's safe despite the dangerous reasons you gave after you said it was safe?
Okay then, I'll try crossing."
Second guy drowns.
. . .
But no,
That doesn't happen,
Because most people would catch on to the first guy's meaning,
Even if First 'did use a double negative.
@Sir.Lancelot
Thanks for the debate,
I've been enjoying three debates on the same subject more than I thought I would.
@NoOneInParticular
Hm, darn, I forgot to change Lance and Con to Sir.Lancelot, in round 4,
And Lance to Sir.Lancelot, in round 5,
I noticed this debate I can copy and paste usernames when posting my round, so that the User names are blue,
But Lance and Con were supposed to be placeholders, not what I meant to use,
Not that it 'matters much,
But I like to remember my intention, ah well.
Vote Part 2
Savant, R2
Framework:
Burdens:
Majority rule isn't great, but frankly Might is Right,
It's good when Right makes Might,
And people acquiesce to laws for moralities sake, even when stronger,
But I'm not convinced that majority rule is 'so immoral.
Of course it 'can be,
But against such times are when Right makes Might.
Also minority percents being strong enough that it's not worth Majority risking it.
5. “Morality/Ethics”:
Sir.Lancelot 'did make some arguments on how immigrants could harm current citizens.
6. “Difficulty Status”:
Savant makes a fair point that able and ought are different,
And of course unable 'can turn into able with time.
Makes the argument that only the worst need be kept out, worth considering.
7. “Needs for Immigration Laws”:
Crime operating when there is laws against is of course classic,
But letting people in freely only get's rid of letting people in illegally crime,
'Not all the other crime.
Current citizens 'would be able to apply for government aid easier, (Probably)
And of course there is 'national economic gains (At citizen cost)
Sir.Lancelot R2
quantity = quality.
Quantity 'Generally quantity is good for a nation,
Not necessarily the natives.
Rebuttal 1 - Equality
I wouldn't say it's a 'reversal of who matters,
But it 'is a refusal to allow people to care for their own over others.
A big Claim of Savant's was that the person buying food did no harm.
Savant R3
Framework:
Action and Inaction are both actions.
1. Does Denying Entry to Noncitizens Unjustly Harm Anyone?
I agree, compared to what they 'could have, immigrants situation can often be worse than if they had immigrated.
One's mind 'does go to some ultra rich elite, refusing to give up what they have,
Though comparatively many Americans may be better off than some countries,
It's still not the 'best, many of us 'still have to work to live.
And I think that helping from far away is a better solution, but Sir.Lancelot never uses this argument that I recall.
2. What is the Net Effect of Denying Entry to the Majority of Immigrants?
The nation 'would be stronger,
But I'm not convinced the natives would be stronger for it.
3. Which Position is More Egalitarian?
Well, there's equality then there's equality.
If a Dad by effort or luck provides a better home for his kid than another Dad,
The other Dad and kid may want the home of the first Dad (Fairness)
But equal end, ignores the suffering and risk of acquirement,
Thus not equal.
but Sir.Lancelot doesn't use this argument.
Sir.Lancelot R3
The U.S. does not have a duty
Makes argument that there is no duty.
My thoughts.
A 'Big Claim by Savant, was that there was no harm to the natives by letting in immigrants.
I think that's the biggest pivot point in this debate,
But one I'm unsure on after reading,
Maybe it's more clear than I see it,
But I've never claimed to be a good voter.
Savant makes arguments that it helps nation at 'large, Probably true,
Sir.Lancelot makes claims it harms natives, 'maybe true, but pivot point.
I think that Sir.Lancelot could have made better evidence of how natives are supposedly harmed,
But even that by the question becoming murky for me, the debate becomes neutral tie.
Vote Part 1
Savant, R1
Framework:
Yes, Harm is 'generally considered bad.
Citizens vs. Noncitizens:
Well, not 'just by where one is born, an American can be born of American parents, even in another country, as in literally their parents had American citizenship and traveled, then had their kid.
America 'does accept people who are 'born in America, even if their parents are illegal, I think.
Course then there's that problem with 'young illegal immigrants who grow up in America, American, but I'm rambling.
Black's place of birth, for many of them 'was America,
Thus many did not want to leave.
There's human rights, and then there's national rights,
Rights vary based on context.
Marketplace Thought Experiment:
Misses out on how much immigrants change and can threaten a nation.
Additionally, a food stand could be built near the immigrants location, instead of 'having to allow them to move in.
Benefits to Immigrants:
I cannot deny there are benefits for the immigrants,
(When they receive fair treatment and rights)
Effect on Economy:
There 'can be a positive effect of immigration,
Though the 'Only benefit I view as 'vital, is the military one gained from those benefits,
Which I 'still think harms the original citizens.
Ownership of Public Spaces:
This is asserted by Savant, more than proven,
I think it's a gray area.
Sir.Lancelot R1
Majority - More than half:
Preamble:
Sir.Lancelot making argument that 'enough of the necessary laws prevent people that we 'ought keep out.
Morality/Ethics:
Makes the argument that there is danger to the scenario of letting immigrants in.
Though of course the question one has to this, is are the immigrants 'such a danger, or 'more a danger than our own citizens?
I think yes, but still, Sir.Lancelot has to justify own points.
Difficulty Status:
Accountability is a fair point, we monitor even our own citizens,
And of the bare minimum checks, might be difficult to check the backgrounds of 'everyone who wants in. (Maybe)
Needs for Immigration Laws:
Makes a point of harm to Americans by 'too many people being let in,
Which they could have used examples of natives harmed by immigration in history (If there are any)
Course he used modern day source arguments on employment, which is something.
I think Savant has some fair points to consider,
In fairness and benefit, to immigrant and native,
So does Sir.Lancelot,
In fairness towards the native, and harm to the native.
I 'think wars are usually nonconsensual.
@Sir.Lancelot
I've noticed you're an active debater,
One I've thought,
Well I hope I don't debate them,
I'd have to effort, try, and improve myself, To match them.
@NoOneInParticular
Hm, forums,
Active in Wylted's presidential campaign.
Have published books.
Writing books, another sign of effort/skill in an area,
Mentioned Star Wars a few times,
I suppose Star Wars has duels, but they're more fights that happen to be one on one,
Unless one goes into more media than the movies.
Too many debates to read, currently with what else I'm doing in life,
I think I'll read and watch David S. Parker talk about dueling in Uruguay,
Then post my round 2 in 0-3 days.
I'm up for it,
It's still an interesting topic for me,
That I ought research more.
Thanks for voting,
What are your thoughts on dueling?
Given your vote that Con is the easier side,
It would look that you consider dueling as a proposition has massive holes in it.
Overpopulation,
If humans cause the extinction of many other species,
Because of how many places and in such density as we live,
I view us as overpopulated,
Mind you, this thought is more for the view of exploitation, than care for the other species.
Can't exploit something if it's gone.
I also view the lack of free land available to be picked from, for people,
As another sign of too many people,
Though admittedly that also requires a change in society/government.
And true I didn't make any justifications, sources, for Earth being overpopulated or not,
And maybe even my above aren't convincing.
Dueling Type,
There being such a wide variety of dueling,
I didn't think it a vital aspect of the debate,
Compared to what I assume most people object to,
The killing and the death.
Maybe the injury, lack of workers, peer pressure,
But I assume it's mostly the perceived murder/killing, loss of potential life lived, that bothers people.
Consent,
I 'do think the argument of people being overwhelmed is decent,
But I'm not fully convinced myself, hence the emotion tied to decision argument,
Currently a gray/unsure area in my thoughts.
Sir.Lancelot,
"The member has reached the maximum allowed number of active debates"
It looks that I can't challenge you to another debate, currently.
Thanks for voting,
I wasn't even going to ask for votes on this debate, as I felt I stumbled about so much in it,
But I appreciate your voting.
I'm curious though,
Of your thoughts on dueling?
To me,
Seems if one places Freedom and Self determination highly,
The 'damage it might cause to the participants is mitigated.
Of damage to family,
Mitigated by laws 'regulating whose allowed to duel.
Of society,
Mitigated by valuing Freedom and Self determination above it.
. . .
I wasn't highly convinced by the Honor Killings argument of Con,
Because different cultures 'have similar institutions, but run them different,
Some prisons are torture prisons,
Some are nice,
Makes prisons more neutral than good or bad, by the bad.
. . Unless there was some strong argument of the good near always turning bad, maybe.
The argument I found hard from Con,
Was their stating the stupidity or jerkishness of dueling in some cases,
Such as spilling coffee on someone, minor insults, think skin, so on.
But to me that seems more a question of whether the individual 'ought do it,
Than whether they should be 'allowed to do it.