As far as I know, people can still use DebateArt. In a sense.
Population and Moderators, might be a bit of a question though.
I'd suppose much depends on the owner of DART, the 'bones of the site seem fine to me.
Maybe some people just have concerns about whether the owner 'will keep paying for the online certificates and such.
Communication worries.
If owners sticks around, communicates, advertises, site would do decent, I'd think.
But of course, I 'think they are running website at a cost.
And who knows the real life complications of others?
@Umbrellacorp
You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Friendly feedback is more likely to get honest explanation, than Negative feedback.
Negative feedback gets resentment and goal of hurting, not explaining.
Pro Round 1
"but suppose there’s only a 2% chance that is the case." - Pro
"a human being is formed at conception."
Earlier argued sperm always be sperm, but not so with sperm 'and egg.
Argues human rights,
Expected flaw though, is human body not always person. Brain dead, missing head, not yet 'having brain.
. . . Counterargument, something being immoral, does not mean it 'can'not be done.
Pros arguments value human and person chance.
They don't need argue abortion 'can'not be taken, abortion can be lesser evil, but abortion still wrong.
. . .
I'm not sure killing a person without memories is murder, nor that killing dementia patients is wrong. As without memories I'm not sure one 'is a person. And dementia is pretty horrible, some people would prefer death. Course one could argue that it is only moral to kill people who requested they be killed.
Operation thought experiment only applies to 'expectation of a person. If there was to be no person, then blinding something that is not a person/animal would not be immoral so long as you destroy it before it can become person or animal.
Though there is still argument for immoral, just less so. Leaving gum on the bottom of a dining table, seems to me immoral.
Con Round 1
Argues we don't abort people.
"non-trivial sentience"
General abductive motivations
. . . Eh, what 'is non-trivial sentience, 'technically, I'm not sure that newborn babies have more than trivial sentience, but backlash against killing them would be huge.
Because of what they are/will be, as Pro argued earlier.
"p1. An action is morally impermissible if it violates the moral entitlements of a person or it has morally unacceptable consequences. "
Argues morality 'only applies to people, eh, what a person 'does effects them. So even destroying a flag can be an immoral act, due to effect it has on the destroyer.
"doll"
I think the human has more value by being 'human. Normative values.
Still. . . It's a good argument by Con.
Uses sources on sentience, asleep/awake,
Makes more obvious I 'think that Con argues for far earlier abortions than 'late abortions.
Sliding scale/Spectrum, often issue with Abortion debates.
Argues most abortions take place before source defined sentience.
"Does it violate other people’s rights?"
Argues GDP and economic freedom.
Sources,
Robot.
Round 1 Thoughts
Though my 'personal opinion is with Pro,
I've 'currently have to vote Con,
They focus argument on personhood, and 'specify 'time of abortion, very well.
Pro Round 2
"risking"
Where does the 2% 'come from?
"unborn child will “develop the capacity for consciousness unless directly harmed,” similarly to a coma patient. This is not true of a philosophical zombie."
"reduction in life years"
There is 'still problem of there being no person deprived.
“There are several reasons to believe that entities are persons if and only if they have (i) actualizable interests (ii) or [had] interests [at] some prior mental state”
Corpses and human bits.
Surely we must decide one is person at some point, and no longer at some point?
Course one can argue fetus is such a stage.
8 minutes. Curse word.
Babies are babies and dolls are dolls.
Synthetic magic doll.
Potential experiences brain dead vs coma.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Legality of abortion and social consequentialism
Con Round 2
Coma retain.
4 minutes.
Doll argument not convincing, though, if we prevent meeting X not exist.
Sources regret
Con provides more evidence 'for even if Correlation does not imply causation.
1:30
Abortion 'still bad even with permissive laws.
Just because law 'allows slavery doesn't make it right.
Just because greater good, not mean small action not wrong.
"claiming a child has been harmed only makes sense if the child is a person. "+
"external nutrients (the charger)"+
Round 2 Thoughts
I don't think Pro manages enough proof of sentience, or value of potential sentience.
Pro Round 3
Where does the 2% chance come from?
"Con’s case largely does not even attempt to establish certainty"
If you could bring the chance up to 2% I think I'd agree with Pro, but they need something to 'argue that 2% exists.
"The Un intuitiveness of considering robots and dolls to be persons is due to the fact that they are robots and dolls, entities that do not develop consciousness and are neither sentient nor presentient." +
How do you hyperlink to a portion of the text in the debate?
Con concedes that “killing a child is plausibly worse than killing an adult,”
I'm not sure it is. Objectively. Subjectively sure according to 'some cultures.
"The effects of banning abortion are irrelevant to the morality of abortion itself."
Eh, societies with 'no contraceptives or abortions have been harmed in some nations histories.
Con Round 3
"when does an entity become a person with moral entitlements, and does abortion have deleterious social consequences? "
I'm not sure debate 'does boil down to that, Pro takes a different direction on moral than consequences on society as whole.
And I'm not sure on the person argument.
"Why would we care about some plastic doll just because in the future it could become something we care about (note how sperm and egg also could become something we care about"
Well, there's expectation and 'what they are.
A fetus 'is a 'new human of sorts. A sperm isn't.
"Savant argues that someone could hypothetically kill a mothers child and exonerate themself if they reveal that the baby was never actually sentient. I claimed that this is a clear violation of p3 given its unacceptable social consequences. "
'What social consequences, if everyone agrees with your logic?
At 'most they get a fine.
If the charging robot is as 'real as the fetus, then it 'would be as wrong as killing the fetus.
It 'can't be a 'normal robot charging to 100% if it's gaining sentience.
Mutating is different than 'could mutate.
Final Thoughts
At a 'skim, I couldn't say who I'd vote for.
I 'suspect I'd vote arguments tie, as both focused on different angles.
I suspect sources Con, but I'd have to read through them all to be sure.
Legibility and conduct, probably a tie.
Title,
Well, 'execution 'does effect a lot, in a system.
There's good and bad examples of either.
Though, I think on a national level, Capitalism has a better track record,
Course one can argue lot of Capitalist Nations have a lot of Socialism in them, which many people call Communism of a sort.
But I'm uneducated on political theory.
Description,
"I take the position that communism is more desirable." - Pro
Eh, maybe I should take the view that Con takes the position that capitalism is more desirable?
Vagueness in title and description.
"This debate is not about defending the historical actions of totalitarian regimes, nor about comparing failed implementations. Instead, the focus is on the desirability of the core principles and long-term implications of both systems." - Pro
Hm, yeah Capitalism has 'flaws, but it appears to 'work more than Communism.
Sure Communism that works might be 'desirable, but. . .
We desire things for what they 'are sometimes.
I might desire a wolf that will not bite me and will follow my commands obediently, more than a dog that will not bite me and will follow my commands obediently,
But I desire the dog because it 'won't bite me and 'will follow my commands obediently.
Course, what things 'are can change. Animals, Technology, Social Conditions.
I've heard it said that Marx thought Communism ought be attempted when a nation was 'ready for it, rather than when it was 'not ready.
Jocoqe Round 1
"Which system is more desirable as a model for organizing human life, in terms of justice, dignity, and sustainability?" - Pro
If either system can be manipulated until it's ideal version, how is one better than the other?
Capitalism rewards effort, merit.
Communism 'forces your labor, removes individual choice and property.
Pro argues sometimes flaws in Capitalism to be a feature, but why should this 'not apply to Communism?
Capitalists can be idealists as well.
If BOF is not in description, then it becomes a suggestion.
LucyStarfire Con Round 1
Makes resource management argument.
"Economy is everything" - Con
Well, I'm not so sure about that, I think economy can 'help.
But society can also structure to force or encourage certain institutions.
A bigger problem is 'defending one's country from other countries, if one doesn't have wealth, and by wealth, armies and weapons.
Makes an argument that Communism lacks innovation.
Not 'so sure myself, the USSR seemed to do alright in that area for a time.
Communism can also 'force communal savings, and 'force expansion,
Course it tends to work out horribly in history, I think.
Con makes poverty and Crime argument.
Round 1 Thoughts on Both
Still initial stage of debate.
. . . I think examples and proof are valuable, but Pro kind of lined such out in the description.
I'd say Pro is focusing more on core principles and Con on long-term implications.
Jocoqe Round 2
I find Pros arguements in On Equal Access to Resources and “Skilled vs Unskilled” less than convincing.
Removing the ability to excel 'does mean the same outcome.
Communism is ever crabs in a bucket, pulling everyone down.
Skills 'can be produced through social structuring, but I think such is limited. It pulls people in and forces them to the party line and so called 'good of society, the status quo.
Course one can argue such is the un'ideal version of Communism.
On the “Economy is everything” fallacy
I still lean Con, but Pro makes a good argument that votewise this point goes Pro, unless Con makes additional argument on point.
Course a 'problem in the debate, is I think most 'real world nations use a 'mix of Individual and group valuing, not 'one or the 'other.
On Expansion and Innovation
Eh, most wealth is 'invested, it's how the wealthy 'stay wealthy, and 'get wealthier.
A better argument might be when patents can slow and stop innovation,
But that might be a debate in itself.
"The internet, GPS, vaccines, nuclear power, public universities (all emerged primarily from state or publicly funded research, driven by collective goals, not profit-seeking)." - Pro
Yeah, from a 'Capitalist Country.
And hardly 'removed from Capitalism in funding and implementation.
But these are 'claims, not proof by me.
I again think the debate could benefit from sources.
No reward, no profit, no incentive to improve." - Con
I 'mostly 'agree with him, exceptions exist, but I view the bulk of motive as self interest.
"Planned obsolescence
Addiction-driven design
Disposable consumer culture" - Con
All good arguments, but arguably Capitalism 'accounts for such by the Free Market.
Consumers 'are able to move as a group and demand what they want.
"On Suppression of Small Business" - Pro
Is at best a tie, it mentions use of Capitalist methods.
"On Stagnation, Poverty, and Crime" - Pro
Eh, America's complicated, still I'm curious if Con is able to compare it to Communist countries.
. . . But description says, "nor about comparing failed implementations"
So bit hard to say if argument even applies, as one can just claim that certain aspects of Capitalism were failed implementation.
"Other Structural Contradiction" - Pro
What 'proof is there that Communism could ever succeed and 'maintain it's success?
Con Round 2
"In order to say that something should be desirable, it must be achievable, or there is no any point in desiring it in the first place." - Con
That's how I generally see it, but. . . Not 'necessarily how it is.
Sometimes we desire the unachievable, or the very difficult 'to achieve.
Makes arguments of individual ability and importance of the economy.
Argues Capitalism means many goods.
I'm not sure Communism 'quite works out as 'any person seizing the private business of another, but the government often does.
Possible flaw in debate, might be question of 'scale.
Compares America and Communist Countries.
BOP, eh, I'lean towards 'shared.
Round 2 Thoughts
Currently I lean Con, neither side is too exact with proofs, but I think Con is managing to address all of Pros arguments.
Currently I suppose I'd 'vote tie though, as I've said earlier, I think each side has 'half of the debate.
Pro is focusing more on core principles and Con on long-term implications.
Jocoqe Round 3
“In order to say that something should be desirable, it must be achievable…”
Pro makes the expected response, argues surpassing limitations.
“This is now trying to change the definition… which clearly said equal access to resources and democratic control.”
I still lean Con here, skilled and better people 'do acquire and use resources, merit.
Course there's the issue of inherited wealth, but Capitalism accounts for that when the unworthy 'lose their money.
Pro makes arguments against the worthy, but I found Cons argument of America's success convincing, compared to many 'Communist countries.
“So this is another very unrealistic goal with no proof of being achievable.”
Pro makes good arguments again, on 'progress.
“This is a concession that all human rights and basic needs depend on economy…”
Pro concedes economy importance.
I'm not convinced by their argument of the homeless children, I don't think homeless 'children are as common in America as homeless 'people, who mooch off of various goverment socialist programs, and soup kitchens.
Statistics needed.
“It is common sense that Capitalism lifted more people out of poverty…”
Argues this is due to tech, not the Capitalist system.
" circular argument"
. . . I don't 'think that's circular logic.
. . . That's more. . . 'maybe a equivocation fallacy?
Though I don't think I'd call it a 'fallacy, if Capitalism leads to a stronger economy than Communism,
And it's 'agreed by Pro earlier that economy is important, then one 'could see a connection.
“People as a whole benefit from Capitalism.”
We're still better off than the Communists.
And 'again, Pro has that 'ideal version of Communism or Capitalism in the description, though one 'could argue it only applies to COmmunism, they weren't specific, so I apply it to both.
But there's 'still the "core principles and Con on long-term implications."
I think Con is doing better on the long term implications, but that Pro is doing better on core principles.
“No person will invest all his money at once. That would be terrible and risky.”
A 'bit problem in the debate is both sides making 'claims, but not backing those claims with proof or statistics.
"Planned obsolescence
Addiction-maximizing algorithms
Cost-cutting that exploits labor and destroys the planet"
Again good examples, but one can argue 'ideal Capitalism.
"I mean…I would never live in the US, but that’s just my opinion, just as relevant as yours."
Pff, you'd rather live in Russia or North Korea?
USA! US- Well, maybe too much.
LucyStarfire Round 3
Argues the many achievements and 'reality of Capitalism.
Argues failure of Communism to 'be.
'Unfortunately debate description has,
"This debate is not about defending the historical actions of totalitarian regimes, nor about comparing failed implementations. Instead, the focus is on the desirability of the core principles and long-term implications of both systems."
Well, there's still a lot of time left, winners is still up in the air I think.
Hm, I don't think I've ever done a rematch in a debate,
Debated a few 'different people in succession on the same subject of dueling, but didn't debate any of the 'people more than once.
I 'do want to debate this subject again at some point, but I think I'll pass on that for now.
Hm, 'similar topic. .
Circumcision on male infants is immoral unless medically necessary.
I'd go first, be Con and you Pro, 3 rounds?
I've been considering trying for that debate for a bit, since reading 21Pilots vs IamAdityaDhaka's debate on,
Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s homosexuality?
Though I'm an Atheist, a lot of my morality is normative, traditions, and culture.
I think it could be an interesting debate, questions of group freedom, individual rights, necessity, maybe even questions of transhumanism as technology increases ever forwards.
Thanks for voting.
I don't think it's 'so unstable a position, so long as the debate is limited to what 'America, Americans ought do.
As well as avoiding the 'total freedom to own guns position, which 'is one that some people own, but I don't think it's the 'common position in America, on guns.
Well, I was referring more to an 'older time, in some countries histories, when racism was more prevalent,
Than to 'current times.
I 'suppose I could have made a different comparison, but one speaks of what one is more familiar with.
Though my familiarity is limited to reading American history.
I'd imagine from the unisex changing room perspective,
. . . Sexual Assault exists, male to male, female to female,
But individual changing rooms are not demanded.
Though, one 'could argue that more assaults are carried out by men, but this is an argument made by me, not you.
Con though 'did arg-
Well, it doesn't really matter,
One can have 'separate changing rooms, yet still allow individuals to compete in the same sports. Or have no changing rooms.
Much of my RFV 'did speak my own personal opinions and thoughts, as I sometimes use my RFV as 'notes and my surface thoughts while reading.
'But, what 'makes the vote, are not my opinions, but my observations of the debate.
Let me do a tally then,
Round 1 Pro
3 sources saying men are stronger than women.
2 sources on women uncomfortable competing against trans women.
1 source on hormone replacement side effects.
1 source on hormone therapy within a duration of 12 months.
3, I think Half the sources are undercut by Cons method of attack, in arguing less physical sports.
2, Con argues the 2 sources and quotes used don't mention changing rooms. They make arguments again undercutting with less physical sports. Arguments that shared changing rooms would not have to be used. And make an argument that discomfort alone is not enough to exclude.
1, I did not think the side effects source applied much to the debate, though I 'suppose one could argue allowing trans athletes encourages people to become trans to compete, and is encouraging dangerous behavior.
1, Con made arguments that the 12 month source was limited.
Round 2 Pro
2 sources on woman uncomfortable competing against trans women.
Has the 'same issues as the 2 sources in round one about uncomfortable competing against trans women.
Round 2 Con
1, Includes a source to argue psychological effects of therapy and participation.
2, Two sources arguing the bias in the individuals used by Pros sources.
. . .
I can understand people voting for Pro on sources, but I can also see people voting for a tie as I did. Given Cons arguments against Pros sources, and their own sources.
Title and Description,
Seems solid enough title and description.
Pro Round 1
1. Argues and sources physical ability differences between sexes.
2. Argues and sources societal psychological separation of sexes.
3. Kind of falls into 1.
Risks of Hormone therapy, doesn't effect debate question much I think.
'Better would be to argue Hormone therapy failure to change physical characteristics enough to outweigh natural sex. But Pro 'does mention such.
Pro argues unfairness of allowing such competition.
Con Round 1
Makes an interesting agreement, placing society as a whole over the athletes.
I don't really 'like such an argument, though I can understand where it comes from.
Examples of such in history or current society would be appreciated.
1, Yes, sports categories are social conventions,
But such. . . I don't agree with the argument, should we allow Mustang cars to compete with mustangs on the horse track?
. . I suppose if society 'benefited enough. But female sports is for 'females, horse racing is for 'horses. Invent a 'new sport that allows participants of 'any sex, or allows people to-
Allows 'Trans women to compete with 'women.
2, Social inclusion for social inclusion at the cost of truth, not always great.
A better argument by Con is trans being allowed in female sports with no strong strengths or weaknesses based on ones sex.
. . . Though I don't particularity 'agree with such, it 'does attack in an 'undercut, the main thrust of Pros arguments. Ability.
The title and Description of the debate, do not state that the sports must be highly physical.
. . . Though one could argue that men and women 'also have different brains, strengths and tendencies of mind.
. . 'Feels a bit of a cheap attack, but it 'is on Pro to guard themself against such in title and description.
. . . Arguably it's also a 'relevant to society argument. There might 'be sports leagues separated by sex. Bowling for example, or chess maybe.
Such arguments could also undercut Pros arguments about societal psychological separation of sexes in changing rooms.
Non-Endurance-Based Sports
Con makes the expected arguments and examples, though I think they would do well to source examples of real life leagues of such sex separated sports.
Rebuttals
"Pro then cites two sources suggesting that many—perhaps most—athletes are uncomfortable with TW competing in general. But this says nothing about discomfort due to changing room issues. Furthermore, this concern is only relevant to sports with shared dressing spaces, which is not always the case."
"Most importantly, discomfort alone is not a compelling reason to exclude someone from sport."
Personally 'I think it can be, but as a society we 'do have a pretty open competition and participation culture. Blacks and whites attending schools or being on sports teams together as examples.
Con attacks Pros sources, arguing they fail to provide significant 'enough statements or data.
Pro source on hormone strength 'was a 'bit skimpy.
Con also argues source not 'relevant, due to less physical sports.
Round 1 thoughts
As Pro has not yet addressed less physical sports,
My vote would 'currently go to Con.
'Maybe sources to Pro, but note to self, read their sources before giving point.
Pro Round 2
More reasoning would be good for Con arguments about social benefit of allowing trans women to compete with women.
But the gist 'is there.
I don't see the straw men or red herrings.
It's on the 'instigator to make clear the goalposts in the title and description of a debate.
I 'think there 'are various women's only social groups, including sports.
I still don't 'agree with Con, but I think Pro needs to 'address Con's arguments.
Some statistics are a result of culture and participation.
I think Pro should focus more on the differences in sexes and performance.
Straw Man,
I 'don't think it's a straw man, though I 'do think it wasn't what you were 'planning to debate.
Red Herring,
If Pro can successfully argue sports to mean by popular understanding the physical sports, I think they can win.
Pro focuses on strengthening his physical strength differences including trans women.
Which is good for him, 'so 'long as he successfully defines and connects sports to physical abilities where there are significant differences between men and women.
Videos aren't 'bad, but they are easily ignored by voters, or taken against the debater that uses such, due to how they 'might extend the debate.
Video also does not address Cons arguments, as Con is 'avoiding physical strength sports and changing room sports.
Pro 'does use quotes from video, to strengthen their physical arguments.
. . . Discrimination is an odd thing.
I can 'imagine white sports players being offended by having to share changing rooms with blacks.
I'm 'not saying Pro's arguments are right or wrong, but that Pro 'does need to make arguments about the differences between men and women, being more than skin deep.
. . . Or arguments on the right of individuals and cultures to discriminate on skin deep differences.
I understand that it may seem 'obvious, the differences between men and women, but a significant portion of society 'doesn't think the differences obvious.
I don't think Con was moving the Goalpost, but more proof and data can be better than 'some proof and data.
I don't see the side effects as relevant to the debate of inclusion.
Pros arguments and sources for physical differences after a year are 'alright, but could be better.
But such doesn't 'matter much per debate, because I don't think Cons main point of attack 'is the physical differences.
Pro 'Needs to either argue sports are only physical sports,
Or argue skin deep discrimination is fine. Though, I think sex is a 'bit 'more than skin deep.
. . .
. . .I 'suppose Pro could 'also shift the debate, arguing "Female Sports" to be understood as Sports set aside 'only for women due to 'differences.
By such an argument Female only groups such as females only chess, could be understood to not 'truly be "Female Sports"/
'Or they can argue psychological/social differences in sex, 'even in 'trans. Argue sex to be more than skin deep.
Con Round 2
(i) is the strong social benefits
(ii) is the lack of sufficient social harm
Con has source,
Though I- . . Hm, never mind.
Con prongs their argument some,
Claiming transwomen 'not stronger,
And making less physical sports argument.
If I were Pro, I'd focus more on the less physical sports argument. In my view, there not being physical differences is the 'real red herring, not their arguments on less than physical sports.
Con argues resolution of debate to mean 'all sports.
Con argues against Pro sources.
"First, they cited a study showing TW maintain strength after one year of HRT, which is irrelevant to TW who have undergone multiple years."
Sorry, I don't 'remember, nor noticed.
"Pro concedes TW have no performance advantage."
Quotes are good, they allow for CTRL F and search for keywords.
I don't think either side is 'trying to make false claims or used biased sources or poor inferences.
Round 2 Thoughts
I'd say Con is winning, in shifting debate Resolution,
Not that I think shifting is 'necessarily wrong.
Some people in society 'do care about Trans Women competing in sports clubs that ban Trans Women, I imagine.
Sports Clubs that might be women only in less 'physical sports.
Pro is doing 'decent in Physical Sports argument,
But Con is also able to cut into Pros sources for bias and limitations.
Pro Round 3
If Pro can show that physical sports make up 'vastly more 'sports than less physical, this would be good for Pros arguments.
Pro 'needs to do more than make 'assertion that Cons arguments do not fit common understanding of what is meant by sports.
They 'need to argue, example, and 'source their claim.
'Clear cut descriptions and resolutions of a debate are 'on the debate 'creator.
Though I 'don't like it when people undercut the 'spirit of a debate, I don't see any evidence that Con is trying to do so. Though it is 'possible.
Less Physical sports and Trans being allowed to participate or not 'are a consideration for some people, I imagine.
Pro defends his sources, some is more than none/less.
Con Round 3
I think Con would have done well to cite sources of such less physical sports that are women only.
Though, I'd assume Olympics separates less physical sports by sex, I don't know how they stand on trans.
I like poetry, and some of Pros sentences were poetically nice to look at and well crafted.
But as Con says, more logic and arguments against Cons stance would have been good.
Title
Dorian Gray is irredeemable.
Hm, in that his actions cannot be forgiven, or in that one should not 'expect him to change?
Description
Tightens debate around the book, loosens interpretation of redemption.
Sir.Lancelot Round 1
Gives some definitions.
As they were not in Description, they and BoP is a bit more a 'suggestion/argument, than 'Requirement in debate.
Foundation, Rejected Redemption Opportunity,
Personally, I think it likely there were 'many opportunities at redemption, but Basil 'is one that we see.
Dorian is a killer, No-turning point,
Well, if Con can find some historical examples of heavily debauched individuals, they might be able to argue that turning 'could occur.
Dorian sold his soul,
Is an interesting one.
Sources, are more about defining clearly the terms, than 'backing Pros arguments, well 'maybe the source on Victorian Virtues.
Con Round 1
Argues against Pros criteria,
Argues one can observe the conflict within Dorian,
Argues against Victorian as goalposts,
"Dorian’s tragedy isn’t that he couldn’t be redeemed — it’s that he tried too late and didn’t know how."
The Portrait = External Guilt,
Murder Does Not = Irredeemable,
Dorian’s Death Is Redemption, Not Damnation.
Round 1 Thoughts
I think Pro has a high bar, of proving Dorian irredeemable.
Con makes some interesting arguments such as Dorians Death being redemption, but I'd view it more as self loathing.
'But Con 'does have their arguments of conflict in Dorian, and why redemption might be possible.
Because of the high bar, and arguments, I'm currently leaning Con, but it's early on.
Pro Round 2
Pros arguments against Dorian's final acts not being redemption, ring with me.
Gives argument of it being a final act of cowardice and attempt at escape, he 'was pretty sore at the painting getting 'worse after his 'attempts at good action, from what I recall.
Of course one 'could argue the painting was lying, but I'm inclined t o believe it 'was showing the truth, that Dorians acts of 'good were falsely given.
Pro raises the question of what would redemption 'take?
This is an interesting one, as it is a point Pro and Con diverge.
"Redemption isn’t a medal granted after five criteria are met. It’s a personal, internal transformation" Con argued in Round 1, and I would agree,
Even if one is unable to make reparations, one can be redeemed as an individual, born anew or transformed. Slow 'or quick.
'But Pro 'did have some definitions in Round 1,
Redeemable - the state of being kept from evil or of improving morally. (Cambridge Dictionary)
Atonement - reparation for a wrong or injury. (Oxford Languages)
Repenting - feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one’s wrongdoing or sin. (Oxford Languages)
Accountability - an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions. (Merriam-Webster)
Alan Campbell is a former friend of Dorian’s, a chemist whom Dorian enlists to help him dispose of Basil’s body.
. . .
Pro makes arguments that the 'Conflict within Dorian, is not Conflict at all, but fear.
And he makes a good argument of it.
. . . Though I might like it if 'both debaters made use of quotations from the book.
I'm again doubtful that redemption 'requires certain actions such as reparations, confession,
Though I do see them 'connected, I view them more as 'signs of a changed person.
SPOILER in Les Misérables, I do not think Jean Valjean needed to confess to his true identity to be redeemed, 'except for the fact that someone would have suffered had he not.
I don't 'remember the murder of Basic being blamed on anyone else in Dorian Gray's story?
Pro makes an argument on how 'deeply into vice Dorians nature has become.
" the only thing that matters is their ability to achieve it."
Ah, and this I think is an important aspect of the debate, and a high bar for Pro.
For. . . I have difficulty in thinking of 'anyone as irredeemable, due to my view of people being nature and nurture, but nurture also overides nature. 'Enough pressure and time, I'd expect could change 'any person.
. . . But one 'can understand the question of Dorian as being 'expected forces.
Pro argues 'any of actions to be self serving and quick.
Pro arguments fit more towards External Guilt and display of actions, mirror.
Not eternal damnation.
Pro makes strong arguments against Dorian Gray having a conflict of good and evil.
Ah, 'another interesting argument, Immortality.
But this could be bad for Pro, as it allows for 'time, and the rare to be expected force.
Were Dorian Gray an ordinary man, old age would likely take him before some force of redemption. But immortality allows for more chances, even small small chances.
Pro makes the arguments against Dorian Gray going for redemption.
Con Round 2
“It had been like conscience to him. He would destroy it.”
— Chapter 20
'Does suggest conflict. Though Pro 'could argue it was unwanted and hated conscience.
A final attempted farewell to any even 'thought of good. Yet such 'still implies an 'ability to feel and be panged by good.
Con makes arguments for the soul not being entirely lost.
"public virtue is often hypocrisy"
I'm still not convinced Dorian tried to repent, by I do agree with Con's arguments of there being 'something left in Dorian.
'But I will need Con to make argument for redemption being 'possible/likely. I say possible/likely, because Con needs to address such arguments of Pro.
Currently leaning tie.
Con makes good arguments against the portrait being 'simply a record of crimes, but as reflection.
. . . But on another hand, does the portrait 'ever show 'anything positive of Dorian? Even the 'smallest bit?
I'm still not highly convinced that it was 'cowardice of punishment as Pro suggests, but simple dislike and hatred of something so ugly and vile, reminder of what he truly was. I think Dorian did not realize he would kill himself.
Still, Con makes decent arguments on conscience never leaving Dorian entirely.
Round 2 Thoughts
While I think Con is doing well on arguing for the existence of conscience, however small in Dorian.
I think Pro manages to counter such arguments in alternate explanations such as cowardice.
That leaves the debate a bit in the middle for me,
'But Cons arguments for redemption have largely been the argument that Dorian 'was attempting Redemption by destroying the painting.
I find Pros arguments for the destruction of the painting more convincing, as well as explanations for Dorians 'Good acts, being self serving.
Leaning Pro
Pro Round 3
Pro argues redemption requires 1 of/or 5 items.
And has argued earlier that Dorian is too deep in corruption for such to be possible for him.
I don't find the 'acts of redemption as important as the change in nature.
One 'could also understand the question of redemption as,
Is Dorian Gray redeemable within the scope of his story?
This would prevent outside greater time and forces of Good people or experiences changing Dorian,
But I 'still think Pro has left himself a weak spot with the Immortality Painting.
I think Hitler, Stalin, and homicidal criminals 'could be redeemed if they felt sorry.
“« If he has a conscience he will suffer for his mistake. That will be his punishment—as well as the prison. »
« But the real geniuses, » asked Razimihin frowning, « those who have the right to murder? Oughtn’t they to suffer at all rven for the blood they’ve shed? »
« Why the word ought? It’s not a matter of permission or prohibition. He will suffer if he is sorry for his victim. Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth, » he added dreamily, not in the tone of the conversation.”
- Crime and Punishment
But Pro makes arguments that Dorian is more concerned with avoiding being caught, than being sorry.
Though Pros argument of Dorian suppressing his emotions with drugs, is counter to his own arguements. It shows 'perhaps an ability for feeling and remorse for others.
Pro makes strong arguments against Dorian (At that time) being likely to change as a person.
And even 'later of being influenced to change.
There's 'still the immortality chink, but it's the final round.
. . . And I suppose even 'with the possibility, many people would fear to try to redeem such a person. Such terrible odds of him changing, for most people, I'd expect.
Con Round 3
"A sense of infinite pity, not for himself, but for the painted image of himself, came over him." Chapter 7 of the Dorian Gray book.
My quoting, not Pro.
Con is still managing to make decent argument for the existence of remorse, though 'personally unrelated to my vote, I'm not convinced of remorse.
Con makes arguments for change over time.
'And makes arguments again of awareness and despair Dorian has of his sins.
I'm not convinced of Dorian knowing he's ending himself, what I see at 'most is him trying to get rid of his conscience and 'any reminder of how ugly he and his actions are.
It's more trying to squash an angel holding a mirror on one's shoulder, than destruction of oneself in admitting folly.
Con criticizes a large part of Pros argument,
Their checklist.
. . . I'm not convinced that Dorian 'ever tried though.
Con 'does convince me that there may have been some feeling and regret in Dorian,
But Pro does a better job in arguing the 'depth of his corruption and lack of any effort to be better.
Round 3
Thoughts, I'm inclined to a tie, though Con was not 'as explicit as I'd like about how much time Dorian had.
"In Wilde’s universe, trying late is not the same as failing forever."
Unfortunately, 4 round debate, and I see a forfeit. I doubt it will effect conduct, but it may effect arguments.
Pro Round 4
Pro argues the 'feeling to be self serving.
"The portrait has rotted to the point of becoming irreversible."
Not so convincing, but Pro makes a point of their being no evidence of the image 'ever reverting.
Though it's 'still possible it 'could have.
Well, Victorian Christian perhaps believe God is in everyone's corner.
But for the moment and context of the story, I would not expect Dorian to find redemption, even if he met every person in his city.
"If Dorian does not have the capacity to achieve redemption, then Dorian is irredeemable."
Con 'still had decent arguments about conscience, and possibility, but Pro had good arguments against Dorian 'ever attempting anything good.
"Why yes?"
Is, I think a fair point.
I can't say I've thought on it deeply,
I 'do look forward to reading the debate.
Though I still hold to my, The 'reason is the 'having and/or connection. View.
. . . Well, humans 'do 'conflate and anthropomorphize. . . Movements, Nations, Groups. . .
I might say to someone from Britain, we still remember when you burned our White House down.
Of course it was different 'individuals from the past,
But by genetics, history, and law, the past gets connected to the present.
Heh, funnily, I'm not sure one 'necessarily even needs to 'be that connected.
Suppose we met some aliens from outer space,
Why, one would not need to be the same ethnicity of Watt, just the same species, to take pride by association.
Heh, and then the alien meets some being from another dimension,
Well, you know what 'we of 'this dimension take pride in having accomplished?
One's ancestors 'surviving 'despite all the mosquitos, and evolving sickle cells, sounds kind of metal,
Sounds something to take pride in, pride in one's ancestors, in possessing their same dna, pride in their survival of such.
You are my pride and joy, sounds more a parent than a child,
But there are still children ashamed or proud of their parents.
Why not extend to others of one's group?
When one's school football team wins, even if oneself did not play, why 'not take pride in being connected to those individuals?
Same with ethnicity, why 'not?
Pride by association.
'They did it, 'We did it, 'I did it.
Close enough.
I'm not sure why I need to 'work for something, to feel pride in it?
The 'reason is the 'having and/or connection.
. . .
Heh, I'm pretty Tribalistic in my views.
I think Humans have a tendency to live in groups, Societies, Clumps.
Loving and valuing most, those 'closest in our group, and to ourselves.
What kind of human values a stranger more than family?
Values an 'Outgroup more than their own 'Ingroup?
Well. . . There are many 'kinds values, many kinds of groupings, and I can appreciate a person valuing truth or kindness, to all persons.
. . . But I'd rather exalt my own Ingroup, to an extent.
I think their well being depends on being good people to others, so I 'would encourage that.
It's not 'just humans though,
Wolves hunting together, Birds of a feather flying together, Pods of whales swimming together.
Just nature and game theory, one builds pacts with the group closest to oneself, sometimes to the cost of others, but at times that's the cost of being alive and living well.
There was a theory, Suggested in the 1990's called Dunbars Number, Which suggested a 'limit, To the number of people we can maintain a stable social relationship with.
ETHNIC PRIDE
I 'enjoy taking pride in my ancestors,
Even if there's luck to it.
If I was fishing and happened to catch a bigger fish, I'd take pride in having come into such a possession.
Course one can argue that took effort,
But eh, you also say 'collective accomplishments.
My ancestor did the work, and I'm proud of them.
. . . Other than pleasure, I 'do think there are other reasons why pride in genetics can be valuable.
It can inspire people to 'safeguard their ancestors' achievements, to be 'worthy of them, to not as an heir dishonor them in life.
I like my dirty blonde hair well enough, take pride in 'having it, though other hair colors are nice too.
Title and Description,
Hm, I know 'nothing of Krishna.
Three parts of debate, Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
Pro Round 1
Detachment to Outcome, yet stay true to Duty.
Balance and Moderation in Life.
The Mind is a Powerful Tool.
Wisdom of Krishna and Potential Benefit of their Teachings.
Con Round 1
Suggests we can gauge the greatness of a mentor by the number of followers.
Not sure I agree, new ideas come about it life sometimes, just starting with 'one person, compared to 'everyone else in the world.
I 'do think there is value in using the crowd as a gauge, but it's a value a I take with salt and other considerations.
Con states that Pro said that "existence is irrelevant."
I can't seem to find where Pro said that, exact quotes can be valuable, partially due to Ctrl F on the keyboard.
"Religion isn’t make believe, but the context behind it?" - Pro Round 1
Alas the meaning of this line escape me.
I think Con twists, Detachment here, the way Pro stated it, was more about accepting some outcomes are beyond control.
Con's arguments for Jesus appear to be,
Depend on God, this 'sounds kind of bad to me, but I assume it is meant to take God as a rock, an anchor, something to take strength in and continue to try one's best. Trusting that this world and the after is for the best.
Spirituality, before physical comfort.
Surrendering to God’s truth, acceptance of something 'more than us, not getting too caught up in self pride and our 'own works.
RFV Thoughts
Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
Debate is still just starting out, I'd vote it a tie, with Pro a bit ahead, due to more in depth description of benefits.
Con will need to argue 'why spirituality and God are to be valued and Wisdom.
Con makes 'some headway arguing number of followers, though not much. It could use a source and a compare and contrast. Also has flaw of what is being judged is 'Potential of Positive Impact.
Pro Round 2
I'm not 'loving the dive into 'powers, as a voter I'm more interested in their teachings.
Though debate 'is who is a better spiritual mentor.
Something of value in the debate, might be to define what is 'meant by spirituality.
Pro gave some very useful lessons in round 1, but I think they'd do good to further identify them as 'spiritual lessons.
Pro points out the 'many languages that Krishna's teachings have been translated into. But same with my reason of being unimpressed by Con's argument of number of followers, I am not impressed by number of translated languages. One can get more followers, or more translations, focus should be on what in the teachings makes it 'likely to get more followers or translations.
Three parts of debate, Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
"A big foundation of wisdom is emotional intelligence." Pro Round 2
Describes various aspects of applications.
Claims Jesus is more vague than Krishna, in how each teaches lessons.
Argues Krishna's been around longer and thus 'assumably effected more people.
But again, I don't think that's a core of this debate.
Pro argues Krishna has spread to more people and cultures, and argues this
Pro is arguing Wisdom, Communication, and positive Impact.
The sources, judging by their names, seem more basic primers/information to the unlearned than sources 'proving any claims of Pro or claims over Con.
Con Round 2
I'm doubtful of the importance of a Spiritual Mentor 'existing,
Unless debate was about which is the 'true religion of reality,
But this debate could be who is a better mentor Obi Wan or Qui Gon JInn,
By that I am not arguing either is not real, just that I don't see their existing or not as important for the debate,
. . . Though I suppose one could argue what if they were in 'person teaching us, eh, just feels a sidebar to me.
Con argues the importance of Spirituality in the hereafter.
Which 'is important in debate, per 'what 'is 'spirituality.
Con argues Jesus words impacted faster, thus proving potential value.
I 'can see their argument of real vs man made, though I'm still not convinced it will have huge impact on debate.
I think Con mistakes Languages for Followers in Pros argument.
"blue skinned baby" Eh, not conduct hits, but I don't think such talk usually 'helps one's side in a debate.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
I think Con makes Good arguments for Spirituality, ah wait, hm,
'If Christianity is true, then there 'would be a lot of Wisdom and potential of positive impact, in the importance placed in the hereafter,
But I think Con is neglecting arguments of the here and now in terms of Wisdom and Potential of positive impact.
Both sides seem a bit tied in Communication to me.
RFV Thoughts,
I'd still give a tie, but edge to Pro, though only one round left, part of tie is due to both debaters having possible different approaches to the debate, and the three items being pursued.
Pro Round 3
I'm not sure Con 'dislikes the setup, but that they may be approaching it differently.
Pro makes decent argument on the difficulty of proof, or at least of 'convincing people that Jesus or Krishna are Truly Divine and Existent.
Pro 'does focus a lot of the debate on 'worldly matters though.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
Pro argues the Communication and Potential for Positive Impact, though I don't think myself that one 'has to be Christian to take useful Game Theory from it.
Still, Con is the one, not I who needs to argue such.
And Con 'has focused their arguments more in the hereafter. Which I don't think is 'terrible angle, but I'm not sure it was as 'good an angle in more regular interpretation of debate and description.
Pro argues the difficulty of face value words, and connects physical conditions with spiritual conditions.
Argues for Pragmatism, and what can be Observed.
I have not really been giving points to 'either side for the personal abilities of Krishna or Jesus, though I 'suppose such 'could play a factor.
. . . If one read the debate as which individual teaching you to your face, as opposed to reading about what they taught.
Pro argues against Con Communication argument, that tech and force could have been cause for influence.
Argues longevity of Krishna thought, is more proof towards their value, than being pushed by external individuals and groups.
Unless Con has something 'really good, I'm thinking Communication will go to Pro.
Argues against Cons arguments for devotion being Wisdom or Potential for Good.
Con Round 3
You're not 'wrong to argue the way you do, but will it convince people other than Christians?
And I 'do think the argument of which mentor is 'real has value, but that it might be a difficult argument to pull off.
Con makes arguments on the power/value of the concept/truth of the hereafter. Upon those who believe it, and it's fair to say that 'many of the Bibles teachings are of man as of 'more than this mortal coil.
Still, religions 'do pop up now and then.
It's a 'big. . . Field though, why religions occur, why some 'stay longer than others.
Con makes decent argument that first isn't best,
But I still think Pros argument of how long the teachings have lasted, show their value.
Though Con 'could compare and contrast numbers of 'current believers, Christianity has been around a long time too,
Though as Pro argued, there are possible reasons such as force for such.
Early Christians 'did make progress into the hearts of people and nations 'before they 'had nations and armies.
"blue skinned baby." Doesn't win points Con.
Con, "Well don’t you have to be Hindu to follow Krishna?"
Eh, I don't think so, nor Christian to follow 'some Christian wisdoms.
If Pro hadn't made the argument that you 'don't need to be Hindu to follow Krishna, I'd slide Communication back to a tie, but Pro 'did make such an argument, so Pro still get's communication,
Though it was 'close, due to Con's argument of older not meaning better.
"cowardly pussy’s" Eh, I'm still not counting it as a conduct hit, but certain words 'still effect perception of your argument as a whole.
I think even when Christians act contrary, such as war and nationalism against other nations,
They still often have an understanding they are not being terribly 'Christian by such an action.
I 'do think you have an argument, of masses of Christians holding to parts of the Bible, or later interpretations of the Bible, as basis for their harsh actions and often hate against others.
Though I am 'still unsure of statistics.
I would not be 'terribly surprised if you won,
Though 'something 'still gives me a feeling that Pro winning is more likely.
I 'do hope you get more votes and feedback on your debate, and that they are fair.
@NoOneInParticular
I 'do love my father, recognize he had a bad environment growing up.
I 'am thankful of the 'good actions and memories we have had together.
I recognize, that he has 'given his kids a 'lot in effort, time, money.
I recognize that he has humanistic qualities and actions towards people 'other than his family as well, at times.
Even if he has flaws,
Generally 'all humans do, I expect.
Ach! I 'always seem to forget that thing is there.
I did not even think of it until you mentioned it in post #18.
"Judging on what christians of any branch (catholic, evangelical, orthodox, etc.) derive their beliefs from today, and how they have built their religion since jesus died. The holy scriptures, church hierarchy, etc. Always, assuming that jesus actually existed!!!"
- The short description, Viewable 'before, but not after clicking on the debate.
. . . I'm still not convinced that it greatly changes the debate though.
The scriptures, hierarchy, ect 'still exist in many different forms. And I 'still think there is the difficulty of tying all of Christianity together under one label of flawed structure.
"Do you think all the trump supporters who claim to be followers of jesus really are such?" - #18
No, I'm sure that there exist people who one could argue have different Christian Ideals, than the Ideals Christ might have advocated for.
. . .
Modern Christianity, I 'still think it's an interesting topic, but that more effort was needed by you to clearly define and group all or most of modern Christianity and Christians as such.
And further to argue it as corrupt from the teachings of Jesus.
I don't really 'pay much attention to Christianity myself, other than occasionally reading bits and pieces of it.
I 'am an Atheist, but was 'somewhat raised to be a Christian.
. . My brothers, my sister and I, were all given names from the Bible.
As children, our mother read the Bible to us some, taught us to pray.
As a child, I prayed that a man from the news I viewed as evil, would find his way back to goodness and God,
Though the man was greatly despised by Americans at that time, my mother praised me for such thoughts, and encouraged such as being what it 'means to be Christian. Loving even one's enemies.
. . . As we grew older though, such petered away, she had to start working,
My father worked as well, as a teacher but had summers off, bills were still an issue.
. . .
I cannot recall my father speaking of the Bible or Christianity, except when I was in my 30s, my father is still alive, doing alright.
. . .
I don't mean to bring up my childhood, just, people have biases, viewpoints differently colored. Many people had worse childhoods than mine, my dad among them.
. . . But he was frequently an unpleasant father to have, though he loved his children, he was controlling of 'any choices, would emotionally bully his kids, 'minor physical 'actions of discipline or forcing behaviors and actions.
When with my sister one time, he returned a wallet to the police 'after taking the money out.
. . .
My 'mother, after finding a hundred dollar bill on the grocery aisle floor, took it to the lost and found,
She worked as a park ranger at a campground, and would 'regularly spend her own time and money, helping people down on their luck.
She gives to charity, gives money to random people on the street holding signs.
My eldest brother is much like her, and I've said this elsewhere, but it 'creeps 'me 'out.
That amount of altruism.
. . .
Yeah, one reads about bad 'groups of Christians at times, churches, groups, individuals.
But there is good too, I couldn't say how much.
. . .
Yes, the debate is to be judged on 'Yours and Pros arguments,
But it's hard for me to completely avoid bias,
And what 'you see as Christianity, might not be what 'I see.
"Just the figure of jesus itself. Compassionate love, empathy, forgiveness. Do these align with modern christianity?
I make the argument that they do not.
My opponent only says -"i don't know but i hope they do"!"
- #18
I think you pointed out 'part of Christianity, and assert all or a majority of it to 'be such.
While you 'do argue many actions such as nationalism not to be very Christian, 'I think Pro makes a fair rebuttal, with their definitions of what it means to be a Christian.
While I 'do think Pros arguments could have addressed more, and gone more in depth.
I think they hit upon a core in the debate, what does it 'mean to be a Christian?
They apply the yardstick of following Jesus, and view it through a very 'personal lens.
Not viewing Christianity as some of the various organizations or churches, but the people.
I view it more as 'assertion, by you that Christianity is the Mega Churches,
And 'assertion, by him that Christianity is the people.
There 'are arguments and statistics for such, but they were not obvious to me when I read the debate.
You 'do quote the Bible a 'number of times, but arguably that goes towards the same point of how Christians should be good loving people, not hateful.
Pro makes the 'same argument.
To get my vote, I think you would have needed stronger evidence and argument that the Churches and Organizations 'were Christianity.
. . I 'can't quite put my finger on it, but there's 'something in the debate that puts me out of kilter.
Christianity isn't a 'single entity, with clear cut behaviors and actions.
Though such vague definitions 'can readily enough identify a group, I think I needed more argument of why Christianity was better recognized by hate and greed, than love and following Jesus.
. . . .
"Now if I had known the debate was based on mega cathedrals and people trying to get rich of the idea of Christianity I would not have accepted because I agree with you. But your debate title is Christianity and I have proved that Jesus judges Christianity from individual hearts." - Pro Round 2
If you had defined the debate in the description as Jesus will not recognize mega cathedrals as his successors, I think Pro would have argued differently,
But even your arguments, I don't think 'quite take that tact exactly.
Pro states they argued against the title of the debate, and much of your gist/meaning of your arguments. I think.
"But did he argue why it is actually ethical? that's what the topic requires."
- #75 Umbrellacorp
I'd say the debate focused on the question of ethics indoctrination and intent.
Which Pro managed to limit the degree of harm of such, in their arguments.
The Homosexuality part could have been replaced with a 'number of adjectives, and I 'think the debate would have been mostly unchanged.
I think arguing 'why the activity was ethical or nonethical, would have helped 'either side. But 'neither did so much.
Pro focused on the right/expectation of parents to pass their values, and the existence of soft indoctrination.
Con focused on attacking indoctrination. . And they 'might have managed it, if they focused more on the possible harm of indoctrinating heterosexuality upon homosexual individuals.
But I view Con as wasting 'way too much time on attacking indoctrination as a concept, religion, and stating that being homosexual is fine.
. . As it stands in the debate, with neither side giving argument of Heterosexuality or Homosexuality, it's more akin to a debate about being right or left handed.
Though Con 'had a possible opportunity, if they had focused their arguments and sources more on possible harm of even minor nonacceptance.
I do have biases myself, due to my upbringing, norms of my society, and norms of my peers thus far in life. and (shrug).
. . . Still if Pro had argued Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s heterosexuality?
And Pro and Con had used the 'same arguments, I think I still would have voted Pro.
I voted against Mieky, in her debate on Being LGBTQ is a choice,
Because of the 'arguments given, just like this debate.
. . . Though I suppose if this debate title had been,
Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s not being a serial killer?
I might have voted Con.
"And changing your child's sexual orientation would've been very modern if we were in the middle ages. but unfortunately we live in 2025."
- #74 Umbrellacorp
I'm not sure that societies acceptance of homosexuals is 'so 'far in the past.
I'll be turning 32 this year. . Hm, I recall in the past reading older archives of debates on Debate.org, lot of them were about homosexuality, in the military, being married.
Which of course, was because of various laws in America changing within my lifetime.
I generally take a more Nature 'and Nurture view of sexuality.
Though I don't deny some people can have more predisposition than others.
May be a problem for people 'completely open to sexualities, is that neither choice is 'wrong. So they are left to defend core identity and argue against indoctrination of a neutral choice.
'Unless they focused on the backlash.
But 'everyone 'indoctrinates.
(RFV Part 1)
Title, Being LGBTQ is a choice
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
If a person wanted to go against the spirit of the debate, they might have argued that some people are born with transgender body parts biologically, though it's not common I think.
Description
Gave people background on where Pro was coming from, motivation-wise.
Pro Round 1
Shows 'remarkable value of human will and choice.
But is rather short, and perhaps tuned to Pro's 'specific life experiences and personality.
. . .
'Can 'Choose, hm, I don't think it's really so 'easy for most people, to just 'change what they value.
Sure 'theoretically they could, but in practice they don't, and I think Nature and Nurture are explanatory for this.
. . . People only 'choose when certain conditions are met. It's not reasonable to expect 'everyone to make the same choices in life.
Some people for example, have a genetic weakness to alcohol, 'or a 'learned weakness.
They're not just going to choose to quit, even when it threatens their life.
They'll only choose to quit, when the right conditions are met, giving them great enough 'reason to.
I suppose people can accustom themselves over time into most choices, but eh, I don't think this is a debate on free will.
I 'suppose many people could come to like the same or opposite sex over time, but I don't think most would willingly make such a choice. Coercions doesn't 'feel much of a choice.
. . . And it's likely there are many people who through Nature or Nurture, have become 'solid in their preferences, that even attempting or coerced to, would not change their preferences.
Certainly 'enough people in history, where one can point to failed coercions.
Though again we come back to choice,
Some choices offered are no choices at all, say some might say.
Such as betraying family, many would sooner die.
. . . But 'some people 'do choose to betray family, and if conditions were a bit different, the refuser might have chosen such as well.
. . . Personally I tend to take a practical view of Free Will in life and Philosophy, and in such a sense Pro's argument rings with me. . . But Pros argument is awful short, and I expect has a 'lot of counterarguments from Con coming.
Con Round 1
I 'do think Nature plays a large roll in preferences.
I'm not convinced that attempts to change someone's orientation is ineffective and harmful.
Though I 'could be convinced that it 'can be for 'some individuals.
Some people 'are pretty hard wired to be the way they are.
"If it were a choice, we would expect people to switch their orientation easily"
I'm not trying to summon Dr Peterson, but I wonder, what do the two of you debaters 'mean by 'Choice?
Without 'links, I'm not inclined to give points for sources.
Though I cherry pick from sources myself on occasion,
I think 'ideally, one's opponent and voters should have the ability to check the context of what the sources say.
Interesting argument, on why choose a harder path in life.
Life 'is hard for some lifestyles in history.
I'm not sure it's 'unreasonable though. . . A core part yeah, but let's take anger for example, it can be pretty self harming, both to body and social relationships, yet a person might 'keep being angry and acting out.
. . 'Yet, one day 'choose to go to counseling, or read a self help book or something.
At this point though, my votes 'heavily leaning towards Con.
A person being Hard Wired, is a good argument. . . Hm, but then, a human is much 'more than other animals.
A dog is pretty hard wired to be a dog.
A 'human though, has the imagination to be more than many of their genetics, , , I 'suppose one could 'technically remove certain genes, if one had enough tech? Not sure that's a 'choice though.
And there 'is the problem of people 'deeply Hard Wired one way or another.
(RFV Part 2)
Pro Round 2
Well, people 'are born with Genetic Predispositions, sometimes quite strongly.
And Con 'does have a point, that sexual identity 'can be a strong core value in a person, that they are unlikely to change easily.
. . . Course, one can also be a racist, through genetics and experiences, many might argue their feelings of racism is a choice, and through actions they could feel less racist.
Core Habits 'are pretty strong in people though, difficult to change on a 'whim.
I think Con is arguing it's not just some jacket they can (easily) take off.
"once you choose to be LGBTQ I'm mean that's that."
Would that mean it 'was a choice, but can no 'longer be a choice?
Core values 'can form awful early, before a kids really 'thought much about their choice.
But I suppose a choice can be argued as an 'action. But then even a dog could make choices.
"Say a homosexual guys parents never show him a dude right every and he never experienced seeing or interacting with another man would he still be Homosexual?"
Maybe, some people 'are pretty Hard Wired genetically.
Hm, I'm not sure if 'choice, was the best word for this debate.
Con Round 2
Well, I argue it's a choice made off Genetics and Life Experiences.
"Discover who they are",
Eh, I 'am fond of poetry such as "I am the master of my fate" - Invictus
or
"You, I've mistaken for destiny
But the truth is, my legacy
Is not up to my genes
True, though the imprint is deep in me
It will always be up to me
Up to me"
- Genetic Opera
Con makes argument that it's not a 'simple 'easy choice.
I 'do think people can choose who they attracted to,
Except 'maybe the most Hard Wired of people.
I'm not highly convinced by the 'discovery argument, or the underlying orientation argument.
But it 'is an argument, and one that Con used somewhat in round 1.
Again, I'm big on 'both Nature and Nurture, I think how people live 'does effect who they are attracted to.
. . . Course I 'could be assuming too much malleability in humans, and assuming less humans Hard Wired, than what are. (Shrug)
Con makes a decent argument of music, people 'do have natural predispositions genetically.
Though one might argue that if the predisposition never branches out, it might atrophy off.
. . . Course, a person hardwired might be more likely to 'keep said predisposition.
Con is right that Pro did not address the 'why choose a hard life question.
Though Pro argued they 'don't have hard lives (Not true in many places)
Ah, I meant it as a joke.
It's from 8-Bit Theater, a webcomic about a party of psychopaths.
I'm a 'bit sorry I deleted it now, As you have replied.
But I figured other people might not find it as funny as me, and thought, 15 minute window to delete, probably no one read it.
But instant I click delete, heh, notification.
. . .
I'm not 'terribly serious about the topic,
Though I 'do find it interesting, and think there are argument to be made for seeking war.
I'm open to it being about any effects, be they Military, Political, Economic, Moral, or Other.
The Black Forest in Germany, is somewhere I've often thought would be interesting to see.
Certainly they are fine countries.
Varying in aspects of life's qualities that they excel in.
But still, I would choose America, for what it excels in, and I value, for me.
And 'by that, their military suffered and rusted some.
'Had Germany invaded in WW2, as was considered, the Swiss would not have held out as 'well, as if they 'had minded war.
And if Japan had not 'cut themselves off from the world, during the Sakoku Era, but instead had kept their weapons 'relevant and honed,
The Black Ships of Admiral Perry, might not have laid before Japan such threat, as to force open their ports to trade.
It 'is an interesting question, an interesting debate to read and think on.
Though Briguy21's rounds were short, I 'do think they hit upon important details of the debate.
I often 'forget the existence of that description describing the debate before one clicks on the debate, as one can't see it, once they have clicked on the debate.
Title
Well, Christianity 'does have his name in it.
Description
Spirit of the debate/honesty, can work well in a debate.
Umbrellacorp Round 1
There 'are a lot of 'different structures and doctrines, then what might have been around some 2000 years ago.
Though, I'd figure there were a lot of different ideas back then as well.
He'd see his 'influence, I imagine, even if it didn't always go the ways he might have chosen.
And I'd imagine that there were some key ideas he might have been pushing for back then, words he might have spoken 'just about the same back then, as they are preserved now.
"So, in Conclusion: Christianity’s core doctrines would be foreign toJesus."
Not sure I agree with that, The 'Core, I imagine, is 'always the Bible. Even much is added to it, differently interpreted, not 'completely followed.
. . . Well, he 'might not recognize some as his own,
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6335-would-jesus-recognize-christianity-as-his-if-he-were-alive-today
Though I think that's a bit obtuse, though I 'can understand the 'reason for him 'saying such.
People have 'still heard of him and his words, created and followed something 'similar.
I'm sure Jesus 'would preach for many changes, were he to return.
. . . Course there would be a difference between Jesus the Divine, and Jesus the Man.
That is to say if we are viewing him as a Divine Individual, or from an Atheistic Mindset as a more mundane human with interesting views on Morality, Ethics.
Maybe depends if he could acquire power or not.
As a normal human, it's hard to avoid realistic consequences and politics. Though one 'can choose to avoid such.
I think he'd have an easier time sticking to his guns if people did not believe he was truly Jesus.
"are they truly following Jesus-or just wearing his name?"
I think many people would 'like to, try to, 'dream to.
But for many people, it is only a dream, I think of religious individuals, who are yet outright criminals. Perhaps thinking they would 'like to put into action Christs teachings, but they love wealth, pleasure, power. Perhaps some expect Hell or Purgatory.
. . . Some people 'do though, more or less. And I must say when I 'meet them, or see their actions. I feel a bit unnerved and creeped out. By their Good Works, Altruisms, Efforts.
. . It's not that I 'never feel an urge to do good, not that I am 'never good, but I am not such a person as they.
Briguy21 Round 1
Mentions The gospel, argues that Christianity is not based on organizations but on individuality.
. . There 'are a lot of variations of it.
Umbrellacorp Round 2
Christianity 'is a big umbrella.
I think Briguy21 'did address the concerns about hierarchy, wealth, exclusion, and moral policing, though one could argue perhaps not in 'depth.
But they argue the 'core is The Gospel, and that many tenants 'are followed.
Though Umbrellacorp makes a point that they 'could be followed 'more.
I think 'some Christians 'are rather giving.
I suppose you could argue percentagewise more are not, than are.
But maybe that's hard to calculate. .
If we looked back to older times. . Could we calculate it then?
Did Jesus 'only consider a Christian, those who gave their all end everything?
Or could he understand that such was 'exceptional, even if he advocated for it?
Even back in his time, I'm sure there were people who followed him only 'partway, they still had jobs, nations. Could not 'fully give themselves.
Briguy21 Round 2
Points out the difficulty of definition.
. . .
Hm, I wonder if George Washington would recognize America as partly his, were he alive today?
. . . I imagine some of the 'really racist Founding Fathers might not, or only partially recognize it.
But then, America is unified as one under laws and force.
I think there's a difference between playing 'games of definitions,
And arguing that definitions 'matter at times 'to argue a subject.
Christianity is a bit 'nebulous. . . Disagreed a concept. Maybe.
Ask the poor giving Christian, if Christianity is defined as the big megachurches and hating others, might say no.
. . . Even the megachurch pastor might say no, though I might suspect 'that one lying.
I hate time travel and multiverse theory.
. . .
Hm, shoehorn. . . What if I imagined fact that humans have memories, memories change get forgotten/buried. I have existed once, and will again, unless X changes then I would exist as X. Would I change X aspect of myself, to prevent future X?
Also, title might have been better as 'Kill' baby Hitler.
Con Round 1
Descriptions says they pass the first round.
Pro Round 1
Argues less suffering overall if we kill baby Hitler.
Claims it is unlikely another psychotic rug rat would emerge.
I'm not 'so sure of that myself, I 'think antisemitism was pretty high back then, Germans pretty unhappy about WW1 terms, some countries wanting to get back together, Russia problem, Unstable Germany, some argue many atrocities came about from ground level decisions of soldiers and generals doing what they 'thought Hitler expected.
Hard to say.
I skimmed this earlier, and I recall Con made an argument valuing the future/present that one has. 'Might be enough, but they'd do better to back their arguement with arguement of possible worse future as well.
Con Round 2
Argues the importance of the existent, over the nonexistent.
Well, it is 'an argument.
And until debate is further expounded, it's a bit value this or that.
Pro Round 2
Man I hate time travel.
Pro makes a decent argument for valuing 'currently non existent lives.
Con Round 3
Con makes an interesting argument, in how many people will be effected, and 'not be.
It 'was a world war, lots of people moving about, meeting people they would not have met otherwise.
. . . Course, , Then people are, , Wouldn't there be some future with a maximum number of people created? Should we only aim for that future?
Con argument makes sense from purely self interested and accepting of 'current self and people, but then what is 'now?
I hate time travel.
. . .
I'm not going to vote, I think.
. . .
Personally, even if it improved the so called current timeline, I would not do anything to change it.
I'm selfish,
I like myself, even any bad stuff in my life, it has made me, me, and I accept myself, love myself.
. . . Also, time travel is confusing, and I don't believe in time travel to the past.
Are there any Government sponsored atrocities in the USA, that come to mind in particular?
I suppose there's been some times Government has come into conflict with new territories, such as Utah.
Various Company vs Labor conflicts that turned out poorly for labor usually (I assume).
War veterans wanting to be paid right after the Revolution.
Maybe The Black Panthers.
I find it interesting that you are for gun control to (?) degree,
Due to my making a general (Possibly erroneous) assumption about people from the US military being primarily Pro Gun.
What would you say influences your views on gun control?
I 'do think I could have done a better job with sources.
In expounding upon their implications, or what from them apply to my argument.
Various insurgencies for example, I might have done a better job in laying out exactly 'what from those instances, could occur similarly in America.
Why there were so 'many, I feel as though 'every time I make some factual claim I 'ought back it up with a source for proof.
It 'also feels a problem when there are 'so 'many conflicting studies and examples. Most all with different variables. It seemed to me the best method to include 'many, and try to argue what was common in all.
Also for Mexico, I had a hard time finding a source that talked explicitly at length about gun control in Colonial Mexico.
Debate Title
My 'first instinct, is that 'most current society would say no.
Course I imagine there is 'still many religious individuals not 'fond of homosexuality.
. . . What if I switched it, to Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s heterosexuality?
Well, then I have a reaction, a clear dislike, course one hears some cultures were pretty gay in history. Pederasty in ancient Greece. Course even 'current culture wouldn't like that much, because of power imbalance, underage thing.
Cultural norms eh?
. . . What else ought I compare sexuality then? Favorite color? Political views? Philosophy?
Arguably we try to change our kids already, school education/indoctrination and all that.
Current society probably wouldn't like a parent naming their kid Adolf and raising them as a Nazi. Though I still don't 'like that, I don't have the same knee jerk against it.
Freedom of family and all that. . . I 'would have a knee jerk against a family raising it's kid under obviously false conspiracy theories.
Course 'then one can get into a Theist and Atheist problem. Though I don't think it's 'so clear myself, it is to the hardliners on either side.
Well, I look forward to reading the debate anyhow.
Pro Round 1
Forfeit. Not 'ideal.
But Con seems to accept Pro's apology and excuse.
Con Round 1
Eh, love 'can come with conversion therapy. Try to 'convert someone out of drugs for instance. Or try to encourage someone on what one thinks is the moral right path in life.
Though I suppose people 'can be misguided sometimes.
Church groups who burn D&D books for instance, I'm not 'certain they're a path to the Devil. Though an argument 'could be made.
Morality is often confirmative.
Good argument though, on "increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide"
Including sources would help though.
. . . I'd imagine drug addicts can get those as 'well, when getting off drugs. So I'm not sure it's the 'best argument. But that depends on how Good/Neutral/Bad homosexuality ends up argued in the debate. Drugs, people usually see as bad, Homosexuality, many might say Neutral or equal Good to Heterosexuality.
'Some Ethics is about catering to social comfort, duty.
Depends which Ethics you ask though.
Con makes an alright argument, appealing to individuality and arguing that attempts to change a child’s sexuality could be harmful.
Pro Round 2
'Possible mistake, or Possible advantage.
When Pro say's "Coercive", something I realize, is the debate does not state how 'hard a parent has to try to prevent or change their child's homosexuality.
It's 'great you two are 'referencing stuff, but I think accessible sources are 'ideal.
Makes religious argument, but I think their 'strongest point in this round, has been in arguing for softer more accepting methods in changing their child's sexuality.
This currently has them winning in my book,
But I think Con can make a comeback.
. . . Just because a religion believes X, may make it 'understandable for them to encourage X, but X could still be a practice that 99% of current society finds immoral. Or in this case neutral, to people who view homosexuality neutrally.
So Con 'could push the view that while soft pushing for a child to change their sexuality isn't 'as bad as Coercive Conversion therapy, it 'still ends up as bad, just far 'less bad. No matter the parents motivations.
As far as I know, people can still use DebateArt. In a sense.
Population and Moderators, might be a bit of a question though.
I'd suppose much depends on the owner of DART, the 'bones of the site seem fine to me.
Maybe some people just have concerns about whether the owner 'will keep paying for the online certificates and such.
Communication worries.
If owners sticks around, communicates, advertises, site would do decent, I'd think.
But of course, I 'think they are running website at a cost.
And who knows the real life complications of others?
The time for argument might be a bit short for most people.
Might want to switch from Con to Pro.
@21Pilots
I 'do appreciate the effort, and didn't 'report your vote or the last.
But it 'probably doesn't meet the ideal standards of votes on DART.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
@Umbrellacorp
You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Friendly feedback is more likely to get honest explanation, than Negative feedback.
Negative feedback gets resentment and goal of hurting, not explaining.
Ah, 'c'mon, you can do a better reason for vote than that.
The debate did not have much time left, and I wasn't expecting to change who won, as I did not report any votes.
I don't agree with all your criticisms, but certainly it's something for me to think on.
40 minutes was not enough time for me to read.
Pro Round 1
"but suppose there’s only a 2% chance that is the case." - Pro
"a human being is formed at conception."
Earlier argued sperm always be sperm, but not so with sperm 'and egg.
Argues human rights,
Expected flaw though, is human body not always person. Brain dead, missing head, not yet 'having brain.
. . . Counterargument, something being immoral, does not mean it 'can'not be done.
Pros arguments value human and person chance.
They don't need argue abortion 'can'not be taken, abortion can be lesser evil, but abortion still wrong.
. . .
I'm not sure killing a person without memories is murder, nor that killing dementia patients is wrong. As without memories I'm not sure one 'is a person. And dementia is pretty horrible, some people would prefer death. Course one could argue that it is only moral to kill people who requested they be killed.
Operation thought experiment only applies to 'expectation of a person. If there was to be no person, then blinding something that is not a person/animal would not be immoral so long as you destroy it before it can become person or animal.
Though there is still argument for immoral, just less so. Leaving gum on the bottom of a dining table, seems to me immoral.
Con Round 1
Argues we don't abort people.
"non-trivial sentience"
General abductive motivations
. . . Eh, what 'is non-trivial sentience, 'technically, I'm not sure that newborn babies have more than trivial sentience, but backlash against killing them would be huge.
Because of what they are/will be, as Pro argued earlier.
"p1. An action is morally impermissible if it violates the moral entitlements of a person or it has morally unacceptable consequences. "
Argues morality 'only applies to people, eh, what a person 'does effects them. So even destroying a flag can be an immoral act, due to effect it has on the destroyer.
"doll"
I think the human has more value by being 'human. Normative values.
Still. . . It's a good argument by Con.
Uses sources on sentience, asleep/awake,
Makes more obvious I 'think that Con argues for far earlier abortions than 'late abortions.
Sliding scale/Spectrum, often issue with Abortion debates.
Argues most abortions take place before source defined sentience.
"Does it violate other people’s rights?"
Argues GDP and economic freedom.
Sources,
Robot.
Round 1 Thoughts
Though my 'personal opinion is with Pro,
I've 'currently have to vote Con,
They focus argument on personhood, and 'specify 'time of abortion, very well.
Pro Round 2
"risking"
Where does the 2% 'come from?
"unborn child will “develop the capacity for consciousness unless directly harmed,” similarly to a coma patient. This is not true of a philosophical zombie."
"reduction in life years"
There is 'still problem of there being no person deprived.
“There are several reasons to believe that entities are persons if and only if they have (i) actualizable interests (ii) or [had] interests [at] some prior mental state”
Corpses and human bits.
Surely we must decide one is person at some point, and no longer at some point?
Course one can argue fetus is such a stage.
8 minutes. Curse word.
Babies are babies and dolls are dolls.
Synthetic magic doll.
Potential experiences brain dead vs coma.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Legality of abortion and social consequentialism
Con Round 2
Coma retain.
4 minutes.
Doll argument not convincing, though, if we prevent meeting X not exist.
Sources regret
Con provides more evidence 'for even if Correlation does not imply causation.
1:30
Abortion 'still bad even with permissive laws.
Just because law 'allows slavery doesn't make it right.
Just because greater good, not mean small action not wrong.
"claiming a child has been harmed only makes sense if the child is a person. "+
"external nutrients (the charger)"+
Round 2 Thoughts
I don't think Pro manages enough proof of sentience, or value of potential sentience.
Pro Round 3
Where does the 2% chance come from?
"Con’s case largely does not even attempt to establish certainty"
If you could bring the chance up to 2% I think I'd agree with Pro, but they need something to 'argue that 2% exists.
"The Un intuitiveness of considering robots and dolls to be persons is due to the fact that they are robots and dolls, entities that do not develop consciousness and are neither sentient nor presentient." +
How do you hyperlink to a portion of the text in the debate?
Con concedes that “killing a child is plausibly worse than killing an adult,”
I'm not sure it is. Objectively. Subjectively sure according to 'some cultures.
"The effects of banning abortion are irrelevant to the morality of abortion itself."
Eh, societies with 'no contraceptives or abortions have been harmed in some nations histories.
Con Round 3
"when does an entity become a person with moral entitlements, and does abortion have deleterious social consequences? "
I'm not sure debate 'does boil down to that, Pro takes a different direction on moral than consequences on society as whole.
And I'm not sure on the person argument.
"Why would we care about some plastic doll just because in the future it could become something we care about (note how sperm and egg also could become something we care about"
Well, there's expectation and 'what they are.
A fetus 'is a 'new human of sorts. A sperm isn't.
"Savant argues that someone could hypothetically kill a mothers child and exonerate themself if they reveal that the baby was never actually sentient. I claimed that this is a clear violation of p3 given its unacceptable social consequences. "
'What social consequences, if everyone agrees with your logic?
At 'most they get a fine.
If the charging robot is as 'real as the fetus, then it 'would be as wrong as killing the fetus.
It 'can't be a 'normal robot charging to 100% if it's gaining sentience.
Mutating is different than 'could mutate.
Final Thoughts
At a 'skim, I couldn't say who I'd vote for.
I 'suspect I'd vote arguments tie, as both focused on different angles.
I suspect sources Con, but I'd have to read through them all to be sure.
Legibility and conduct, probably a tie.
Title,
Well, 'execution 'does effect a lot, in a system.
There's good and bad examples of either.
Though, I think on a national level, Capitalism has a better track record,
Course one can argue lot of Capitalist Nations have a lot of Socialism in them, which many people call Communism of a sort.
But I'm uneducated on political theory.
Description,
"I take the position that communism is more desirable." - Pro
Eh, maybe I should take the view that Con takes the position that capitalism is more desirable?
Vagueness in title and description.
"This debate is not about defending the historical actions of totalitarian regimes, nor about comparing failed implementations. Instead, the focus is on the desirability of the core principles and long-term implications of both systems." - Pro
Hm, yeah Capitalism has 'flaws, but it appears to 'work more than Communism.
Sure Communism that works might be 'desirable, but. . .
We desire things for what they 'are sometimes.
I might desire a wolf that will not bite me and will follow my commands obediently, more than a dog that will not bite me and will follow my commands obediently,
But I desire the dog because it 'won't bite me and 'will follow my commands obediently.
Course, what things 'are can change. Animals, Technology, Social Conditions.
I've heard it said that Marx thought Communism ought be attempted when a nation was 'ready for it, rather than when it was 'not ready.
Jocoqe Round 1
"Which system is more desirable as a model for organizing human life, in terms of justice, dignity, and sustainability?" - Pro
If either system can be manipulated until it's ideal version, how is one better than the other?
Capitalism rewards effort, merit.
Communism 'forces your labor, removes individual choice and property.
Pro argues sometimes flaws in Capitalism to be a feature, but why should this 'not apply to Communism?
Capitalists can be idealists as well.
If BOF is not in description, then it becomes a suggestion.
LucyStarfire Con Round 1
Makes resource management argument.
"Economy is everything" - Con
Well, I'm not so sure about that, I think economy can 'help.
But society can also structure to force or encourage certain institutions.
A bigger problem is 'defending one's country from other countries, if one doesn't have wealth, and by wealth, armies and weapons.
Makes an argument that Communism lacks innovation.
Not 'so sure myself, the USSR seemed to do alright in that area for a time.
Communism can also 'force communal savings, and 'force expansion,
Course it tends to work out horribly in history, I think.
Con makes poverty and Crime argument.
Round 1 Thoughts on Both
Still initial stage of debate.
. . . I think examples and proof are valuable, but Pro kind of lined such out in the description.
I'd say Pro is focusing more on core principles and Con on long-term implications.
Jocoqe Round 2
I find Pros arguements in On Equal Access to Resources and “Skilled vs Unskilled” less than convincing.
Removing the ability to excel 'does mean the same outcome.
Communism is ever crabs in a bucket, pulling everyone down.
Skills 'can be produced through social structuring, but I think such is limited. It pulls people in and forces them to the party line and so called 'good of society, the status quo.
Course one can argue such is the un'ideal version of Communism.
On the “Economy is everything” fallacy
I still lean Con, but Pro makes a good argument that votewise this point goes Pro, unless Con makes additional argument on point.
Course a 'problem in the debate, is I think most 'real world nations use a 'mix of Individual and group valuing, not 'one or the 'other.
On Expansion and Innovation
Eh, most wealth is 'invested, it's how the wealthy 'stay wealthy, and 'get wealthier.
A better argument might be when patents can slow and stop innovation,
But that might be a debate in itself.
"The internet, GPS, vaccines, nuclear power, public universities (all emerged primarily from state or publicly funded research, driven by collective goals, not profit-seeking)." - Pro
Yeah, from a 'Capitalist Country.
And hardly 'removed from Capitalism in funding and implementation.
But these are 'claims, not proof by me.
I again think the debate could benefit from sources.
No reward, no profit, no incentive to improve." - Con
I 'mostly 'agree with him, exceptions exist, but I view the bulk of motive as self interest.
"Planned obsolescence
Addiction-driven design
Disposable consumer culture" - Con
All good arguments, but arguably Capitalism 'accounts for such by the Free Market.
Consumers 'are able to move as a group and demand what they want.
"On Suppression of Small Business" - Pro
Is at best a tie, it mentions use of Capitalist methods.
"On Stagnation, Poverty, and Crime" - Pro
Eh, America's complicated, still I'm curious if Con is able to compare it to Communist countries.
. . . But description says, "nor about comparing failed implementations"
So bit hard to say if argument even applies, as one can just claim that certain aspects of Capitalism were failed implementation.
"Other Structural Contradiction" - Pro
What 'proof is there that Communism could ever succeed and 'maintain it's success?
Con Round 2
"In order to say that something should be desirable, it must be achievable, or there is no any point in desiring it in the first place." - Con
That's how I generally see it, but. . . Not 'necessarily how it is.
Sometimes we desire the unachievable, or the very difficult 'to achieve.
Makes arguments of individual ability and importance of the economy.
Argues Capitalism means many goods.
I'm not sure Communism 'quite works out as 'any person seizing the private business of another, but the government often does.
Possible flaw in debate, might be question of 'scale.
Compares America and Communist Countries.
BOP, eh, I'lean towards 'shared.
Round 2 Thoughts
Currently I lean Con, neither side is too exact with proofs, but I think Con is managing to address all of Pros arguments.
Currently I suppose I'd 'vote tie though, as I've said earlier, I think each side has 'half of the debate.
Pro is focusing more on core principles and Con on long-term implications.
Jocoqe Round 3
“In order to say that something should be desirable, it must be achievable…”
Pro makes the expected response, argues surpassing limitations.
“This is now trying to change the definition… which clearly said equal access to resources and democratic control.”
I still lean Con here, skilled and better people 'do acquire and use resources, merit.
Course there's the issue of inherited wealth, but Capitalism accounts for that when the unworthy 'lose their money.
Pro makes arguments against the worthy, but I found Cons argument of America's success convincing, compared to many 'Communist countries.
“So this is another very unrealistic goal with no proof of being achievable.”
Pro makes good arguments again, on 'progress.
“This is a concession that all human rights and basic needs depend on economy…”
Pro concedes economy importance.
I'm not convinced by their argument of the homeless children, I don't think homeless 'children are as common in America as homeless 'people, who mooch off of various goverment socialist programs, and soup kitchens.
Statistics needed.
“It is common sense that Capitalism lifted more people out of poverty…”
Argues this is due to tech, not the Capitalist system.
" circular argument"
. . . I don't 'think that's circular logic.
. . . That's more. . . 'maybe a equivocation fallacy?
Though I don't think I'd call it a 'fallacy, if Capitalism leads to a stronger economy than Communism,
And it's 'agreed by Pro earlier that economy is important, then one 'could see a connection.
“People as a whole benefit from Capitalism.”
We're still better off than the Communists.
And 'again, Pro has that 'ideal version of Communism or Capitalism in the description, though one 'could argue it only applies to COmmunism, they weren't specific, so I apply it to both.
But there's 'still the "core principles and Con on long-term implications."
I think Con is doing better on the long term implications, but that Pro is doing better on core principles.
“No person will invest all his money at once. That would be terrible and risky.”
A 'bit problem in the debate is both sides making 'claims, but not backing those claims with proof or statistics.
"Planned obsolescence
Addiction-maximizing algorithms
Cost-cutting that exploits labor and destroys the planet"
Again good examples, but one can argue 'ideal Capitalism.
"I mean…I would never live in the US, but that’s just my opinion, just as relevant as yours."
Pff, you'd rather live in Russia or North Korea?
USA! US- Well, maybe too much.
LucyStarfire Round 3
Argues the many achievements and 'reality of Capitalism.
Argues failure of Communism to 'be.
'Unfortunately debate description has,
"This debate is not about defending the historical actions of totalitarian regimes, nor about comparing failed implementations. Instead, the focus is on the desirability of the core principles and long-term implications of both systems."
True,
Though, I think it's kind of cool to see such a lengthy and densely packed debate.
I think according to a word counter,
This debate has roughly 14,829 words 88,243 characters.
I've heard a typical book page has,
1,500 to 1,800 characters
So, 49 to 58 pages.
Though, when I press print on my computer, it says 33 pages.
I've heard it can take about an hour to read 33 pages.
Then there's the problem of weighing and thinking everything one has read.
I've heard an average read time can be 183 words per minute.
14,829 words divided by 183 = 81.03
I don't really 'enjoy thinking on that,
But. . . I 'do debate partially to examine my own beliefs.
I'd accept such a debate.
Well, there's still a lot of time left, winners is still up in the air I think.
Hm, I don't think I've ever done a rematch in a debate,
Debated a few 'different people in succession on the same subject of dueling, but didn't debate any of the 'people more than once.
I 'do want to debate this subject again at some point, but I think I'll pass on that for now.
Hm, 'similar topic. .
Circumcision on male infants is immoral unless medically necessary.
I'd go first, be Con and you Pro, 3 rounds?
I've been considering trying for that debate for a bit, since reading 21Pilots vs IamAdityaDhaka's debate on,
Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s homosexuality?
Though I'm an Atheist, a lot of my morality is normative, traditions, and culture.
I think it could be an interesting debate, questions of group freedom, individual rights, necessity, maybe even questions of transhumanism as technology increases ever forwards.
Thanks for voting.
I don't think it's 'so unstable a position, so long as the debate is limited to what 'America, Americans ought do.
As well as avoiding the 'total freedom to own guns position, which 'is one that some people own, but I don't think it's the 'common position in America, on guns.
Well, I was referring more to an 'older time, in some countries histories, when racism was more prevalent,
Than to 'current times.
I 'suppose I could have made a different comparison, but one speaks of what one is more familiar with.
Though my familiarity is limited to reading American history.
I'd imagine from the unisex changing room perspective,
. . . Sexual Assault exists, male to male, female to female,
But individual changing rooms are not demanded.
Though, one 'could argue that more assaults are carried out by men, but this is an argument made by me, not you.
Con though 'did arg-
Well, it doesn't really matter,
One can have 'separate changing rooms, yet still allow individuals to compete in the same sports. Or have no changing rooms.
Much of my RFV 'did speak my own personal opinions and thoughts, as I sometimes use my RFV as 'notes and my surface thoughts while reading.
'But, what 'makes the vote, are not my opinions, but my observations of the debate.
Let me do a tally then,
Round 1 Pro
3 sources saying men are stronger than women.
2 sources on women uncomfortable competing against trans women.
1 source on hormone replacement side effects.
1 source on hormone therapy within a duration of 12 months.
3, I think Half the sources are undercut by Cons method of attack, in arguing less physical sports.
2, Con argues the 2 sources and quotes used don't mention changing rooms. They make arguments again undercutting with less physical sports. Arguments that shared changing rooms would not have to be used. And make an argument that discomfort alone is not enough to exclude.
1, I did not think the side effects source applied much to the debate, though I 'suppose one could argue allowing trans athletes encourages people to become trans to compete, and is encouraging dangerous behavior.
1, Con made arguments that the 12 month source was limited.
Round 2 Pro
2 sources on woman uncomfortable competing against trans women.
Has the 'same issues as the 2 sources in round one about uncomfortable competing against trans women.
Round 2 Con
1, Includes a source to argue psychological effects of therapy and participation.
2, Two sources arguing the bias in the individuals used by Pros sources.
. . .
I can understand people voting for Pro on sources, but I can also see people voting for a tie as I did. Given Cons arguments against Pros sources, and their own sources.
Title and Description,
Seems solid enough title and description.
Pro Round 1
1. Argues and sources physical ability differences between sexes.
2. Argues and sources societal psychological separation of sexes.
3. Kind of falls into 1.
Risks of Hormone therapy, doesn't effect debate question much I think.
'Better would be to argue Hormone therapy failure to change physical characteristics enough to outweigh natural sex. But Pro 'does mention such.
Pro argues unfairness of allowing such competition.
Con Round 1
Makes an interesting agreement, placing society as a whole over the athletes.
I don't really 'like such an argument, though I can understand where it comes from.
Examples of such in history or current society would be appreciated.
1, Yes, sports categories are social conventions,
But such. . . I don't agree with the argument, should we allow Mustang cars to compete with mustangs on the horse track?
. . I suppose if society 'benefited enough. But female sports is for 'females, horse racing is for 'horses. Invent a 'new sport that allows participants of 'any sex, or allows people to-
Allows 'Trans women to compete with 'women.
2, Social inclusion for social inclusion at the cost of truth, not always great.
A better argument by Con is trans being allowed in female sports with no strong strengths or weaknesses based on ones sex.
. . . Though I don't particularity 'agree with such, it 'does attack in an 'undercut, the main thrust of Pros arguments. Ability.
The title and Description of the debate, do not state that the sports must be highly physical.
. . . Though one could argue that men and women 'also have different brains, strengths and tendencies of mind.
. . 'Feels a bit of a cheap attack, but it 'is on Pro to guard themself against such in title and description.
. . . Arguably it's also a 'relevant to society argument. There might 'be sports leagues separated by sex. Bowling for example, or chess maybe.
Such arguments could also undercut Pros arguments about societal psychological separation of sexes in changing rooms.
Non-Endurance-Based Sports
Con makes the expected arguments and examples, though I think they would do well to source examples of real life leagues of such sex separated sports.
Rebuttals
"Pro then cites two sources suggesting that many—perhaps most—athletes are uncomfortable with TW competing in general. But this says nothing about discomfort due to changing room issues. Furthermore, this concern is only relevant to sports with shared dressing spaces, which is not always the case."
"Most importantly, discomfort alone is not a compelling reason to exclude someone from sport."
Personally 'I think it can be, but as a society we 'do have a pretty open competition and participation culture. Blacks and whites attending schools or being on sports teams together as examples.
Con attacks Pros sources, arguing they fail to provide significant 'enough statements or data.
Pro source on hormone strength 'was a 'bit skimpy.
Con also argues source not 'relevant, due to less physical sports.
Round 1 thoughts
As Pro has not yet addressed less physical sports,
My vote would 'currently go to Con.
'Maybe sources to Pro, but note to self, read their sources before giving point.
Pro Round 2
More reasoning would be good for Con arguments about social benefit of allowing trans women to compete with women.
But the gist 'is there.
I don't see the straw men or red herrings.
It's on the 'instigator to make clear the goalposts in the title and description of a debate.
I 'think there 'are various women's only social groups, including sports.
I still don't 'agree with Con, but I think Pro needs to 'address Con's arguments.
Hm, sports. . .
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5110-sports-what-are-they
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6518-i-think-sports-should-be-categorized-by-biological-sex-and-not-gender
Some statistics are a result of culture and participation.
I think Pro should focus more on the differences in sexes and performance.
Straw Man,
I 'don't think it's a straw man, though I 'do think it wasn't what you were 'planning to debate.
Red Herring,
If Pro can successfully argue sports to mean by popular understanding the physical sports, I think they can win.
Pro focuses on strengthening his physical strength differences including trans women.
Which is good for him, 'so 'long as he successfully defines and connects sports to physical abilities where there are significant differences between men and women.
Videos aren't 'bad, but they are easily ignored by voters, or taken against the debater that uses such, due to how they 'might extend the debate.
Video also does not address Cons arguments, as Con is 'avoiding physical strength sports and changing room sports.
Pro 'does use quotes from video, to strengthen their physical arguments.
. . . Discrimination is an odd thing.
I can 'imagine white sports players being offended by having to share changing rooms with blacks.
I'm 'not saying Pro's arguments are right or wrong, but that Pro 'does need to make arguments about the differences between men and women, being more than skin deep.
. . . Or arguments on the right of individuals and cultures to discriminate on skin deep differences.
I understand that it may seem 'obvious, the differences between men and women, but a significant portion of society 'doesn't think the differences obvious.
I don't think Con was moving the Goalpost, but more proof and data can be better than 'some proof and data.
I don't see the side effects as relevant to the debate of inclusion.
Pros arguments and sources for physical differences after a year are 'alright, but could be better.
But such doesn't 'matter much per debate, because I don't think Cons main point of attack 'is the physical differences.
Pro 'Needs to either argue sports are only physical sports,
Or argue skin deep discrimination is fine. Though, I think sex is a 'bit 'more than skin deep.
. . .
. . .I 'suppose Pro could 'also shift the debate, arguing "Female Sports" to be understood as Sports set aside 'only for women due to 'differences.
By such an argument Female only groups such as females only chess, could be understood to not 'truly be "Female Sports"/
'Or they can argue psychological/social differences in sex, 'even in 'trans. Argue sex to be more than skin deep.
Con Round 2
(i) is the strong social benefits
(ii) is the lack of sufficient social harm
Con has source,
Though I- . . Hm, never mind.
Con prongs their argument some,
Claiming transwomen 'not stronger,
And making less physical sports argument.
If I were Pro, I'd focus more on the less physical sports argument. In my view, there not being physical differences is the 'real red herring, not their arguments on less than physical sports.
Con argues resolution of debate to mean 'all sports.
Con argues against Pro sources.
"First, they cited a study showing TW maintain strength after one year of HRT, which is irrelevant to TW who have undergone multiple years."
Sorry, I don't 'remember, nor noticed.
"Pro concedes TW have no performance advantage."
Quotes are good, they allow for CTRL F and search for keywords.
I don't think either side is 'trying to make false claims or used biased sources or poor inferences.
Round 2 Thoughts
I'd say Con is winning, in shifting debate Resolution,
Not that I think shifting is 'necessarily wrong.
Some people in society 'do care about Trans Women competing in sports clubs that ban Trans Women, I imagine.
Sports Clubs that might be women only in less 'physical sports.
Pro is doing 'decent in Physical Sports argument,
But Con is also able to cut into Pros sources for bias and limitations.
Pro Round 3
If Pro can show that physical sports make up 'vastly more 'sports than less physical, this would be good for Pros arguments.
Pro 'needs to do more than make 'assertion that Cons arguments do not fit common understanding of what is meant by sports.
They 'need to argue, example, and 'source their claim.
'Clear cut descriptions and resolutions of a debate are 'on the debate 'creator.
Though I 'don't like it when people undercut the 'spirit of a debate, I don't see any evidence that Con is trying to do so. Though it is 'possible.
Less Physical sports and Trans being allowed to participate or not 'are a consideration for some people, I imagine.
Pro defends his sources, some is more than none/less.
Con Round 3
I think Con would have done well to cite sources of such less physical sports that are women only.
Though, I'd assume Olympics separates less physical sports by sex, I don't know how they stand on trans.
I like poetry, and some of Pros sentences were poetically nice to look at and well crafted.
But as Con says, more logic and arguments against Cons stance would have been good.
Title
Dorian Gray is irredeemable.
Hm, in that his actions cannot be forgiven, or in that one should not 'expect him to change?
Description
Tightens debate around the book, loosens interpretation of redemption.
Sir.Lancelot Round 1
Gives some definitions.
As they were not in Description, they and BoP is a bit more a 'suggestion/argument, than 'Requirement in debate.
Foundation, Rejected Redemption Opportunity,
Personally, I think it likely there were 'many opportunities at redemption, but Basil 'is one that we see.
Dorian is a killer, No-turning point,
Well, if Con can find some historical examples of heavily debauched individuals, they might be able to argue that turning 'could occur.
Dorian sold his soul,
Is an interesting one.
Sources, are more about defining clearly the terms, than 'backing Pros arguments, well 'maybe the source on Victorian Virtues.
Con Round 1
Argues against Pros criteria,
Argues one can observe the conflict within Dorian,
Argues against Victorian as goalposts,
"Dorian’s tragedy isn’t that he couldn’t be redeemed — it’s that he tried too late and didn’t know how."
The Portrait = External Guilt,
Murder Does Not = Irredeemable,
Dorian’s Death Is Redemption, Not Damnation.
Round 1 Thoughts
I think Pro has a high bar, of proving Dorian irredeemable.
Con makes some interesting arguments such as Dorians Death being redemption, but I'd view it more as self loathing.
'But Con 'does have their arguments of conflict in Dorian, and why redemption might be possible.
Because of the high bar, and arguments, I'm currently leaning Con, but it's early on.
Pro Round 2
Pros arguments against Dorian's final acts not being redemption, ring with me.
Gives argument of it being a final act of cowardice and attempt at escape, he 'was pretty sore at the painting getting 'worse after his 'attempts at good action, from what I recall.
Of course one 'could argue the painting was lying, but I'm inclined t o believe it 'was showing the truth, that Dorians acts of 'good were falsely given.
Pro raises the question of what would redemption 'take?
This is an interesting one, as it is a point Pro and Con diverge.
"Redemption isn’t a medal granted after five criteria are met. It’s a personal, internal transformation" Con argued in Round 1, and I would agree,
Even if one is unable to make reparations, one can be redeemed as an individual, born anew or transformed. Slow 'or quick.
'But Pro 'did have some definitions in Round 1,
Redeemable - the state of being kept from evil or of improving morally. (Cambridge Dictionary)
Atonement - reparation for a wrong or injury. (Oxford Languages)
Repenting - feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one’s wrongdoing or sin. (Oxford Languages)
Accountability - an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions. (Merriam-Webster)
Alan Campbell is a former friend of Dorian’s, a chemist whom Dorian enlists to help him dispose of Basil’s body.
. . .
Pro makes arguments that the 'Conflict within Dorian, is not Conflict at all, but fear.
And he makes a good argument of it.
. . . Though I might like it if 'both debaters made use of quotations from the book.
I'm again doubtful that redemption 'requires certain actions such as reparations, confession,
Though I do see them 'connected, I view them more as 'signs of a changed person.
SPOILER in Les Misérables, I do not think Jean Valjean needed to confess to his true identity to be redeemed, 'except for the fact that someone would have suffered had he not.
I don't 'remember the murder of Basic being blamed on anyone else in Dorian Gray's story?
Pro makes an argument on how 'deeply into vice Dorians nature has become.
" the only thing that matters is their ability to achieve it."
Ah, and this I think is an important aspect of the debate, and a high bar for Pro.
For. . . I have difficulty in thinking of 'anyone as irredeemable, due to my view of people being nature and nurture, but nurture also overides nature. 'Enough pressure and time, I'd expect could change 'any person.
. . . But one 'can understand the question of Dorian as being 'expected forces.
Pro argues 'any of actions to be self serving and quick.
Pro arguments fit more towards External Guilt and display of actions, mirror.
Not eternal damnation.
Pro makes strong arguments against Dorian Gray having a conflict of good and evil.
Ah, 'another interesting argument, Immortality.
But this could be bad for Pro, as it allows for 'time, and the rare to be expected force.
Were Dorian Gray an ordinary man, old age would likely take him before some force of redemption. But immortality allows for more chances, even small small chances.
Pro makes the arguments against Dorian Gray going for redemption.
Con Round 2
“It had been like conscience to him. He would destroy it.”
— Chapter 20
'Does suggest conflict. Though Pro 'could argue it was unwanted and hated conscience.
A final attempted farewell to any even 'thought of good. Yet such 'still implies an 'ability to feel and be panged by good.
Con makes arguments for the soul not being entirely lost.
"public virtue is often hypocrisy"
I'm still not convinced Dorian tried to repent, by I do agree with Con's arguments of there being 'something left in Dorian.
'But I will need Con to make argument for redemption being 'possible/likely. I say possible/likely, because Con needs to address such arguments of Pro.
Currently leaning tie.
Con makes good arguments against the portrait being 'simply a record of crimes, but as reflection.
. . . But on another hand, does the portrait 'ever show 'anything positive of Dorian? Even the 'smallest bit?
I'm still not highly convinced that it was 'cowardice of punishment as Pro suggests, but simple dislike and hatred of something so ugly and vile, reminder of what he truly was. I think Dorian did not realize he would kill himself.
Still, Con makes decent arguments on conscience never leaving Dorian entirely.
Round 2 Thoughts
While I think Con is doing well on arguing for the existence of conscience, however small in Dorian.
I think Pro manages to counter such arguments in alternate explanations such as cowardice.
That leaves the debate a bit in the middle for me,
'But Cons arguments for redemption have largely been the argument that Dorian 'was attempting Redemption by destroying the painting.
I find Pros arguments for the destruction of the painting more convincing, as well as explanations for Dorians 'Good acts, being self serving.
Leaning Pro
Pro Round 3
Pro argues redemption requires 1 of/or 5 items.
And has argued earlier that Dorian is too deep in corruption for such to be possible for him.
I don't find the 'acts of redemption as important as the change in nature.
One 'could also understand the question of redemption as,
Is Dorian Gray redeemable within the scope of his story?
This would prevent outside greater time and forces of Good people or experiences changing Dorian,
But I 'still think Pro has left himself a weak spot with the Immortality Painting.
I think Hitler, Stalin, and homicidal criminals 'could be redeemed if they felt sorry.
“« If he has a conscience he will suffer for his mistake. That will be his punishment—as well as the prison. »
« But the real geniuses, » asked Razimihin frowning, « those who have the right to murder? Oughtn’t they to suffer at all rven for the blood they’ve shed? »
« Why the word ought? It’s not a matter of permission or prohibition. He will suffer if he is sorry for his victim. Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth, » he added dreamily, not in the tone of the conversation.”
- Crime and Punishment
But Pro makes arguments that Dorian is more concerned with avoiding being caught, than being sorry.
Though Pros argument of Dorian suppressing his emotions with drugs, is counter to his own arguements. It shows 'perhaps an ability for feeling and remorse for others.
Pro makes strong arguments against Dorian (At that time) being likely to change as a person.
And even 'later of being influenced to change.
There's 'still the immortality chink, but it's the final round.
. . . And I suppose even 'with the possibility, many people would fear to try to redeem such a person. Such terrible odds of him changing, for most people, I'd expect.
Con Round 3
"A sense of infinite pity, not for himself, but for the painted image of himself, came over him." Chapter 7 of the Dorian Gray book.
My quoting, not Pro.
Con is still managing to make decent argument for the existence of remorse, though 'personally unrelated to my vote, I'm not convinced of remorse.
Con makes arguments for change over time.
'And makes arguments again of awareness and despair Dorian has of his sins.
I'm not convinced of Dorian knowing he's ending himself, what I see at 'most is him trying to get rid of his conscience and 'any reminder of how ugly he and his actions are.
It's more trying to squash an angel holding a mirror on one's shoulder, than destruction of oneself in admitting folly.
Con criticizes a large part of Pros argument,
Their checklist.
. . . I'm not convinced that Dorian 'ever tried though.
Con 'does convince me that there may have been some feeling and regret in Dorian,
But Pro does a better job in arguing the 'depth of his corruption and lack of any effort to be better.
Round 3
Thoughts, I'm inclined to a tie, though Con was not 'as explicit as I'd like about how much time Dorian had.
"In Wilde’s universe, trying late is not the same as failing forever."
Unfortunately, 4 round debate, and I see a forfeit. I doubt it will effect conduct, but it may effect arguments.
Pro Round 4
Pro argues the 'feeling to be self serving.
"The portrait has rotted to the point of becoming irreversible."
Not so convincing, but Pro makes a point of their being no evidence of the image 'ever reverting.
Though it's 'still possible it 'could have.
Well, Victorian Christian perhaps believe God is in everyone's corner.
But for the moment and context of the story, I would not expect Dorian to find redemption, even if he met every person in his city.
"If Dorian does not have the capacity to achieve redemption, then Dorian is irredeemable."
Con 'still had decent arguments about conscience, and possibility, but Pro had good arguments against Dorian 'ever attempting anything good.
Con Round 4
Forfeit
"Why yes?"
Is, I think a fair point.
I can't say I've thought on it deeply,
I 'do look forward to reading the debate.
Though I still hold to my, The 'reason is the 'having and/or connection. View.
. . . Well, humans 'do 'conflate and anthropomorphize. . . Movements, Nations, Groups. . .
I might say to someone from Britain, we still remember when you burned our White House down.
Of course it was different 'individuals from the past,
But by genetics, history, and law, the past gets connected to the present.
Heh, funnily, I'm not sure one 'necessarily even needs to 'be that connected.
Suppose we met some aliens from outer space,
Why, one would not need to be the same ethnicity of Watt, just the same species, to take pride by association.
Heh, and then the alien meets some being from another dimension,
Well, you know what 'we of 'this dimension take pride in having accomplished?
One's ancestors 'surviving 'despite all the mosquitos, and evolving sickle cells, sounds kind of metal,
Sounds something to take pride in, pride in one's ancestors, in possessing their same dna, pride in their survival of such.
You are my pride and joy, sounds more a parent than a child,
But there are still children ashamed or proud of their parents.
Why not extend to others of one's group?
When one's school football team wins, even if oneself did not play, why 'not take pride in being connected to those individuals?
Same with ethnicity, why 'not?
Pride by association.
'They did it, 'We did it, 'I did it.
Close enough.
I'm not sure why I need to 'work for something, to feel pride in it?
The 'reason is the 'having and/or connection.
. . .
Heh, I'm pretty Tribalistic in my views.
I think Humans have a tendency to live in groups, Societies, Clumps.
Loving and valuing most, those 'closest in our group, and to ourselves.
What kind of human values a stranger more than family?
Values an 'Outgroup more than their own 'Ingroup?
Well. . . There are many 'kinds values, many kinds of groupings, and I can appreciate a person valuing truth or kindness, to all persons.
. . . But I'd rather exalt my own Ingroup, to an extent.
I think their well being depends on being good people to others, so I 'would encourage that.
It's not 'just humans though,
Wolves hunting together, Birds of a feather flying together, Pods of whales swimming together.
Just nature and game theory, one builds pacts with the group closest to oneself, sometimes to the cost of others, but at times that's the cost of being alive and living well.
There was a theory, Suggested in the 1990's called Dunbars Number, Which suggested a 'limit, To the number of people we can maintain a stable social relationship with.
ETHNIC PRIDE
I 'enjoy taking pride in my ancestors,
Even if there's luck to it.
If I was fishing and happened to catch a bigger fish, I'd take pride in having come into such a possession.
Course one can argue that took effort,
But eh, you also say 'collective accomplishments.
My ancestor did the work, and I'm proud of them.
. . . Other than pleasure, I 'do think there are other reasons why pride in genetics can be valuable.
It can inspire people to 'safeguard their ancestors' achievements, to be 'worthy of them, to not as an heir dishonor them in life.
I like my dirty blonde hair well enough, take pride in 'having it, though other hair colors are nice too.
Title and Description,
Hm, I know 'nothing of Krishna.
Three parts of debate, Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
Pro Round 1
Detachment to Outcome, yet stay true to Duty.
Balance and Moderation in Life.
The Mind is a Powerful Tool.
Wisdom of Krishna and Potential Benefit of their Teachings.
Con Round 1
Suggests we can gauge the greatness of a mentor by the number of followers.
Not sure I agree, new ideas come about it life sometimes, just starting with 'one person, compared to 'everyone else in the world.
I 'do think there is value in using the crowd as a gauge, but it's a value a I take with salt and other considerations.
Con states that Pro said that "existence is irrelevant."
I can't seem to find where Pro said that, exact quotes can be valuable, partially due to Ctrl F on the keyboard.
"Religion isn’t make believe, but the context behind it?" - Pro Round 1
Alas the meaning of this line escape me.
I think Con twists, Detachment here, the way Pro stated it, was more about accepting some outcomes are beyond control.
Con's arguments for Jesus appear to be,
Depend on God, this 'sounds kind of bad to me, but I assume it is meant to take God as a rock, an anchor, something to take strength in and continue to try one's best. Trusting that this world and the after is for the best.
Spirituality, before physical comfort.
Surrendering to God’s truth, acceptance of something 'more than us, not getting too caught up in self pride and our 'own works.
RFV Thoughts
Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
Debate is still just starting out, I'd vote it a tie, with Pro a bit ahead, due to more in depth description of benefits.
Con will need to argue 'why spirituality and God are to be valued and Wisdom.
Con makes 'some headway arguing number of followers, though not much. It could use a source and a compare and contrast. Also has flaw of what is being judged is 'Potential of Positive Impact.
Pro Round 2
I'm not 'loving the dive into 'powers, as a voter I'm more interested in their teachings.
Though debate 'is who is a better spiritual mentor.
Something of value in the debate, might be to define what is 'meant by spirituality.
Pro gave some very useful lessons in round 1, but I think they'd do good to further identify them as 'spiritual lessons.
Pro points out the 'many languages that Krishna's teachings have been translated into. But same with my reason of being unimpressed by Con's argument of number of followers, I am not impressed by number of translated languages. One can get more followers, or more translations, focus should be on what in the teachings makes it 'likely to get more followers or translations.
Three parts of debate, Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
"A big foundation of wisdom is emotional intelligence." Pro Round 2
Describes various aspects of applications.
Claims Jesus is more vague than Krishna, in how each teaches lessons.
Argues Krishna's been around longer and thus 'assumably effected more people.
But again, I don't think that's a core of this debate.
Pro argues Krishna has spread to more people and cultures, and argues this
Pro is arguing Wisdom, Communication, and positive Impact.
The sources, judging by their names, seem more basic primers/information to the unlearned than sources 'proving any claims of Pro or claims over Con.
Con Round 2
I'm doubtful of the importance of a Spiritual Mentor 'existing,
Unless debate was about which is the 'true religion of reality,
But this debate could be who is a better mentor Obi Wan or Qui Gon JInn,
By that I am not arguing either is not real, just that I don't see their existing or not as important for the debate,
. . . Though I suppose one could argue what if they were in 'person teaching us, eh, just feels a sidebar to me.
Con argues the importance of Spirituality in the hereafter.
Which 'is important in debate, per 'what 'is 'spirituality.
Con argues Jesus words impacted faster, thus proving potential value.
I 'can see their argument of real vs man made, though I'm still not convinced it will have huge impact on debate.
I think Con mistakes Languages for Followers in Pros argument.
"blue skinned baby" Eh, not conduct hits, but I don't think such talk usually 'helps one's side in a debate.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
I think Con makes Good arguments for Spirituality, ah wait, hm,
'If Christianity is true, then there 'would be a lot of Wisdom and potential of positive impact, in the importance placed in the hereafter,
But I think Con is neglecting arguments of the here and now in terms of Wisdom and Potential of positive impact.
Both sides seem a bit tied in Communication to me.
RFV Thoughts,
I'd still give a tie, but edge to Pro, though only one round left, part of tie is due to both debaters having possible different approaches to the debate, and the three items being pursued.
Pro Round 3
I'm not sure Con 'dislikes the setup, but that they may be approaching it differently.
Pro makes decent argument on the difficulty of proof, or at least of 'convincing people that Jesus or Krishna are Truly Divine and Existent.
Pro 'does focus a lot of the debate on 'worldly matters though.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
Pro argues the Communication and Potential for Positive Impact, though I don't think myself that one 'has to be Christian to take useful Game Theory from it.
Still, Con is the one, not I who needs to argue such.
And Con 'has focused their arguments more in the hereafter. Which I don't think is 'terrible angle, but I'm not sure it was as 'good an angle in more regular interpretation of debate and description.
Pro argues the difficulty of face value words, and connects physical conditions with spiritual conditions.
Argues for Pragmatism, and what can be Observed.
I have not really been giving points to 'either side for the personal abilities of Krishna or Jesus, though I 'suppose such 'could play a factor.
. . . If one read the debate as which individual teaching you to your face, as opposed to reading about what they taught.
Pro argues against Con Communication argument, that tech and force could have been cause for influence.
Argues longevity of Krishna thought, is more proof towards their value, than being pushed by external individuals and groups.
Unless Con has something 'really good, I'm thinking Communication will go to Pro.
Argues against Cons arguments for devotion being Wisdom or Potential for Good.
Con Round 3
You're not 'wrong to argue the way you do, but will it convince people other than Christians?
And I 'do think the argument of which mentor is 'real has value, but that it might be a difficult argument to pull off.
Con makes arguments on the power/value of the concept/truth of the hereafter. Upon those who believe it, and it's fair to say that 'many of the Bibles teachings are of man as of 'more than this mortal coil.
Still, religions 'do pop up now and then.
It's a 'big. . . Field though, why religions occur, why some 'stay longer than others.
Con makes decent argument that first isn't best,
But I still think Pros argument of how long the teachings have lasted, show their value.
Though Con 'could compare and contrast numbers of 'current believers, Christianity has been around a long time too,
Though as Pro argued, there are possible reasons such as force for such.
Early Christians 'did make progress into the hearts of people and nations 'before they 'had nations and armies.
"blue skinned baby." Doesn't win points Con.
Con, "Well don’t you have to be Hindu to follow Krishna?"
Eh, I don't think so, nor Christian to follow 'some Christian wisdoms.
If Pro hadn't made the argument that you 'don't need to be Hindu to follow Krishna, I'd slide Communication back to a tie, but Pro 'did make such an argument, so Pro still get's communication,
Though it was 'close, due to Con's argument of older not meaning better.
"cowardly pussy’s" Eh, I'm still not counting it as a conduct hit, but certain words 'still effect perception of your argument as a whole.
"what it means to be Christian"
I think even when Christians act contrary, such as war and nationalism against other nations,
They still often have an understanding they are not being terribly 'Christian by such an action.
I 'do think you have an argument, of masses of Christians holding to parts of the Bible, or later interpretations of the Bible, as basis for their harsh actions and often hate against others.
Though I am 'still unsure of statistics.
I would not be 'terribly surprised if you won,
Though 'something 'still gives me a feeling that Pro winning is more likely.
I 'do hope you get more votes and feedback on your debate, and that they are fair.
@NoOneInParticular
I 'do love my father, recognize he had a bad environment growing up.
I 'am thankful of the 'good actions and memories we have had together.
I recognize, that he has 'given his kids a 'lot in effort, time, money.
I recognize that he has humanistic qualities and actions towards people 'other than his family as well, at times.
Even if he has flaws,
Generally 'all humans do, I expect.
Ach! I 'always seem to forget that thing is there.
I did not even think of it until you mentioned it in post #18.
"Judging on what christians of any branch (catholic, evangelical, orthodox, etc.) derive their beliefs from today, and how they have built their religion since jesus died. The holy scriptures, church hierarchy, etc. Always, assuming that jesus actually existed!!!"
- The short description, Viewable 'before, but not after clicking on the debate.
. . . I'm still not convinced that it greatly changes the debate though.
The scriptures, hierarchy, ect 'still exist in many different forms. And I 'still think there is the difficulty of tying all of Christianity together under one label of flawed structure.
"Do you think all the trump supporters who claim to be followers of jesus really are such?" - #18
No, I'm sure that there exist people who one could argue have different Christian Ideals, than the Ideals Christ might have advocated for.
. . .
Modern Christianity, I 'still think it's an interesting topic, but that more effort was needed by you to clearly define and group all or most of modern Christianity and Christians as such.
And further to argue it as corrupt from the teachings of Jesus.
I don't really 'pay much attention to Christianity myself, other than occasionally reading bits and pieces of it.
I 'am an Atheist, but was 'somewhat raised to be a Christian.
. . My brothers, my sister and I, were all given names from the Bible.
As children, our mother read the Bible to us some, taught us to pray.
As a child, I prayed that a man from the news I viewed as evil, would find his way back to goodness and God,
Though the man was greatly despised by Americans at that time, my mother praised me for such thoughts, and encouraged such as being what it 'means to be Christian. Loving even one's enemies.
. . . As we grew older though, such petered away, she had to start working,
My father worked as well, as a teacher but had summers off, bills were still an issue.
. . .
I cannot recall my father speaking of the Bible or Christianity, except when I was in my 30s, my father is still alive, doing alright.
. . .
I don't mean to bring up my childhood, just, people have biases, viewpoints differently colored. Many people had worse childhoods than mine, my dad among them.
. . . But he was frequently an unpleasant father to have, though he loved his children, he was controlling of 'any choices, would emotionally bully his kids, 'minor physical 'actions of discipline or forcing behaviors and actions.
When with my sister one time, he returned a wallet to the police 'after taking the money out.
. . .
My 'mother, after finding a hundred dollar bill on the grocery aisle floor, took it to the lost and found,
She worked as a park ranger at a campground, and would 'regularly spend her own time and money, helping people down on their luck.
She gives to charity, gives money to random people on the street holding signs.
My eldest brother is much like her, and I've said this elsewhere, but it 'creeps 'me 'out.
That amount of altruism.
. . .
Yeah, one reads about bad 'groups of Christians at times, churches, groups, individuals.
But there is good too, I couldn't say how much.
. . .
Yes, the debate is to be judged on 'Yours and Pros arguments,
But it's hard for me to completely avoid bias,
And what 'you see as Christianity, might not be what 'I see.
"Just the figure of jesus itself. Compassionate love, empathy, forgiveness. Do these align with modern christianity?
I make the argument that they do not.
My opponent only says -"i don't know but i hope they do"!"
- #18
I think you pointed out 'part of Christianity, and assert all or a majority of it to 'be such.
While you 'do argue many actions such as nationalism not to be very Christian, 'I think Pro makes a fair rebuttal, with their definitions of what it means to be a Christian.
While I 'do think Pros arguments could have addressed more, and gone more in depth.
I think they hit upon a core in the debate, what does it 'mean to be a Christian?
They apply the yardstick of following Jesus, and view it through a very 'personal lens.
Not viewing Christianity as some of the various organizations or churches, but the people.
I view it more as 'assertion, by you that Christianity is the Mega Churches,
And 'assertion, by him that Christianity is the people.
There 'are arguments and statistics for such, but they were not obvious to me when I read the debate.
You 'do quote the Bible a 'number of times, but arguably that goes towards the same point of how Christians should be good loving people, not hateful.
Pro makes the 'same argument.
To get my vote, I think you would have needed stronger evidence and argument that the Churches and Organizations 'were Christianity.
. . I 'can't quite put my finger on it, but there's 'something in the debate that puts me out of kilter.
Christianity isn't a 'single entity, with clear cut behaviors and actions.
Though such vague definitions 'can readily enough identify a group, I think I needed more argument of why Christianity was better recognized by hate and greed, than love and following Jesus.
. . . .
"Now if I had known the debate was based on mega cathedrals and people trying to get rich of the idea of Christianity I would not have accepted because I agree with you. But your debate title is Christianity and I have proved that Jesus judges Christianity from individual hearts." - Pro Round 2
If you had defined the debate in the description as Jesus will not recognize mega cathedrals as his successors, I think Pro would have argued differently,
But even your arguments, I don't think 'quite take that tact exactly.
Pro states they argued against the title of the debate, and much of your gist/meaning of your arguments. I think.
I 'definitely enjoyed debating you.
It is an odd topic,
But the idea interested me.
@Mieky
I'm pretty sure 'some gay people, have wanted to not be gay.
Some gay Christians, I imagine, have not wanted to be gay.
But it's not something people are always able to change so easily, I think. If 'ever in some cases.
@NoOneInParticular
The 'future might end up being blasted weird though,
The more and more we're able to change our bodies and brains with technology.
"But did he argue why it is actually ethical? that's what the topic requires."
- #75 Umbrellacorp
I'd say the debate focused on the question of ethics indoctrination and intent.
Which Pro managed to limit the degree of harm of such, in their arguments.
The Homosexuality part could have been replaced with a 'number of adjectives, and I 'think the debate would have been mostly unchanged.
I think arguing 'why the activity was ethical or nonethical, would have helped 'either side. But 'neither did so much.
Pro focused on the right/expectation of parents to pass their values, and the existence of soft indoctrination.
Con focused on attacking indoctrination. . And they 'might have managed it, if they focused more on the possible harm of indoctrinating heterosexuality upon homosexual individuals.
But I view Con as wasting 'way too much time on attacking indoctrination as a concept, religion, and stating that being homosexual is fine.
. . As it stands in the debate, with neither side giving argument of Heterosexuality or Homosexuality, it's more akin to a debate about being right or left handed.
Though Con 'had a possible opportunity, if they had focused their arguments and sources more on possible harm of even minor nonacceptance.
I do have biases myself, due to my upbringing, norms of my society, and norms of my peers thus far in life. and (shrug).
. . . Still if Pro had argued Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s heterosexuality?
And Pro and Con had used the 'same arguments, I think I still would have voted Pro.
I voted against Mieky, in her debate on Being LGBTQ is a choice,
Because of the 'arguments given, just like this debate.
. . . Though I suppose if this debate title had been,
Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s not being a serial killer?
I might have voted Con.
"And changing your child's sexual orientation would've been very modern if we were in the middle ages. but unfortunately we live in 2025."
- #74 Umbrellacorp
I'm not sure that societies acceptance of homosexuals is 'so 'far in the past.
I'll be turning 32 this year. . Hm, I recall in the past reading older archives of debates on Debate.org, lot of them were about homosexuality, in the military, being married.
Which of course, was because of various laws in America changing within my lifetime.
I generally take a more Nature 'and Nurture view of sexuality.
Though I don't deny some people can have more predisposition than others.
May be a problem for people 'completely open to sexualities, is that neither choice is 'wrong. So they are left to defend core identity and argue against indoctrination of a neutral choice.
'Unless they focused on the backlash.
But 'everyone 'indoctrinates.
(RFV Part 1)
Title, Being LGBTQ is a choice
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
If a person wanted to go against the spirit of the debate, they might have argued that some people are born with transgender body parts biologically, though it's not common I think.
Description
Gave people background on where Pro was coming from, motivation-wise.
Pro Round 1
Shows 'remarkable value of human will and choice.
But is rather short, and perhaps tuned to Pro's 'specific life experiences and personality.
. . .
'Can 'Choose, hm, I don't think it's really so 'easy for most people, to just 'change what they value.
Sure 'theoretically they could, but in practice they don't, and I think Nature and Nurture are explanatory for this.
. . . People only 'choose when certain conditions are met. It's not reasonable to expect 'everyone to make the same choices in life.
Some people for example, have a genetic weakness to alcohol, 'or a 'learned weakness.
They're not just going to choose to quit, even when it threatens their life.
They'll only choose to quit, when the right conditions are met, giving them great enough 'reason to.
I suppose people can accustom themselves over time into most choices, but eh, I don't think this is a debate on free will.
I 'suppose many people could come to like the same or opposite sex over time, but I don't think most would willingly make such a choice. Coercions doesn't 'feel much of a choice.
. . . And it's likely there are many people who through Nature or Nurture, have become 'solid in their preferences, that even attempting or coerced to, would not change their preferences.
Certainly 'enough people in history, where one can point to failed coercions.
Though again we come back to choice,
Some choices offered are no choices at all, say some might say.
Such as betraying family, many would sooner die.
. . . But 'some people 'do choose to betray family, and if conditions were a bit different, the refuser might have chosen such as well.
. . . Personally I tend to take a practical view of Free Will in life and Philosophy, and in such a sense Pro's argument rings with me. . . But Pros argument is awful short, and I expect has a 'lot of counterarguments from Con coming.
Con Round 1
I 'do think Nature plays a large roll in preferences.
I'm not convinced that attempts to change someone's orientation is ineffective and harmful.
Though I 'could be convinced that it 'can be for 'some individuals.
Some people 'are pretty hard wired to be the way they are.
"If it were a choice, we would expect people to switch their orientation easily"
I'm not trying to summon Dr Peterson, but I wonder, what do the two of you debaters 'mean by 'Choice?
Without 'links, I'm not inclined to give points for sources.
Though I cherry pick from sources myself on occasion,
I think 'ideally, one's opponent and voters should have the ability to check the context of what the sources say.
Interesting argument, on why choose a harder path in life.
Life 'is hard for some lifestyles in history.
I'm not sure it's 'unreasonable though. . . A core part yeah, but let's take anger for example, it can be pretty self harming, both to body and social relationships, yet a person might 'keep being angry and acting out.
. . 'Yet, one day 'choose to go to counseling, or read a self help book or something.
At this point though, my votes 'heavily leaning towards Con.
A person being Hard Wired, is a good argument. . . Hm, but then, a human is much 'more than other animals.
A dog is pretty hard wired to be a dog.
A 'human though, has the imagination to be more than many of their genetics, , , I 'suppose one could 'technically remove certain genes, if one had enough tech? Not sure that's a 'choice though.
And there 'is the problem of people 'deeply Hard Wired one way or another.
(RFV Part 2)
Pro Round 2
Well, people 'are born with Genetic Predispositions, sometimes quite strongly.
And Con 'does have a point, that sexual identity 'can be a strong core value in a person, that they are unlikely to change easily.
. . . Course, one can also be a racist, through genetics and experiences, many might argue their feelings of racism is a choice, and through actions they could feel less racist.
Core Habits 'are pretty strong in people though, difficult to change on a 'whim.
I think Con is arguing it's not just some jacket they can (easily) take off.
"once you choose to be LGBTQ I'm mean that's that."
Would that mean it 'was a choice, but can no 'longer be a choice?
Core values 'can form awful early, before a kids really 'thought much about their choice.
But I suppose a choice can be argued as an 'action. But then even a dog could make choices.
"Say a homosexual guys parents never show him a dude right every and he never experienced seeing or interacting with another man would he still be Homosexual?"
Maybe, some people 'are pretty Hard Wired genetically.
Hm, I'm not sure if 'choice, was the best word for this debate.
Con Round 2
Well, I argue it's a choice made off Genetics and Life Experiences.
"Discover who they are",
Eh, I 'am fond of poetry such as "I am the master of my fate" - Invictus
or
"You, I've mistaken for destiny
But the truth is, my legacy
Is not up to my genes
True, though the imprint is deep in me
It will always be up to me
Up to me"
- Genetic Opera
Con makes argument that it's not a 'simple 'easy choice.
I 'do think people can choose who they attracted to,
Except 'maybe the most Hard Wired of people.
I'm not highly convinced by the 'discovery argument, or the underlying orientation argument.
But it 'is an argument, and one that Con used somewhat in round 1.
Again, I'm big on 'both Nature and Nurture, I think how people live 'does effect who they are attracted to.
. . . Course I 'could be assuming too much malleability in humans, and assuming less humans Hard Wired, than what are. (Shrug)
Con makes a decent argument of music, people 'do have natural predispositions genetically.
Though one might argue that if the predisposition never branches out, it might atrophy off.
. . . Course, a person hardwired might be more likely to 'keep said predisposition.
Con is right that Pro did not address the 'why choose a hard life question.
Though Pro argued they 'don't have hard lives (Not true in many places)
Fiddler on the roof - "Do you love me ?"
An interesting question, that I'm sure people have 'strong views about.
Nature and Nurture.
How 'much control, makes something a choice?
Ah, I meant it as a joke.
It's from 8-Bit Theater, a webcomic about a party of psychopaths.
I'm a 'bit sorry I deleted it now, As you have replied.
But I figured other people might not find it as funny as me, and thought, 15 minute window to delete, probably no one read it.
But instant I click delete, heh, notification.
. . .
I'm not 'terribly serious about the topic,
Though I 'do find it interesting, and think there are argument to be made for seeking war.
I'm open to it being about any effects, be they Military, Political, Economic, Moral, or Other.
The Black Forest in Germany, is somewhere I've often thought would be interesting to see.
Certainly they are fine countries.
Varying in aspects of life's qualities that they excel in.
But still, I would choose America, for what it excels in, and I value, for me.
I hear it's a fine country,
Though I am fond of the redwoods of Oregon.
And 'by that, their military suffered and rusted some.
'Had Germany invaded in WW2, as was considered, the Swiss would not have held out as 'well, as if they 'had minded war.
'Would they?
Swiss Mercenaries have 'such a fame in history.
And if Japan had not 'cut themselves off from the world, during the Sakoku Era, but instead had kept their weapons 'relevant and honed,
The Black Ships of Admiral Perry, might not have laid before Japan such threat, as to force open their ports to trade.
It 'is an interesting question, an interesting debate to read and think on.
Though Briguy21's rounds were short, I 'do think they hit upon important details of the debate.
I often 'forget the existence of that description describing the debate before one clicks on the debate, as one can't see it, once they have clicked on the debate.
Title
Well, Christianity 'does have his name in it.
Description
Spirit of the debate/honesty, can work well in a debate.
Umbrellacorp Round 1
There 'are a lot of 'different structures and doctrines, then what might have been around some 2000 years ago.
Though, I'd figure there were a lot of different ideas back then as well.
He'd see his 'influence, I imagine, even if it didn't always go the ways he might have chosen.
And I'd imagine that there were some key ideas he might have been pushing for back then, words he might have spoken 'just about the same back then, as they are preserved now.
"So, in Conclusion: Christianity’s core doctrines would be foreign toJesus."
Not sure I agree with that, The 'Core, I imagine, is 'always the Bible. Even much is added to it, differently interpreted, not 'completely followed.
. . . Well, he 'might not recognize some as his own,
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6335-would-jesus-recognize-christianity-as-his-if-he-were-alive-today
Though I think that's a bit obtuse, though I 'can understand the 'reason for him 'saying such.
People have 'still heard of him and his words, created and followed something 'similar.
I'm sure Jesus 'would preach for many changes, were he to return.
. . . Course there would be a difference between Jesus the Divine, and Jesus the Man.
That is to say if we are viewing him as a Divine Individual, or from an Atheistic Mindset as a more mundane human with interesting views on Morality, Ethics.
Maybe depends if he could acquire power or not.
As a normal human, it's hard to avoid realistic consequences and politics. Though one 'can choose to avoid such.
I think he'd have an easier time sticking to his guns if people did not believe he was truly Jesus.
"are they truly following Jesus-or just wearing his name?"
I think many people would 'like to, try to, 'dream to.
But for many people, it is only a dream, I think of religious individuals, who are yet outright criminals. Perhaps thinking they would 'like to put into action Christs teachings, but they love wealth, pleasure, power. Perhaps some expect Hell or Purgatory.
. . . Some people 'do though, more or less. And I must say when I 'meet them, or see their actions. I feel a bit unnerved and creeped out. By their Good Works, Altruisms, Efforts.
. . It's not that I 'never feel an urge to do good, not that I am 'never good, but I am not such a person as they.
Briguy21 Round 1
Mentions The gospel, argues that Christianity is not based on organizations but on individuality.
. . There 'are a lot of variations of it.
Umbrellacorp Round 2
Christianity 'is a big umbrella.
I think Briguy21 'did address the concerns about hierarchy, wealth, exclusion, and moral policing, though one could argue perhaps not in 'depth.
But they argue the 'core is The Gospel, and that many tenants 'are followed.
Though Umbrellacorp makes a point that they 'could be followed 'more.
I think 'some Christians 'are rather giving.
I suppose you could argue percentagewise more are not, than are.
But maybe that's hard to calculate. .
If we looked back to older times. . Could we calculate it then?
Did Jesus 'only consider a Christian, those who gave their all end everything?
Or could he understand that such was 'exceptional, even if he advocated for it?
Even back in his time, I'm sure there were people who followed him only 'partway, they still had jobs, nations. Could not 'fully give themselves.
Briguy21 Round 2
Points out the difficulty of definition.
. . .
Hm, I wonder if George Washington would recognize America as partly his, were he alive today?
. . . I imagine some of the 'really racist Founding Fathers might not, or only partially recognize it.
But then, America is unified as one under laws and force.
I think there's a difference between playing 'games of definitions,
And arguing that definitions 'matter at times 'to argue a subject.
Christianity is a bit 'nebulous. . . Disagreed a concept. Maybe.
Ask the poor giving Christian, if Christianity is defined as the big megachurches and hating others, might say no.
. . . Even the megachurch pastor might say no, though I might suspect 'that one lying.
I hate time travel and multiverse theory.
. . .
Hm, shoehorn. . . What if I imagined fact that humans have memories, memories change get forgotten/buried. I have existed once, and will again, unless X changes then I would exist as X. Would I change X aspect of myself, to prevent future X?
Also, title might have been better as 'Kill' baby Hitler.
Con Round 1
Descriptions says they pass the first round.
Pro Round 1
Argues less suffering overall if we kill baby Hitler.
Claims it is unlikely another psychotic rug rat would emerge.
I'm not 'so sure of that myself, I 'think antisemitism was pretty high back then, Germans pretty unhappy about WW1 terms, some countries wanting to get back together, Russia problem, Unstable Germany, some argue many atrocities came about from ground level decisions of soldiers and generals doing what they 'thought Hitler expected.
Hard to say.
I skimmed this earlier, and I recall Con made an argument valuing the future/present that one has. 'Might be enough, but they'd do better to back their arguement with arguement of possible worse future as well.
Con Round 2
Argues the importance of the existent, over the nonexistent.
Well, it is 'an argument.
And until debate is further expounded, it's a bit value this or that.
Pro Round 2
Man I hate time travel.
Pro makes a decent argument for valuing 'currently non existent lives.
Con Round 3
Con makes an interesting argument, in how many people will be effected, and 'not be.
It 'was a world war, lots of people moving about, meeting people they would not have met otherwise.
. . . Course, , Then people are, , Wouldn't there be some future with a maximum number of people created? Should we only aim for that future?
Con argument makes sense from purely self interested and accepting of 'current self and people, but then what is 'now?
I hate time travel.
. . .
I'm not going to vote, I think.
. . .
Personally, even if it improved the so called current timeline, I would not do anything to change it.
I'm selfish,
I like myself, even any bad stuff in my life, it has made me, me, and I accept myself, love myself.
. . . Also, time travel is confusing, and I don't believe in time travel to the past.
Thanks for voting and feedback.
Are there any Government sponsored atrocities in the USA, that come to mind in particular?
I suppose there's been some times Government has come into conflict with new territories, such as Utah.
Various Company vs Labor conflicts that turned out poorly for labor usually (I assume).
War veterans wanting to be paid right after the Revolution.
Maybe The Black Panthers.
I find it interesting that you are for gun control to (?) degree,
Due to my making a general (Possibly erroneous) assumption about people from the US military being primarily Pro Gun.
What would you say influences your views on gun control?
I 'do think I could have done a better job with sources.
In expounding upon their implications, or what from them apply to my argument.
Various insurgencies for example, I might have done a better job in laying out exactly 'what from those instances, could occur similarly in America.
Why there were so 'many, I feel as though 'every time I make some factual claim I 'ought back it up with a source for proof.
It 'also feels a problem when there are 'so 'many conflicting studies and examples. Most all with different variables. It seemed to me the best method to include 'many, and try to argue what was common in all.
Also for Mexico, I had a hard time finding a source that talked explicitly at length about gun control in Colonial Mexico.
Debate Title
My 'first instinct, is that 'most current society would say no.
Course I imagine there is 'still many religious individuals not 'fond of homosexuality.
. . . What if I switched it, to Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s heterosexuality?
Well, then I have a reaction, a clear dislike, course one hears some cultures were pretty gay in history. Pederasty in ancient Greece. Course even 'current culture wouldn't like that much, because of power imbalance, underage thing.
Cultural norms eh?
. . . What else ought I compare sexuality then? Favorite color? Political views? Philosophy?
Arguably we try to change our kids already, school education/indoctrination and all that.
Current society probably wouldn't like a parent naming their kid Adolf and raising them as a Nazi. Though I still don't 'like that, I don't have the same knee jerk against it.
Freedom of family and all that. . . I 'would have a knee jerk against a family raising it's kid under obviously false conspiracy theories.
Course 'then one can get into a Theist and Atheist problem. Though I don't think it's 'so clear myself, it is to the hardliners on either side.
Well, I look forward to reading the debate anyhow.
Pro Round 1
Forfeit. Not 'ideal.
But Con seems to accept Pro's apology and excuse.
Con Round 1
Eh, love 'can come with conversion therapy. Try to 'convert someone out of drugs for instance. Or try to encourage someone on what one thinks is the moral right path in life.
Though I suppose people 'can be misguided sometimes.
Church groups who burn D&D books for instance, I'm not 'certain they're a path to the Devil. Though an argument 'could be made.
Morality is often confirmative.
Good argument though, on "increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide"
Including sources would help though.
. . . I'd imagine drug addicts can get those as 'well, when getting off drugs. So I'm not sure it's the 'best argument. But that depends on how Good/Neutral/Bad homosexuality ends up argued in the debate. Drugs, people usually see as bad, Homosexuality, many might say Neutral or equal Good to Heterosexuality.
'Some Ethics is about catering to social comfort, duty.
Depends which Ethics you ask though.
Con makes an alright argument, appealing to individuality and arguing that attempts to change a child’s sexuality could be harmful.
Pro Round 2
'Possible mistake, or Possible advantage.
When Pro say's "Coercive", something I realize, is the debate does not state how 'hard a parent has to try to prevent or change their child's homosexuality.
It's 'great you two are 'referencing stuff, but I think accessible sources are 'ideal.
Makes religious argument, but I think their 'strongest point in this round, has been in arguing for softer more accepting methods in changing their child's sexuality.
This currently has them winning in my book,
But I think Con can make a comeback.
. . . Just because a religion believes X, may make it 'understandable for them to encourage X, but X could still be a practice that 99% of current society finds immoral. Or in this case neutral, to people who view homosexuality neutrally.
So Con 'could push the view that while soft pushing for a child to change their sexuality isn't 'as bad as Coercive Conversion therapy, it 'still ends up as bad, just far 'less bad. No matter the parents motivations.