Con Round 2
Well, in a 'sense Con 'will have to use religion. But that's by the definitions of people who view even atheistic group ethics/morals/beliefs as a religion.
Con 'has been using Individuality in their argument, and that 'is often a shared group value.
I'm 'not highly convinced by Con's arguments that we cannot rewire identity.
Even as adults, government attempts such on us, soft 'or hard.
But as 'children 'especially, parents and governments take 'great interest in developing us towards their ideals.
If one wanted a positive outcome, then a level of acceptance 'would be ideal. Even if one disliked celibate monks.
Not a 'fan of all the sweetheart or honey, used by Con.
Con makes a point that conformity isn't 'everything.
But we 'do raise our kids not to be 'purely self interested, even if such might help them more.
We see a 'duty to society, and raise them not to steal, to care for others.
The 'existence of studies is great, but 'sources are needed, whether 'links or 'exactly what I need to Google.
I'm not 'fully convinced that trying to change someone's sexuality would 'always be harmful.
Fair number of bisexual by nature individuals, might not be too harmed by nurture, one way or the other.
Well, my vote is still with Pro.
Valuing personal identity 'so strongly, I don't think is working for Con, given how much society molds kids.
And a Value 'is Religion in a way. A group holds a Value Sacred, and by that pursues it. Doesn't matter if they 'call it religion or not. It's a normalized within that society value.
. . . I think Con would do better to argue homosexuality as not harmful or wrong and argue it a greater wrong to try to change someone's individuality, than to accept it. But accept softer means as 'less wrong than hard coercion.
It could 'still end up wrong, and per the debate title, count as a win.
Pro Round 3
"Note that con will also have to make rebuttals based on religion." Pro Round 2
Well, doesn't 'really matter, and one could argue Pro meant religion is going to factor into the debate, being so world popular.
Means and Motivation VS Ends?
Subjective, Objective. . .
Pro makes a good argument with how much society at large is encouraging different sexualities, different moralities, beliefs.
Pro argue the existence of tough love.
Religious parents can 'still be 'wrong though.
Even if someone has the right 'motivations, and is influenced by their own past, they can 'still make the 'wrong decision (Subjectively/Objectively/Depending on One's Beliefs)
. . . Well, maybe.
Con 'did need to do more, to substantiate their high valuing of Individual Identity.
They also could have pushed harder at potential wrongs, even if slight, by the influencing of the parents.
As well as made arguments for homosexuality not being wrong. Never 'mind the parents motivations.
At this point, I'd give Pro a 'strong lead.
Con Round 3
Ah Con, I think you could have done 'so much better by going over and 'strengthening again your argument that 'any pushback or attempt to change their child's sexuality can have 'some negative effects.
Pro has some 'answers to that, such as acceptance, or arguing that pushback on 'any identities can have a negative effect.
But Con should have made stronger arguments normalizing Homosexuality as something not 'needing to be changed, unlike heavy drug use.
Round 1
"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constitution_of_India
Does that 'really mean it allows gay marriage though?
People. . . 'Can't be treated all the same,
An adult and a child get treated differently by the law I'd assume?
I mean, in America for instance, it's that way.
We even have different 'prisons for adults and juveniles.
I'd agree, societies 'do change over time though.
And I 'suppose there have been many 'different ideas of marriage throughout the world and history.
Bit hard 'to change it though, when it has large implications,
Lot of cultures in the world, where women had a lot less right for instance, for being women.
Though some cultures were more equal that that.
. . . Still, in cultures 'with that, even progressive cultures, marriage often had a 'lot more laws tied into it, never mind the religion or culture part.
There would be a 'mass of laws I assume, based 'specifically around marriage as between a man and a woman.
Makes it 'tricky to change.
. . .
Course, lot of that changed in much of the world, more equal rights to women, less 'need for a number of the protection laws, or slavery laws, depending on culture and point in time.
Men and women being 'less defined for being 'men or 'women, and more defined for being 'people.
Though, I still think what one's sex is, plays a significant part in countries, even the one's focused on 'persons, rather than sex.
Nowadays, I think marriage 'is much more a social contract between two people, in some parts of the world.
But that's just my view as an American, mish mash or cultures, almost 'excessive amount of Individual Freedom here.
. . .
Round 2
Eh, 'Natural, is a funny word.
Rabies for example, 'occurs in nature, 'but if a person see's a wolf foaming at the mouth and other rabies actions, they might say, "That's not natural."
Course, rabies isn't 'so much inborn in a wolf. . .
Genetic diseases then, suppose a wolf was born albino, people might say "That's not natural."
Sure that's just natural selection and chance, but the norm, normal and natural, depend on what box you're putting them in.
Natural also applies to 'Society,
Even 'if humans have many different forms of society,
'Natural to one society, is not always Natural to another society.
Not 'regular, that is to say.
For some people, marriage is 'primarily about sharing genetics and fortunes with another.
Bible for instance has,
English Standard Version
“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/25-5.htm
Can you imagine if the brother had married a man, then died?
Just doesn't 'sound right.
It's that recognition again, of 'differences, between the sexes.
Purposes and abilities,
Course someday if science creates artificial wombs, what will one do then?
. . . And I suppose one could argue there are 'already alternate solutions in modern society such as surrogate mothers. That past laws might have not accounted for.
Not that people apply all Biblical laws unto themselves anyhow, as they often talk about 'other 'older country laws, history books not always prescriptive, but eh, lot of different takes, I'm sure.
I don't really know what India and various parts of India believe,
But I think same sex marriage has greatly changed American culture.
Course it's one of many changes. Born of, beside, and birther of.
People 'say don't worry about the slippery slope,
But so much of history occurs in 'tiny changes we don't notice,
It's like our hair or face slowly aging, hard to see day by day, but it's there.
It's not 'always the 'sudden revolutions.
I think you voted for me by mistake.
You can copy your RFV vote, delete your vote, and recast it, or if too much time has passed, you can ask a Mod to delete it, that you can recast it.
I still think if something can 'theoretically be resolved,
That 'can be another way of saying it 'can be resolved.
Or if one thinks a problem might be solved in the future.
Suppose years ago in some medieval period for instance, someone said, resolved that there is no way for humans to achieve flight.
Suppose someone offered up the idea of hot air balloons or gliders, perhaps they could not 'currently 'build such, or construct and explain 'every detail of a design.
But a rough outline would be enough for me to doubt the claimed resolution that there is no way for humans to achieve flight.
I also don't quite understand the vote 'reasons for legibility and sources.
Still, thanks for reading and voting on the debate.
I'm not sure what India would look like today if Britain had never exploited it as they did.
Possibly some other nation would have exploited it, but assuming that no nation exploited it.
I don't 'think India was 'too unified. Various factions, Princes, Warlords, different cultures?
Course, people don't always 'like being unified.
The Industrial Revolution, took place roughly between 1750 - 1900, I assume wouldn't have been good for India, but I'd think British exploitation and control of economics and crops, made the situation worse.
The Bengal Famine of 1943, wasn't 'completely Churchills fault.
But there's still argument for the mismanagement, failings, and lack of feeling by the British main government.
Pro has a point about a number of the 'improvements, being made for avaricious purposes, such as the rail system, and education.
Indian Civil Service has to be taken in London, I think.
One could argue it is 'possible many changes in Indian society might not have taken place, without Britain's role in India, but alternate timelines can be hard to prove likely.
And even assuming that some cultural changes brought about by forced law or exposure to British culture.
Such as Changes to India Caste System or The practice of Sati.
Even 'possible benefits such as railroads and a more unified India.
Hard to argue Britain did not do so 'accidentally in the search for profit, or as phony 'excuse for their exploitation.
. . . Also possible some people like/d some aspects of the culture that has changed.
. . . Probably some good changes, some bad. . . Subjectively.
I don't think I've ever heard of a token/symbolic/heartfelt attempt at reparations by Britain towards India.
Might be some artifacts in the British 'Museum that would be useful as in being given in part of ceremonial apology.
. . . I'm not sure what form of useful 'function reparations ought take, in 'any case of reparations.
. . .
All this said, I'm not well read on India, Britain, their histories or interactions.
@NobodyInParticular
Ah, Forgot to use a couple thoughts in debate, ah well.
"A slave isn't a slave unless it possesses the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend the condition of slavery."
- Vilenjji, Lost and Found by Alan Dean Foster
Course, in the book, the various aliens abducted from their planet disagree.
. . .
And,
Flow (psychology) - Wikipedia
. . .
Just want to note again, that my position and arguments in the debate, are not necessarily the views I 'hold.
I was glad for the opportunity to debate this subject,
One of my earliest debates was whether, This was the Best of All Possible Worlds?
I was inspired after reading Candide.
Went worse than this one,
Though I suppose this one also differenced in focusing on animals other than humans.
While usually such a debate might focus on humans primarily.
I'm still not wild about my performance in this debate,
But it was a push for me to read a number thoughts online,
Such as Descartes, Reincarnation, glanced at C. S. Lewis, Charles Darwin.
I do wonder if you redo the debate though,
What might differ, with a different opponent.
@NobodyInParticular
Carp, well that was a useless fishing cast (For me) (Reincarnation)
Not something I believe in, not something I thought was mainstream in Abrahamic Religion, but I thought there was a chance of some offshoot section of people in the Abrahamic faith who believed in it.
Closest 'I see right this moment is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah,
But I'm not seeing any good arguments or citation of old writings I can use.
Hm, there 'is epigenetic inheritance,
Course on another hand how can you reincarnate through your child while they're alive?
And even if it was some 100 generations later that you supposedly reincarnated, just seems 'tacked 'on to the scientific explanation.
And even the scientific explanation one can argue isn't so much 'memories like thinking back to some moment of your life lived (I think).
"Environmental factors experienced in one generation can impact the behavior of unborn offspring in mammals (Fig. 1C). For example, environmental stresses such as high exposure to predators reduces maternal care in female rats, as measured by licking/grooming and arched-back nursing (LG-ABN; Fig. 1C) [75]. Pups reared under conditions of low maternal protection and LG-ABN are more fearful and more sensitive to environmental stresses. These pups exhibit less LG-ABN with their offspring than normal pups, even in the absence of environmental stressors and this behavior is passed on to future generations (Fig. 1C) [75]."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4072033/
"Of great interest is that they provide a possible explanation of the frequent observation in human societies that adverse environments acting in one generation appear to influence the behavior and disease risk of subsequent generations. As a consequence, the transgenerational inheritance of stress pathology"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014488611000239?via%3Dihub
People 'do use nature or natural in a vague general way though.
Nature sometimes operating in a way that brings benefits,
While going against one's nature can lead to errors and discomfort.
I find humans interesting in how 'much we've changed our environments and behaviors, and how quickly.
Some ways, contrary to a more archaic and natural human, I think result in more happiness and life for us.
Other ways, contrary to a more archaic and natural human, actually end up 'worse for us, I think.
If one believes in the hunter gatherer theory,
Well, farming sure allows us to grow a lot of food.
But 'sitting at a desk all day, doesn't seem as healthy as moving about and socializing.
@NobodyInParticular
I don't advocate for cruelty to animals, generally speaking.
It's not. . . easy, to change my way of life, whether it is eating meat, or plants.
I mention plants, because many animals die in farming as well.
My talk of lesser animals 'also discomforts me,
Because I've been reading a book on slavery recently.
Ah well.
Some animals are more equal than others route, I seem to be going in this debate.
@Self
I hope I don't sound pretentious, as though I understand the topic well, I 'don't, but one 'learns the unfamiliar by 'attempting it at times.
Forcing oneself to read, study, get feedback on one's thoughts.
. . .
The canst, might be a bit pretentious. But I 'like archaic English sometimes.
Hm, people don't always like videos and style, but I do,
And these aren't 'long, or even 'required videos to watch.
Don't feel a need to respond to all of this, as I know the debate is still ongoing, just some idle thought on my part.
Or any unless you want to of course.
The problem I see is that there are so 'many minorities, ought every minority have a month?
Or a large focus on X individuals from X minority who have succeeded?
Again, lot of minorities.
I can appreciate people of X group taking a focus on their particular history and accomplishments.
. . . And I 'can see an argument in educating ignorant individuals who think X people are incapable of accomplishments, even though education, wealth and opportunity play such vital roles.
But I also think America's history is 'full of mistaken thinking and errors, that we can now see in hindsight.
I don't remember school or history class all that well, from my 'memory, it 'was pretty shallow. I wouldn't say 'whitewashed, but butter scraped over too much bread.
. . .
Skimming over what I've already read in that book I mentioned,
I found it interesting after the Revolution how laws on Manumissions and Entail and Primogeniture changed,
Manumissions changing to state law and the view that one ought be able to do as they like with their property, increasing State Rights Ideals in southern states.
Entail and Primogeniture, allowing for slavery to spread south and west easier.
Hudgins v. Wrights,
Judge St. George Tucker
I know people argue against the slippery slope in regards of laws, but so 'much of history and law 'is the slippery slope to my view.
Sure there are huge revolutions sometimes, but even those are made of many small parts coming together, many small steps until the destination is arrived at.
The book also talked about of the bad conditions of slaves, and events they endured, blacks serving in the military both Colonial and British, escapes, hypocrisy of slave owners, how vital the system was to the South.
. . .
I do think there is a difference in outcome, based in how information is received.
Theoreticals don't impact as much as experience, maybe.
Some people argue against 'style in debate, but style impacts how something is received.
Nixon vs Kennedy, radio vs tv, though one 'could argue different types of people listened to the radio than people who watched TV.
It's why Pro Life individuals wish for people to view ultrasound of their fetus before choosing abortion,
Course some people argue such can be badgering, fine line, or a spectrum maybe.
While one side of convincing is to fully expose one to a view,
Another is to sanitize and view dispassionately.
Weirdly, I think 'either can lead to atrocity.
Slaves as an example, by style and exposure, one can fire up a panicked fear crazed mob,
By Sanitization and Rational Self interest, one can ignore the suffering of others and focus on supposed necessity.
I've gone to the library a couple times this week,
Trying to change my schedule, so I stop staying up all night,
Hopefully it'll stick eventually.
But, the book I picked off the shelf the last couple times has been,
The Internal Enemy Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832 By Alan Taylor
Some of it I know 'roughly, but it 'is interesting to get a more in depth view of the topic.
And it 'does depict a lot of founding Americans ba- honestly, which for them is a bad light.
I 'do think black history should be taught in schools, and not just skipped over when certain time periods and locations of America are being covered.
I also find it interesting politically/legally, how one can see-
Well, I'll say more in an hour or two, I found a part of that book interesting on attempted legislation and then how the legislator changed their stance for political reasons.
History,
I'd imagine is taught, per what one is.
America as an example,
Has a 'clear, recent and documented founding.
Colonization, Rebellion and Independence, Ideals and Values clear spoken and defined (Kind of).
Compare that with someplace such as Britain, France, Germany, Japan.
Is founding their furthest memory of their people, or their 'current regime and people?
I'll assume 'current regime, else American History would focus 'more on times before The War of Independence.
Though I'm sure previous regimes and accomplishments are still important.
Seems hard to 'avoid speaking of Black history, when speaking of America and it's founding,
Not to mention how many 'current laws and policies are effected by it.
So many laws 'carefully worded, during Independence, out of Southern fear of their slaves having some right to liberty.
The Civil War's effects on States Rights, on Birth Citizenship.
Civil Rights Movement, Effect on Class/Caste? in America.
. . .
Not that Blacks are the 'only ones of discussion in all these events, 'nor that their actions as individuals/Vague Group has always been ideal and good.
. . . I don't think teaching black history, or more black history is wrong.
Though I think it might be an error to teach Black History Month or have a class focus a semester or something on Black History.
. . I think I prefer history by time period and location, there are many groups in America, at every point, exerting influence.
Well, I 'have to,
I 'look for information based on my imagination and logic,
One comes up with an untested theory, then 'ideally tests or reads other people's tests on the subject.
I mean it 'could be that animals have no idea or hunger the opposite sex, and just hump everything.
But then why do various male animals compete and literally butt heads and horns with other males, in order to gain the females?
Sure some animals engage in homosexual behaviors,
But other times if some male is head of the pack of females,
If some other male approaches him in a homosexual advance,
I can imagine the alpha male just responding with irritation, anger, violence, and killing, defending their instinct value to monopolize the females over some homosexuals advances on them.
Mantises have pheromones and such I assume,
So I further assume they can tell male from female,
If a female mantis approaches another female mantis for sex,
Is that what female mantises usually 'look for,
Or maybe the second female mantis just goes straight to murdering and eating the homosexual female?
I don't know, I've not studied it.
What I do doubt is that studies or information about homophobic behaviors in animals to be popular with homosexuals and supporters of homosexuals.
. . .
I don't have a 'certainty on my view of homophobia in other animals,
I've not studied it.
Bit subjective anyhow in definition maybe.
And I don't mean to push my view on others.
But it's not a view I'm center agnostic unknown on,
I've leanings of imagination, theory, and logic.
Advice that seems solid to me, is get a job, 'most any job. Maybe.
Keep track of where you got it, your employers name and number, for future job references.
Earlier you start, earlier you're done, if you plan the future right and save your money. Maybe.
For most people, saved money's always good to have.
And lot of people are creatures of habit,
Get into the habit of not working, it can be easy to keep not working.
Get into the habit of working, easier to keep working.
Anything you want to do?
Any interests you have?
Interested in following any family footsteps?
Any straightforward paths available to you?
Personally, I lazed about, rotted and decayed for a couple years after High School,
Then joined the Navy for 5 years, saved up some money,
After getting out, I rotted for a couple years,
Got a job stocking the freezer section at a supermarket for a couple years,
Then after my Dad broke his arm, left that job for a bit, and I spent an 'irritating amount of time visiting him.
But after he healed up some, I finally was able to get away back to my own place. Except after a few months he asked me to visit again, but 'now I'm away again, back in my own place. No job currently, rotting again, maybe rot the whole summer before trying something again. Random job or college maybe.
Military was annoying, but paid well.
Grocery job, was nice working at night, pay was bad though, and they kept trying to raise my hours. And they never hired enough people, not to mention the turnover rate.
I think people sometimes have different ideas in their mind, by what they mean by nature or natural.
Rabies for example, occurs in nature, 'but if a person see's a wolf foaming at the mouth and other rabies actions, they might say, "That's not natural."
Course, rabies isn't 'so much inborn in a wolf. . .
Genetic diseases then, suppose a wolf was born albino, people might say "That's not natural."
Sure that's just natural selection and chance, but the norm, normal and natural, depend on what box you're putting them in.
. . .
That said, I'm sure there are various homosexual organisms in nature,
And some organisms that change sex.
Never.
Hm, just tried those other two albums, just not my genre/style of music I guess.
I do wonder,
Is it my headphones?
Maybe my ears have gotten worse over time?
Have I trained myself to be able to notice certain sounds and qualities of music I usually listen to?
Personally my bet is, just not the style/genre I've developed appreciations of.
"The Eurovision Song Contest is an international song competition held among broadcasting networks that are members of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest
When I look at a map, Israel 'does look to be on the edges of a map of Europe, and Broadcasting of EBU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Broadcasting_Area#/media/File:European_Broadcasting_Area.svg
Still, looks close 'enough,
I mean, they've even had 'Australia on apparently.
"2015 The EBU considers the possibility of inviting associate members from countries outside of the European Broadcasting Area or the Council of Europe to participate in future editions of the contest. The first of such "guest nations" was Australia in 2015. This also increases the number of countries competing in the final to 27.[129][130]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest
. . .
Israel 'was part of Rome though, and lot of Jews were in and are in Europe I assume.
Europe crusades to Jerusalem in the medieval period, shared connections.
The Israeli representative 'sounds as though her goal is a "message of hope, love, and healing"
@pierree
I've 'heard of one Radiohead song, Creep.
Never really listened to it though.
Coldplay, 'also only ever heard of one song, Viva La Vida.
I 'have listened to that one, like it well enough.
. . .
Radiohead The Bends Album
I don't know, there's something about the soft crooning breathlessness of his voice I don't like. Maybe I just don't connect with the lyrics all 'that much.
The instruments and vocals feel as though they 'mix a bit to the point of just 'noise to me.
Some purely instrumental versions aren't 'bad, peaceful I suppose.
To me, it also seems as though Radiohead in the Bends album repeat some of their lyrics a 'lot.
Some of the guitar also sounds 'murky? To me.
Of the Bends album, I think I preferred Bones and Street Spirit (Fade Out), though some of the others instrumental versions weren't 'bad, just not 'great for 'me.
. . .
Coldplay Parachutes Album,
'Still not really my style, but I find the lyrics easier to understand, they're more separate from the music and spoken quicker, rather than long crooned out.
But, Coldplay 'still croons more than I like.
Just not my genre I guess. Yet, I like Frank Sinatra's music. And some other long drawn out human vocalizations.
Ah, Yellow, heard that one before, never cared for it all that much, don't 'hate it, just don't like it either.
We Never Change wasn't that bad.
. . .
Eh, either band though and the genre, probably fans ears can better pick out differences and qualities they like.
Hm, better at what?
I suppose if two bands had equal depth, but one had a greater range, one might say the band with greater range is better.
@21Pilots
'Maybe shouldn't accept or offer debates, if you don't have a strong expectation, you can 'be 'there for them.
I only have a High School education myself, and am unorthodox with grammar myself.
I 'do think it's better for a person to be better spoken or written, but online debate isn't a bad way to improve one's abilities in those aspects.
I wouldn't even be able to order a coffee in another language, so kudos to people who can do more than myself, I say.
Use of AI can be a fuzzy concept,
For example, this site has a built in spellcheck.
True nothing, I'd figure is a literal vacuum, a void, which even as it 'pulls stuff into itself,
Is 'actually doing nothing, it's all the 'something that is reacting to the nothing and filling it.
In terms of a 'person doing nothing,
Again, how does a 'person do nothing?
When we sleep, we're not doing 'nothing, our body and mind are recovering.
Material and Actions continue along anyhow.
@Self's Vote comment of
"I suppose there 'might be more room for abuse in a Polyamorous relationship, but I'd 'think one of those would be easier to leave than a marriage,"
Course on 'another hand, marriage then 'and now, often includes guarantees of care, security, sharing of wealth.
One could argue we 'don't have freedom, but it's semantics.
I think there is usually 'always hidden or overlooked qualifiers and contexts in words such as 'Freedom. People are so used to them, they don't think to mention them, or even 'notice them themselves usually.
Groups of people 'have rules, Codes of Conduct, and I think us fortunate when we are able to 'choose the societies we frequent, rather than when we are 'forced into them.
I have heard it said, that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
The Tyranny of the Majority.
But, depends on 'how one's Democracy is structured I suppose.
I'm doubtful 'any country 'purely practices Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I 'do think dissent and contrary ideas can have value in society.
I 'do think there is value in defending free speech for 'most/all, a way to protect one's own by protecting another's.
Pro Round 1
I'm not sure I'd say 'Rights or 'Free 'Speech are given by 'Democracy,
One can be given Rights and Free Speech even in a Dictatorship.
'How is free speech to be limited,
In a stretch, even right to movement must be limited, lest one overwork their muscles,
I think debate needed more concrete contention.
I 'do like the quote,
But sticks and stones may break my bones.
The 'problems with your questions,
Is they may be setting up the goals of the debate in a bad way for you.
Criticism of ideas is vital in growth.
Is cunning speech to be banned?
Laws on speech 'already exist, 'big problem in this debate is Title and Description, or rather the 'lack of.
.
Con Round 1
Con 'might have been better off seeking clarification of debate before accepting, though I admit debate is vague.
Con brings up alternatives to censorship,
And argues speech is already limited. Con might have also dug deeper into this, as it 'is a chink in the debate, how poorly 'exactly what is being argued has been set up by the vagueness of title and lack of description.
Con argues the dangers of being 'too limiting with Freedom of Speech.
Pro Round 2
Pro argues they are not calling for a Ban of Free Speech, but that it must be Restricted from crossing certain Boundaries.
But I the voter am confused, is Pro arguing current standards of limiting Free Speech in X are enough, not enough, is Pro arguing against 'Unlimited Free Speech?
Pro brings up statistics in India,
Which might give I the Voter more understanding,
When someone in Britain says Gun Rights must be limited,
When someone in America says Gun Rights must be limited,
I get 'some understanding, given the status quos on Guns is different, but I still don't know if it is meant gun rights should be limited at 'all,
Or if 'this amount of Gun Rights is correct.
Debate may be further clarified by Pro arguments against Hate Speech,
Should I view debate as, Laws against Hate Speech in India must go further than they do currently?
Pro 'does argue Hate Speech a danger in current India, possibly a rising threat, that the law must address through change.
.
Con Round 2
Does a decent job arguing for clear cut boundaries of what is limited, and by who.
Argues current laws already exist against certain types of hate speech.
Argues the amount of restriction isn't the problem, but education and implementation.
Argues against what's "acceptable" as a good yardstick for limiting Free Speech.
For myself the Voter, a problem is 'still 'what is the debate arguing about,
Pro Round 3
I don't think that Con is arguing everything an eye for an eye,
Or even that trolling should be met with trolling,
The words of Con that I see are " If someone trolls me, I fight with facts. "
By Pro this line catches my eye most,
"Right to speech is not regulated in social media, so people are using hatred speech without any guilty "
I think this is a good argument, 'Provided Pro backs it up by proof, more statistics and sources would be good.
Pro has a point in talking about how laws change as societies change and new technologies come about,
'But a 'huge problem from the start of this debate, has been clear goalposts.
Con to my view, has been doing better in argument by arguing against Blanket Limitations on Free Speech, as well as arguing for alternative and existing methods of dealing with Hate Speech in India than further limitations.
In my view both sides have used sources, albeit limited,
Pro with change in Hate Speech, Con with Constitutional Article 19(2)
Barring any changes by Con final Round, I am going with equal in all respects but arguments, Arguments I place with Con. Due to my difficulty in parsing Pro's meaning and argument's early on until debate further unfolded,
While Con has been consistent from the start, arguing against vague Free Speech limitations, as well as arguing against premise as unsound, as 'everyone limits tools.
Not that I think Pro didn't have a point, but goalposts were not clearly defined, and I thought Con had many arguments against concerns that Pro raised.
.
Con Round 3
Argues against ambiguity and further restriction of Free Speech laws in India.
Eh, I don't really like the way Con says "Cute" but minor dislike on my part.
"He’s crying over trolling" Ah whoop, 'another comment I dislike.
Tweets 'can cause riots.
I was not bothered by the "bold and underline formatting"
But 'do think Word formatting is important for getting one's words across.
Voter Final Thoughts
I don't really like 'either side's arguments all that much, because debate was too vague for me. But I view the brunt of responsibility for that to be on Pro, while a number of Cons arguments argued 'against ambiguity and the lack of coherence in the title.
Well, some might argue 'certain types of Attorney Client Privilege ought not matter,
Speaking about Confidential Client information on pop TV
VS
Telling the police that your client confidentially admitted to a crime, that is not currently or future occurring.
Some people might agree Attorney Client Privilege is important to prevent a lawyer from blabbing confidential info to paparazzi,
But might think Attorney Client Privilege no longer matters if their client committed a crime in the past.
Gregor Mendel was religious, I think,
Didn't stop him from "gaining recognition as the founder of the modern science of genetics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
Georges Lemaître, also religious, I think,
"Was the first to argue that the recession of galaxies is evidence of an expanding universe and to connect the observational Hubble–Lemaître law[2] with the solution to the Einstein field equations in the general theory of relativity for a homogenous and isotropic universe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Personally I don't think science and religion have to be 'so different.
I find a lot of game theory and psychology from various religions.
I think there are scientists who can be inspired by religion, who have advanced science by their inspiration.
. . .
That said,
Modern science seems a more rigorous examination to me
Something more hard and concrete,
Which does not mean religion is unvaluable,
I don't see soft knowledge as bad, I see it 'as invaluable as hard knowledge.
I think soft knowledge allows for meaning, flexibility, human.
That people should suffer, love, and support their abusive parents, just isn't a viewpoint that appeals to me to argue.
Though I suppose it 'can be a problem for some people, some cultures.
I suppose the Con I was expecting, was to be more about the virtues of selfishness, or a focus on quid pro quo rather than a focus on Parent/Child.
Which I think Con 'could have done, as a number of my arguments 'had Self Interest and Reciprocity as themes.
Con could have argued that Reciprocity, 'not Parent/Child was what I was encouraging, and argued alternate ways it could be established.
Though I also included Moral Assumed Values in my arguments,
Because I 'do lean a bit towards a duty to family, even in situations not in ones interest, or when that duty is not returned.
Abuse, physical or mental, just seemed a low hanging fruit to me,
For 'most? people, it's a cutoff moment with family, I didn't think it would 'examine the nature of family, so much as the nature of unacceptable abuse.
"describes every single member of society as most of us are parents, and all of us are children, whether or not all always can be described by these terms throughout life." - fauxlaw
Something I'm not sure I thought on until I read this, is societies with alternate methods of families.
I can imagine North Korea (The country not the user) seeing a greater value in loyalty to the government, than the family, authoritarian regimes that might reward individuals for reporting on their parents or children's non state approved activities.
In Plato's The Republic, I 'think the abolishment of family was encouraged, to prevent nepotism, the accumulation of private wealth, and family loyalty over the community.
But when a country is richer, it probably has citizens with more capital to buy up businesses and land in other countries,
Has the ability to monopolize trade,
Have largest share of X research, best schools.
Of course other countries wouldn't 'have to let the richer country do as it likes,
And they can take advantage of some of what the richer country offers them, before reapplying the benefits to themselves.
Foreign investment can be contracted to be temporary before returning to the invested in countries government or people.
RFV 1/2
Title and Description
From what I've read other places, people often view this more gray, than black or white.
Goalposts might be difficulty in debate.
McMieky Round 1
Opening Statement,
That doesn't mean I think the baby should be killed, nor that I think I have the fundamental 'right to kill said baby.
I'd agree though, that government restrictions 'can put women's lives in danger, increases unsafe procedures, and disregard the real-life situations.
Arguably though, I'd think there 'can be reasonable restriction.
Banning Abortion Violates Bodily Autonomy,
A fair argument, but there is a difference between forcing someone to have kids, and not allowing someone to kill their kid.
People are forced by the courts to make alimony payments, to preform jury duty, to be drafted into war. Though there are arguments against such, I mention them as argument that bodily autonomy while highly valued, is not generally treated as absolute fundamental in society.
People against abortion don't so much want to force a person to carry a pregnancy, as prevent them from killing the unborn.
Criminalizing Abortion doesn't Stop it, it just makes it more dangerous,
A decent argument, but it's good to use sources to back up claims.
There are also Deontological arguments as well as cultural consequence outcome arguments against legalizing abortion.
Pregnancy can be life threatening,
A fair argument, complete bans on abortion 'can ignore situations that even many Pro Life individuals would support a person's right to an abortion.
Lemming Thoughts,
McMieky brings up common held values such as bodily autonomy and minimizing harm.
Makes decent arguments.
vi_777 Round 1
I disagree with McMieky here, I think babies/pregnancy 'can be dangerous, more or less depending on circumstance. One reason some people dislike an outright ban on abortion, is it can ignore life threatening pregnancies.
1. Psychological Impact of Abortion on Mental Health (Post-Abortion Syndrome)
Sounds more an argument people should avoid abortion, than people should be forced not to choose abortion. I 'do like McMieky's bodily autonomy argument, although it misses Pro Life thrust of being Pro Unborn life, rather than being Pro Control Other's Bodies.
2. Fetal Development Science
Personhood 'is something commonly valued by humans, but not all people value human 'life, if they think said life is not yet a person.
3. Reproductive Health and Population Dynamics
While it can have an impact on society, I'm not sure that government controlling the population's reproduction is a popular value (Depending on country).
Some countries have limited how many kids people can have, such as China.
Additionally as genetic modification improves in science, one might expect government to exert degrees of control more over time.
4. Pregnancy Risks vs. Medical Advances
A good argument against the 'smaller death risks of childbirth.
Though it does not address the high risk situations.
Lemming Thoughts,
I consider the vi_777 Development argument, the better of their arguments. Though the argument still needs be developed.
The societal risks 'might be decent, if further argued.
McMieky argument on high risk situations still stands strong.
I think debate goalposts still vague though, as to what 'banned means.
RFV 2/2
McMieky Round 2
Missed, assumably just didn't have time, but I'll have to read up on voting on conduct and missed round/s.
vi_777 Round 2
Gender Imbalance,
I'm still uncertain about this argument, and think vi_777 needs to more fully justify government and law's control over human reproduction.
Mental Impact on Women,
'Still sounds more an argument people should avoid abortion, than people should be forced not to choose abortion.
Advancements in Medical Care,
Still decent argument against the small risks, but not the large risk situationals.
Conclusion,
I am still unsure if I should interpret debate as
Pro Abortion should be legal in some cases,
Con Abortion should not be legal in any cases.
Or
Pro Abortion should be legal in some cases,
Con Abortion should not be legal in most cases.
McMieky Round 3
Not a 'bad argument, as even if a culture 'had both boys and girls, if it does not 'value one sex or the other, then said sex is 'still going to be poorly treated.
The banning of sex-selective abortion in China 'still resulted in a higher boy to girl population, as some individuals disposed of their daughters in other ways.
. . . Some people argue the 'necessity of the one child policy, though others might argue Chinas population boomed prior to said legislation due to earlier goverment incompetence and policies designed to encourage population growth.
2. Mental Health & Post-Abortion Syndrome
McMieky makes good arguments on stigma and circumstance.
3. Risks of Pregnancy vs. Advances in Medicine
McMieky's strongest line of argument in the debate continues strong.
They also add to it in this round with "emotional, psychological, and economic" argument.
Conclusion,
McMieky 'does address well all of vi_777's arguments, 'except personhood.
. . . 'But, vi_777 did not directly 'state personhood themself, they stated in round 1 pain and human 'life, not personhood.
vi_777
1. Real Independence versus Fetal Honors
While vi_777 'does more explicitly speak of unborn rights/privilege/hurt.
It is 'still in my view 'lightly stated by vi_777, I do not see deep justification and argument of unborn personhood or value,
The value is explicitly asserted, but I think more needed to be elucidated.
2. Moral Twofold Guidelines
I 'think vi_777 is arguing what about the unborns choice?
3. Place of refuge Regulations and Reception Choices
Argument of option unprepared parents can have.
4. Financial and Social Effect of Fetus removal Decline
Society argument, which again for me, feels unfinished, my own culture (America) is 'huge on individual freedom as a value. Rather than government control.
5. Dangerous Slant of 'Decision' Culture
Cultural drift, a good argument, but as it is in last round, I do not tally it as highly as earlier round arguments.
6. Influence on Fathers' Privileges
Late round argument.
Round 1
Well, I think it's a matter of semantics, what makes something a religion,
Plus the site I used to define Atheism had,
"b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
Said site also had Agnostic defined as
"1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something"
The source I used for definitions at a glance, has Atheism as more a religion than Agnosticism.
I could have looked around more for other online definitions, but I like Merriam Webster well enough.
Round 2
I think the concept of vampires existing 'is evidence towards their existing.
Not 'good enough evidence for me, but if there were no talked of concept of vampires, then I think there would be less evidence.
. . . Excepting of course the concept of X existing that we know nothing of.
But I also think we only 'get concepts 'through evidence.
I am doubtful of people's ability to be 'completely original in their imagination.
Still, I admit I didn't think all that much of my own argument, and did not think I posted it well.
Round 3
Wouldn't there 'have to be evidence against even an unproven claim?
A person claims X, so they often have burden of proof,
They claim evidence or reasoning for X,
Doesn't a person refute said claim of X by stating why evidence and reasoning for X is not sufficient for them?
I suppose I don't get why there can only be a lack of evidence,
And not an amount of evidence against a claim.
Round 4
I think people can have rational reasons to believe in God or not, people 'do have different life experiences.
But if one is as rational, cold and calculating as a robot, I think Atheism fits such better.
. . . I also don't think that rational and cold calculation are everything for humans, whether Theist or Atheist.
Round 5
Fair enough,
It's more or less possible that X exists in various scenarios.
Which is why people fall into 'degrees of how hard they hold beliefs I suppose.
Nah, 1 hour was enough time.
It's actually been on my how to list for a while, but kept putting it off.
. . . I 'do think only getting to it in the last hour of voting, hurt my vote quality though.
RFD Continued
Pro arguments of forms of proof was convincing, but debate 'did have problem of being a bit open to interpretation.
If one wants consensus of X to be held as standard, maybe it needs to be in description.
Con offered their own views, in large part very materialistic in relation to human interaction with reality.
I thought both sides had points, though Cons was a bit extreme in some places.
Pro Round 1
Reading
Pro argues more paths to truth than physical evidence.
Argues reasoned-to-conclusions as an example.
Thinking
One usually 'bases reason of some physical example, I'd think though?
But then, I imagine various proofs 'have been made through reason and logic, before they could be physically proven through the Senses,
Sensitive Knowledge being where further down Pro argues "physical evidence reigns supreme"
Con Round 1
Reading
Con seems to have a different idea in mind for what knowing by physical evidence means.
Thinking
Debate description is a bit vague,
"I will argue that physical evidence, namely that which science has limited itself to study, is not the only way to know something with certitude. I will be taking the pro side. Con must show that what I present, is somehow doubtable in what it says."
Better to define debate and terms in description, rather than round 1.
Con argument is a bit on the extreme side,
And makes mistake in my view of arguing we need experience to function,
Con apparently positing a person born without ever experiencing physical reality, and arguing said person would know nothing.
But I do not think Pro is arguing that,
After all, people do weird logic thoughts all the time,
All swans are white as an example.
Course Con is arguing the extreme, how could one think of said logic without swans or whiteness?
Course one could just use All As are B as an example.
Reading
Con asks for Pro to give an example of logical axiom proven without physical world observation.
Pro Round 2
Reading
Argues you cannot quantify laws.
Argues they are abstractions.
Thinking
I think Pro would have done well to show some reasoned to conclusions as evidence.
Reading
Argues justice as something not of physical evidence.
Thinking
'Short example though, not everyone has reading in philosophy. Many people who argue against Socrates bring up 'examples/physical happenings to argue justice.
Con Round 2
Reading
Claims De Anima (On the Soul) by Aristotle to be a work of fiction.
Thinking
A glance at first few Google results say it is not a work of fiction,
Glancing about some more, it 'does look to be more thoughts about how this world works, philosophy, observation, reasoning. Not that I agree or disagree with it, but it's not 'fiction.
Reading
"retarted claims"
Thinking
Conduct hit.
Reading
Argues axioms are observed.
Argues Pro says logic cannot be proven. Quotes Pro.
Argues "Logic is merely the expression of relation between things"
"My opponent should probably read actual works on logic."
Thinking
Conduct hit.
Reading
forum quote,
Thinking
Eh, Con doesn't 'have to stick from any definitions or arguments he has made elsewhere on the site or internet, unless they are question of the debate, I think.
Reading
Justice
Thinking
Eh, controversial take.
Reading
"Works of fiction"
Thinking
Repeated claim that at a glance is false, hurts you in arguments.
Though one 'might argue it is fiction, that takes 'argument, not claim.
Reading
Asks for extreme example again of person without 'any experience.
Uses round 1 definition against Pro
"Definition of true:
in accordance with reality"
Thinking
Though I'm not sure that concepts and axioms are not part of reality.
Not sure they're 'physical though.
Pro Round 3
Reading
Axioms
Thinking
Merrium Webster says "In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful."
I don't quite 'get it myself, even parallel lines not crossing, people usually 'look a bit to see if they would. But eh.
Reading
Pro argues along what seems to fit common understanding of the term axiom.
Argues different forms of proof, observation, reasoning, first principle.
Argues Con 'asked for definition of truth.
Thinking
Glancing at comments, this appears true, but it is 'still a definition used in debate.
But 'again, people might disagree what reality is, concepts such as justice or math?
Reading
Argues Con derailed the debate some.
Thinking
Well, this is why for people who make 'or accept debates, sometimes should hash out details first.
Con Round 3
Reading
Claims De Anima is a work of fiction.
Thinking
Ehh, there 'is argument that people should judge debate by what the debaters say,
But there is also argument of common sense, common knowledge, easily accessed information.
If a debater included claim that Churchill was instrumental in WW2, they would not need to respond to opponent claims that Churchill did not exist and that first debater first needs to prove Churchill exists.
The whole De Anima being a work of fiction is really a sidebar though. As Pro uses it more to accentuate their arguments.
Reading
Argues axioms are observable by repeated experiments.
Claims that if axioms cannot be proven, then resultant claims from them are invalid.
Argues their being contradictory throughout debate
"afraid" 'insanity"
Thinking
Conduct hits.
Reading
Argues more for physical observing.
Thinking
'Some merit to argument, but it is in a way attacking an argument that Pro is not making.
Reading
"Now, if this is the best that "logic degree" gets you, I suggest to other people not to pay too much for such a degree."
Thinking
Conduct hit.
12 of your 15 debates appear to be 5 round debates,
Might help to do debates with less rounds.
Or debate less often, but sometimes when you want to test thoughts you have.
. . .
I think debates 'do require a lot of thought and effort, but that 'can be a positive quality.
Brain exercise and all that,
So long as it isn't unduly stressing one.
Too much stress bad for the body and brain, and all that.
. . .
It's great that you liked both side's arguments.
But they'd probably also like the know what in 'particular you liked,
To vote as you did.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10oWHhN-eI0eX6TEpW2kgPv1iRCUNTrIHblqn8BRRXL8/edit?tab=t.0
RFV Part 1
I 'really think Moozer325 argument that if a component of a whole lacks an ability, this means the whole will lack the ability, to be flawed.
But as I read it, I can maybe take it to mean for example there is no gun, no bullet being fired, each component is just doing what it does, the trigger does not explode.
Still feels awkward though, and I find MAV99's arguments on it easier to understand. Makes more sense to me.
It comes off to me as though Moozer325 is trying to argue water or wetness do not exist, that only individual particles exist, that wetness is not wetness it is just particles in some arrangement.
I don't see why the particles we are made of would need free will if we had free will.
The components of a computer individually are not able to create for themselves the end result of the computer.
I think the Moozer325 argument that we will only ever choose the one path is better,
Though I am not so sure about the robot argument,
We have 'something more than a robot or a falling domino.
I'm not 'wild about MAV99 argument about having multiple methods to solve a problem.
But I found MAV99's first Round 'Really difficult to follow, not because I think it was explained badly, but because there's a lot of 'specific meanings in their argument.
But I'm not wild about their multiple options argument, because it 'does play a bit towards Moozer325's argument that we will choose X every time.
. . . But then MAV99 'is of 'course aware of causation and specifically speak of it and Aristotle.
Possible problem for Moozer325 might be the starting debate description,
Where both sides are able to use their 'own definitions for Free Will, "the rational appetite" in the case of MAV99.
Though I'm not sure I agree with their arguments such as if the brain cannot suggest multiple means because of a defect.
Unless one is 'incredibly out of it or overpowered by this or that, people, even drunk people I think, are going to have at least two methods occur to them for action.
. . . But perhaps MAV99 would argue they 'have free will, but incredibly depressed free will.
There's still the problem of causation though, I think.
“Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills” - Arthur Schopenhauer
Moozer325 Lego argument doesn't work for me,
A sword and a hammer are made of particles, but the end shapes are different,
The particles only 'gain the ability to chop or hammer 'together, not individually.
Though 'maybe Moozer325 would argue there is no sword or hammer, only particles.
In a 'sense I suppose, but such an argument comes across as for example, Zeno's Paradox of movement, halfway there, therefore never there. Yet clearly objects reach theres.
Though. . . Probably there are logics against Zenos paradox, I'm shallow in my reading.
I see Moozer325 'does make argument in law example,
Of the smaller parts having 'tiny bit of end result power,
So presumably he'd argue particles individually do have cutting and hammering power, force/mass.
. . . I'm not sure that's not a reach though, then one can claim the trigger has the same power as the gunpowder, because it is made of matter and has energy, and all the explosion is is energy released.
. . . There 'are arguments that 'everything has consciousness and will of sorts, even if weird or tiny to us. Or some 'principle of such.
Not that I believe or believe not such.
But there 'is the problem of the description and MAV99 definition of Free Will.
RFV Part 2
MAV99 sing argument,
Arguably there are events that only occur when there is 'enough of something,
Frequencies of sound for example,
A cricket chirp is not a bullhorn, something 'new occurs in wholes. Small sounds don't break glass. Something 'new is there in that whole/size.
MAV99 argument that a computer is not a human, goes over well with me.
Moozer325 binary argument 'also isn't strong I think,
While one 'does have something or not,
Fire for example, 'But there 'is an in between, where the temperature rises,
There is 'much fire and little fire,
There is enough fire to accomplish X, and fire not enough to accomplish X.
I think Moozer325 does well by sticking with his particles lack free will argument,
Though I think MAV99 'does address it with emergent properties,
MAV99 arguments feel yet incomplete due to many of Moozer325 arguments.
What I am expecting this to end with is a tie,
As I think while both sides presented good arguments, they both sides seem 'initial arguments, they both have their Theories,
But as their Theories are different, they focus on different parts of the debate,
Much of the later debate occurs in minor rebuttals to each others views, and minor patching up of said theories without 'deep explanation of said theories, due to each side's rebuttals being a bit light, as each side has maybe more focused out their own views.
. . . Possibly I missed it, but did Moozer325 ever define Free Will?
They stated people do not have it, but I'm not sure they were explicit in stating what Free Will 'is that humans do not have.
I recall arguments for 'why they would not have it.
Singing isn't 'just vibration to humans though,
It's also the concept,
But maybe this falls under illusion for Moozer325 arguments?
. . . But then they say "the whole having qualities that the parts do not is an illusion."
Which I think MAV99 'did address with emergent properties, but again, I'm not sure MAV99 reply went as deep as it might of, the (to me) light cuts (Not bad cuts) of both sides leads towards a tie.
Personally I've never thought site leadership was bad.
I think the site is just a bit niche, maybe not widely known.
Can be hard to get traction, unless you've already got a weight of population.
Con Round 2
Well, in a 'sense Con 'will have to use religion. But that's by the definitions of people who view even atheistic group ethics/morals/beliefs as a religion.
Con 'has been using Individuality in their argument, and that 'is often a shared group value.
I'm 'not highly convinced by Con's arguments that we cannot rewire identity.
Even as adults, government attempts such on us, soft 'or hard.
But as 'children 'especially, parents and governments take 'great interest in developing us towards their ideals.
If one wanted a positive outcome, then a level of acceptance 'would be ideal. Even if one disliked celibate monks.
Not a 'fan of all the sweetheart or honey, used by Con.
Con makes a point that conformity isn't 'everything.
But we 'do raise our kids not to be 'purely self interested, even if such might help them more.
We see a 'duty to society, and raise them not to steal, to care for others.
The 'existence of studies is great, but 'sources are needed, whether 'links or 'exactly what I need to Google.
I'm not 'fully convinced that trying to change someone's sexuality would 'always be harmful.
Fair number of bisexual by nature individuals, might not be too harmed by nurture, one way or the other.
Well, my vote is still with Pro.
Valuing personal identity 'so strongly, I don't think is working for Con, given how much society molds kids.
And a Value 'is Religion in a way. A group holds a Value Sacred, and by that pursues it. Doesn't matter if they 'call it religion or not. It's a normalized within that society value.
. . . I think Con would do better to argue homosexuality as not harmful or wrong and argue it a greater wrong to try to change someone's individuality, than to accept it. But accept softer means as 'less wrong than hard coercion.
It could 'still end up wrong, and per the debate title, count as a win.
Pro Round 3
"Note that con will also have to make rebuttals based on religion." Pro Round 2
Well, doesn't 'really matter, and one could argue Pro meant religion is going to factor into the debate, being so world popular.
Means and Motivation VS Ends?
Subjective, Objective. . .
Pro makes a good argument with how much society at large is encouraging different sexualities, different moralities, beliefs.
Pro argue the existence of tough love.
Religious parents can 'still be 'wrong though.
Even if someone has the right 'motivations, and is influenced by their own past, they can 'still make the 'wrong decision (Subjectively/Objectively/Depending on One's Beliefs)
. . . Well, maybe.
Con 'did need to do more, to substantiate their high valuing of Individual Identity.
They also could have pushed harder at potential wrongs, even if slight, by the influencing of the parents.
As well as made arguments for homosexuality not being wrong. Never 'mind the parents motivations.
At this point, I'd give Pro a 'strong lead.
Con Round 3
Ah Con, I think you could have done 'so much better by going over and 'strengthening again your argument that 'any pushback or attempt to change their child's sexuality can have 'some negative effects.
Pro has some 'answers to that, such as acceptance, or arguing that pushback on 'any identities can have a negative effect.
But Con should have made stronger arguments normalizing Homosexuality as something not 'needing to be changed, unlike heavy drug use.
Glad to hear it.
You 'really did not seem to like my arguments or style,
Ah well, thanks for accepting and debating all rounds.
Round 1
"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constitution_of_India
Does that 'really mean it allows gay marriage though?
People. . . 'Can't be treated all the same,
An adult and a child get treated differently by the law I'd assume?
I mean, in America for instance, it's that way.
We even have different 'prisons for adults and juveniles.
I'd agree, societies 'do change over time though.
And I 'suppose there have been many 'different ideas of marriage throughout the world and history.
Bit hard 'to change it though, when it has large implications,
Lot of cultures in the world, where women had a lot less right for instance, for being women.
Though some cultures were more equal that that.
. . . Still, in cultures 'with that, even progressive cultures, marriage often had a 'lot more laws tied into it, never mind the religion or culture part.
There would be a 'mass of laws I assume, based 'specifically around marriage as between a man and a woman.
Makes it 'tricky to change.
. . .
Course, lot of that changed in much of the world, more equal rights to women, less 'need for a number of the protection laws, or slavery laws, depending on culture and point in time.
Men and women being 'less defined for being 'men or 'women, and more defined for being 'people.
Though, I still think what one's sex is, plays a significant part in countries, even the one's focused on 'persons, rather than sex.
Nowadays, I think marriage 'is much more a social contract between two people, in some parts of the world.
But that's just my view as an American, mish mash or cultures, almost 'excessive amount of Individual Freedom here.
. . .
Round 2
Eh, 'Natural, is a funny word.
Rabies for example, 'occurs in nature, 'but if a person see's a wolf foaming at the mouth and other rabies actions, they might say, "That's not natural."
Course, rabies isn't 'so much inborn in a wolf. . .
Genetic diseases then, suppose a wolf was born albino, people might say "That's not natural."
Sure that's just natural selection and chance, but the norm, normal and natural, depend on what box you're putting them in.
Natural also applies to 'Society,
Even 'if humans have many different forms of society,
'Natural to one society, is not always Natural to another society.
Not 'regular, that is to say.
For some people, marriage is 'primarily about sharing genetics and fortunes with another.
Bible for instance has,
English Standard Version
“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/25-5.htm
Can you imagine if the brother had married a man, then died?
Just doesn't 'sound right.
It's that recognition again, of 'differences, between the sexes.
Purposes and abilities,
Course someday if science creates artificial wombs, what will one do then?
. . . And I suppose one could argue there are 'already alternate solutions in modern society such as surrogate mothers. That past laws might have not accounted for.
Not that people apply all Biblical laws unto themselves anyhow, as they often talk about 'other 'older country laws, history books not always prescriptive, but eh, lot of different takes, I'm sure.
I don't really know what India and various parts of India believe,
But I think same sex marriage has greatly changed American culture.
Course it's one of many changes. Born of, beside, and birther of.
People 'say don't worry about the slippery slope,
But so much of history occurs in 'tiny changes we don't notice,
It's like our hair or face slowly aging, hard to see day by day, but it's there.
It's not 'always the 'sudden revolutions.
I think you voted for me by mistake.
You can copy your RFV vote, delete your vote, and recast it, or if too much time has passed, you can ask a Mod to delete it, that you can recast it.
I still think if something can 'theoretically be resolved,
That 'can be another way of saying it 'can be resolved.
Or if one thinks a problem might be solved in the future.
Suppose years ago in some medieval period for instance, someone said, resolved that there is no way for humans to achieve flight.
Suppose someone offered up the idea of hot air balloons or gliders, perhaps they could not 'currently 'build such, or construct and explain 'every detail of a design.
But a rough outline would be enough for me to doubt the claimed resolution that there is no way for humans to achieve flight.
I also don't quite understand the vote 'reasons for legibility and sources.
Still, thanks for reading and voting on the debate.
Maybe you should make time for argument longer, in the future.
It'd be easier not to tie, if you had made a token argument.
I'm not sure what India would look like today if Britain had never exploited it as they did.
Possibly some other nation would have exploited it, but assuming that no nation exploited it.
I don't 'think India was 'too unified. Various factions, Princes, Warlords, different cultures?
Course, people don't always 'like being unified.
The Industrial Revolution, took place roughly between 1750 - 1900, I assume wouldn't have been good for India, but I'd think British exploitation and control of economics and crops, made the situation worse.
The Bengal Famine of 1943, wasn't 'completely Churchills fault.
But there's still argument for the mismanagement, failings, and lack of feeling by the British main government.
Pro has a point about a number of the 'improvements, being made for avaricious purposes, such as the rail system, and education.
Indian Civil Service has to be taken in London, I think.
One could argue it is 'possible many changes in Indian society might not have taken place, without Britain's role in India, but alternate timelines can be hard to prove likely.
And even assuming that some cultural changes brought about by forced law or exposure to British culture.
Such as Changes to India Caste System or The practice of Sati.
Even 'possible benefits such as railroads and a more unified India.
Hard to argue Britain did not do so 'accidentally in the search for profit, or as phony 'excuse for their exploitation.
. . . Also possible some people like/d some aspects of the culture that has changed.
. . . Probably some good changes, some bad. . . Subjectively.
I don't think I've ever heard of a token/symbolic/heartfelt attempt at reparations by Britain towards India.
Might be some artifacts in the British 'Museum that would be useful as in being given in part of ceremonial apology.
. . . I'm not sure what form of useful 'function reparations ought take, in 'any case of reparations.
. . .
All this said, I'm not well read on India, Britain, their histories or interactions.
@NobodyInParticular
Ah, Forgot to use a couple thoughts in debate, ah well.
"A slave isn't a slave unless it possesses the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend the condition of slavery."
- Vilenjji, Lost and Found by Alan Dean Foster
Course, in the book, the various aliens abducted from their planet disagree.
. . .
And,
Flow (psychology) - Wikipedia
. . .
Just want to note again, that my position and arguments in the debate, are not necessarily the views I 'hold.
I was glad for the opportunity to debate this subject,
One of my earliest debates was whether, This was the Best of All Possible Worlds?
I was inspired after reading Candide.
Went worse than this one,
Though I suppose this one also differenced in focusing on animals other than humans.
While usually such a debate might focus on humans primarily.
I'm still not wild about my performance in this debate,
But it was a push for me to read a number thoughts online,
Such as Descartes, Reincarnation, glanced at C. S. Lewis, Charles Darwin.
I do wonder if you redo the debate though,
What might differ, with a different opponent.
@NobodyInParticular
Carp, well that was a useless fishing cast (For me) (Reincarnation)
Not something I believe in, not something I thought was mainstream in Abrahamic Religion, but I thought there was a chance of some offshoot section of people in the Abrahamic faith who believed in it.
Closest 'I see right this moment is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah,
But I'm not seeing any good arguments or citation of old writings I can use.
Hm, there 'is epigenetic inheritance,
Course on another hand how can you reincarnate through your child while they're alive?
And even if it was some 100 generations later that you supposedly reincarnated, just seems 'tacked 'on to the scientific explanation.
And even the scientific explanation one can argue isn't so much 'memories like thinking back to some moment of your life lived (I think).
"Environmental factors experienced in one generation can impact the behavior of unborn offspring in mammals (Fig. 1C). For example, environmental stresses such as high exposure to predators reduces maternal care in female rats, as measured by licking/grooming and arched-back nursing (LG-ABN; Fig. 1C) [75]. Pups reared under conditions of low maternal protection and LG-ABN are more fearful and more sensitive to environmental stresses. These pups exhibit less LG-ABN with their offspring than normal pups, even in the absence of environmental stressors and this behavior is passed on to future generations (Fig. 1C) [75]."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4072033/
"Of great interest is that they provide a possible explanation of the frequent observation in human societies that adverse environments acting in one generation appear to influence the behavior and disease risk of subsequent generations. As a consequence, the transgenerational inheritance of stress pathology"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014488611000239?via%3Dihub
Yes. . . Give in to the SUS.
. . .
People 'do use nature or natural in a vague general way though.
Nature sometimes operating in a way that brings benefits,
While going against one's nature can lead to errors and discomfort.
I find humans interesting in how 'much we've changed our environments and behaviors, and how quickly.
Some ways, contrary to a more archaic and natural human, I think result in more happiness and life for us.
Other ways, contrary to a more archaic and natural human, actually end up 'worse for us, I think.
If one believes in the hunter gatherer theory,
Well, farming sure allows us to grow a lot of food.
But 'sitting at a desk all day, doesn't seem as healthy as moving about and socializing.
@NobodyInParticular
I don't advocate for cruelty to animals, generally speaking.
It's not. . . easy, to change my way of life, whether it is eating meat, or plants.
I mention plants, because many animals die in farming as well.
My talk of lesser animals 'also discomforts me,
Because I've been reading a book on slavery recently.
Ah well.
Some animals are more equal than others route, I seem to be going in this debate.
@Self
I hope I don't sound pretentious, as though I understand the topic well, I 'don't, but one 'learns the unfamiliar by 'attempting it at times.
Forcing oneself to read, study, get feedback on one's thoughts.
. . .
The canst, might be a bit pretentious. But I 'like archaic English sometimes.
Hm, people don't always like videos and style, but I do,
And these aren't 'long, or even 'required videos to watch.
@Self #22
Or maybe a huge chunk of butter that a cracker has been dipped into.
So much history to teach, so little time.
I look forward to reading the debate.
Don't feel a need to respond to all of this, as I know the debate is still ongoing, just some idle thought on my part.
Or any unless you want to of course.
The problem I see is that there are so 'many minorities, ought every minority have a month?
Or a large focus on X individuals from X minority who have succeeded?
Again, lot of minorities.
I can appreciate people of X group taking a focus on their particular history and accomplishments.
. . . And I 'can see an argument in educating ignorant individuals who think X people are incapable of accomplishments, even though education, wealth and opportunity play such vital roles.
But I also think America's history is 'full of mistaken thinking and errors, that we can now see in hindsight.
I don't remember school or history class all that well, from my 'memory, it 'was pretty shallow. I wouldn't say 'whitewashed, but butter scraped over too much bread.
. . .
Skimming over what I've already read in that book I mentioned,
I found it interesting after the Revolution how laws on Manumissions and Entail and Primogeniture changed,
Manumissions changing to state law and the view that one ought be able to do as they like with their property, increasing State Rights Ideals in southern states.
Entail and Primogeniture, allowing for slavery to spread south and west easier.
Hudgins v. Wrights,
Judge St. George Tucker
I know people argue against the slippery slope in regards of laws, but so 'much of history and law 'is the slippery slope to my view.
Sure there are huge revolutions sometimes, but even those are made of many small parts coming together, many small steps until the destination is arrived at.
The book also talked about of the bad conditions of slaves, and events they endured, blacks serving in the military both Colonial and British, escapes, hypocrisy of slave owners, how vital the system was to the South.
. . .
I do think there is a difference in outcome, based in how information is received.
Theoreticals don't impact as much as experience, maybe.
Some people argue against 'style in debate, but style impacts how something is received.
Nixon vs Kennedy, radio vs tv, though one 'could argue different types of people listened to the radio than people who watched TV.
It's why Pro Life individuals wish for people to view ultrasound of their fetus before choosing abortion,
Course some people argue such can be badgering, fine line, or a spectrum maybe.
While one side of convincing is to fully expose one to a view,
Another is to sanitize and view dispassionately.
Weirdly, I think 'either can lead to atrocity.
Slaves as an example, by style and exposure, one can fire up a panicked fear crazed mob,
By Sanitization and Rational Self interest, one can ignore the suffering of others and focus on supposed necessity.
I've gone to the library a couple times this week,
Trying to change my schedule, so I stop staying up all night,
Hopefully it'll stick eventually.
But, the book I picked off the shelf the last couple times has been,
The Internal Enemy Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832 By Alan Taylor
Some of it I know 'roughly, but it 'is interesting to get a more in depth view of the topic.
And it 'does depict a lot of founding Americans ba- honestly, which for them is a bad light.
I 'do think black history should be taught in schools, and not just skipped over when certain time periods and locations of America are being covered.
I also find it interesting politically/legally, how one can see-
Well, I'll say more in an hour or two, I found a part of that book interesting on attempted legislation and then how the legislator changed their stance for political reasons.
History,
I'd imagine is taught, per what one is.
America as an example,
Has a 'clear, recent and documented founding.
Colonization, Rebellion and Independence, Ideals and Values clear spoken and defined (Kind of).
Compare that with someplace such as Britain, France, Germany, Japan.
Is founding their furthest memory of their people, or their 'current regime and people?
I'll assume 'current regime, else American History would focus 'more on times before The War of Independence.
Though I'm sure previous regimes and accomplishments are still important.
Seems hard to 'avoid speaking of Black history, when speaking of America and it's founding,
Not to mention how many 'current laws and policies are effected by it.
So many laws 'carefully worded, during Independence, out of Southern fear of their slaves having some right to liberty.
The Civil War's effects on States Rights, on Birth Citizenship.
Civil Rights Movement, Effect on Class/Caste? in America.
. . .
Not that Blacks are the 'only ones of discussion in all these events, 'nor that their actions as individuals/Vague Group has always been ideal and good.
. . . I don't think teaching black history, or more black history is wrong.
Though I think it might be an error to teach Black History Month or have a class focus a semester or something on Black History.
. . I think I prefer history by time period and location, there are many groups in America, at every point, exerting influence.
Well, I 'have to,
I 'look for information based on my imagination and logic,
One comes up with an untested theory, then 'ideally tests or reads other people's tests on the subject.
I mean it 'could be that animals have no idea or hunger the opposite sex, and just hump everything.
But then why do various male animals compete and literally butt heads and horns with other males, in order to gain the females?
Sure some animals engage in homosexual behaviors,
But other times if some male is head of the pack of females,
If some other male approaches him in a homosexual advance,
I can imagine the alpha male just responding with irritation, anger, violence, and killing, defending their instinct value to monopolize the females over some homosexuals advances on them.
Mantises have pheromones and such I assume,
So I further assume they can tell male from female,
If a female mantis approaches another female mantis for sex,
Is that what female mantises usually 'look for,
Or maybe the second female mantis just goes straight to murdering and eating the homosexual female?
I don't know, I've not studied it.
What I do doubt is that studies or information about homophobic behaviors in animals to be popular with homosexuals and supporters of homosexuals.
. . .
I don't have a 'certainty on my view of homophobia in other animals,
I've not studied it.
Bit subjective anyhow in definition maybe.
And I don't mean to push my view on others.
But it's not a view I'm center agnostic unknown on,
I've leanings of imagination, theory, and logic.
Advice that seems solid to me, is get a job, 'most any job. Maybe.
Keep track of where you got it, your employers name and number, for future job references.
Earlier you start, earlier you're done, if you plan the future right and save your money. Maybe.
For most people, saved money's always good to have.
And lot of people are creatures of habit,
Get into the habit of not working, it can be easy to keep not working.
Get into the habit of working, easier to keep working.
Because I didn't enjoy the lack of freedom.
I found it irritating to have 'so 'many of my actions be forced and regulated.
Anything you want to do?
Any interests you have?
Interested in following any family footsteps?
Any straightforward paths available to you?
Personally, I lazed about, rotted and decayed for a couple years after High School,
Then joined the Navy for 5 years, saved up some money,
After getting out, I rotted for a couple years,
Got a job stocking the freezer section at a supermarket for a couple years,
Then after my Dad broke his arm, left that job for a bit, and I spent an 'irritating amount of time visiting him.
But after he healed up some, I finally was able to get away back to my own place. Except after a few months he asked me to visit again, but 'now I'm away again, back in my own place. No job currently, rotting again, maybe rot the whole summer before trying something again. Random job or college maybe.
Military was annoying, but paid well.
Grocery job, was nice working at night, pay was bad though, and they kept trying to raise my hours. And they never hired enough people, not to mention the turnover rate.
I'd imagine there are examples of homophobia in nature.
And not just in humans I mean.
I think people sometimes have different ideas in their mind, by what they mean by nature or natural.
Rabies for example, occurs in nature, 'but if a person see's a wolf foaming at the mouth and other rabies actions, they might say, "That's not natural."
Course, rabies isn't 'so much inborn in a wolf. . .
Genetic diseases then, suppose a wolf was born albino, people might say "That's not natural."
Sure that's just natural selection and chance, but the norm, normal and natural, depend on what box you're putting them in.
. . .
That said, I'm sure there are various homosexual organisms in nature,
And some organisms that change sex.
Never.
Hm, just tried those other two albums, just not my genre/style of music I guess.
I do wonder,
Is it my headphones?
Maybe my ears have gotten worse over time?
Have I trained myself to be able to notice certain sounds and qualities of music I usually listen to?
Personally my bet is, just not the style/genre I've developed appreciations of.
"The Eurovision Song Contest is an international song competition held among broadcasting networks that are members of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest
When I look at a map, Israel 'does look to be on the edges of a map of Europe, and Broadcasting of EBU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Broadcasting_Area#/media/File:European_Broadcasting_Area.svg
Still, looks close 'enough,
I mean, they've even had 'Australia on apparently.
"2015 The EBU considers the possibility of inviting associate members from countries outside of the European Broadcasting Area or the Council of Europe to participate in future editions of the contest. The first of such "guest nations" was Australia in 2015. This also increases the number of countries competing in the final to 27.[129][130]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest
. . .
Israel 'was part of Rome though, and lot of Jews were in and are in Europe I assume.
Europe crusades to Jerusalem in the medieval period, shared connections.
The Israeli representative 'sounds as though her goal is a "message of hope, love, and healing"
@pierree
I've 'heard of one Radiohead song, Creep.
Never really listened to it though.
Coldplay, 'also only ever heard of one song, Viva La Vida.
I 'have listened to that one, like it well enough.
. . .
Radiohead The Bends Album
I don't know, there's something about the soft crooning breathlessness of his voice I don't like. Maybe I just don't connect with the lyrics all 'that much.
The instruments and vocals feel as though they 'mix a bit to the point of just 'noise to me.
Some purely instrumental versions aren't 'bad, peaceful I suppose.
To me, it also seems as though Radiohead in the Bends album repeat some of their lyrics a 'lot.
Some of the guitar also sounds 'murky? To me.
Of the Bends album, I think I preferred Bones and Street Spirit (Fade Out), though some of the others instrumental versions weren't 'bad, just not 'great for 'me.
. . .
Coldplay Parachutes Album,
'Still not really my style, but I find the lyrics easier to understand, they're more separate from the music and spoken quicker, rather than long crooned out.
But, Coldplay 'still croons more than I like.
Just not my genre I guess. Yet, I like Frank Sinatra's music. And some other long drawn out human vocalizations.
Ah, Yellow, heard that one before, never cared for it all that much, don't 'hate it, just don't like it either.
We Never Change wasn't that bad.
. . .
Eh, either band though and the genre, probably fans ears can better pick out differences and qualities they like.
Hm, better at what?
I suppose if two bands had equal depth, but one had a greater range, one might say the band with greater range is better.
@21Pilots
'Maybe shouldn't accept or offer debates, if you don't have a strong expectation, you can 'be 'there for them.
I only have a High School education myself, and am unorthodox with grammar myself.
I 'do think it's better for a person to be better spoken or written, but online debate isn't a bad way to improve one's abilities in those aspects.
I wouldn't even be able to order a coffee in another language, so kudos to people who can do more than myself, I say.
Use of AI can be a fuzzy concept,
For example, this site has a built in spellcheck.
How does one 'get to nothing?
True nothing, I'd figure is a literal vacuum, a void, which even as it 'pulls stuff into itself,
Is 'actually doing nothing, it's all the 'something that is reacting to the nothing and filling it.
In terms of a 'person doing nothing,
Again, how does a 'person do nothing?
When we sleep, we're not doing 'nothing, our body and mind are recovering.
Material and Actions continue along anyhow.
@Self's Vote comment of
"I suppose there 'might be more room for abuse in a Polyamorous relationship, but I'd 'think one of those would be easier to leave than a marriage,"
Course on 'another hand, marriage then 'and now, often includes guarantees of care, security, sharing of wealth.
One could argue we 'don't have freedom, but it's semantics.
I think there is usually 'always hidden or overlooked qualifiers and contexts in words such as 'Freedom. People are so used to them, they don't think to mention them, or even 'notice them themselves usually.
Groups of people 'have rules, Codes of Conduct, and I think us fortunate when we are able to 'choose the societies we frequent, rather than when we are 'forced into them.
I have heard it said, that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
The Tyranny of the Majority.
But, depends on 'how one's Democracy is structured I suppose.
I'm doubtful 'any country 'purely practices Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I 'do think dissent and contrary ideas can have value in society.
I 'do think there is value in defending free speech for 'most/all, a way to protect one's own by protecting another's.
Pro Round 1
I'm not sure I'd say 'Rights or 'Free 'Speech are given by 'Democracy,
One can be given Rights and Free Speech even in a Dictatorship.
'How is free speech to be limited,
In a stretch, even right to movement must be limited, lest one overwork their muscles,
I think debate needed more concrete contention.
I 'do like the quote,
But sticks and stones may break my bones.
The 'problems with your questions,
Is they may be setting up the goals of the debate in a bad way for you.
Criticism of ideas is vital in growth.
Is cunning speech to be banned?
Laws on speech 'already exist, 'big problem in this debate is Title and Description, or rather the 'lack of.
.
Con Round 1
Con 'might have been better off seeking clarification of debate before accepting, though I admit debate is vague.
Con brings up alternatives to censorship,
And argues speech is already limited. Con might have also dug deeper into this, as it 'is a chink in the debate, how poorly 'exactly what is being argued has been set up by the vagueness of title and lack of description.
Con argues the dangers of being 'too limiting with Freedom of Speech.
Pro Round 2
Pro argues they are not calling for a Ban of Free Speech, but that it must be Restricted from crossing certain Boundaries.
But I the voter am confused, is Pro arguing current standards of limiting Free Speech in X are enough, not enough, is Pro arguing against 'Unlimited Free Speech?
Pro brings up statistics in India,
Which might give I the Voter more understanding,
When someone in Britain says Gun Rights must be limited,
When someone in America says Gun Rights must be limited,
I get 'some understanding, given the status quos on Guns is different, but I still don't know if it is meant gun rights should be limited at 'all,
Or if 'this amount of Gun Rights is correct.
Debate may be further clarified by Pro arguments against Hate Speech,
Should I view debate as, Laws against Hate Speech in India must go further than they do currently?
Pro 'does argue Hate Speech a danger in current India, possibly a rising threat, that the law must address through change.
.
Con Round 2
Does a decent job arguing for clear cut boundaries of what is limited, and by who.
Argues current laws already exist against certain types of hate speech.
Argues the amount of restriction isn't the problem, but education and implementation.
Argues against what's "acceptable" as a good yardstick for limiting Free Speech.
For myself the Voter, a problem is 'still 'what is the debate arguing about,
Pro Round 3
I don't think that Con is arguing everything an eye for an eye,
Or even that trolling should be met with trolling,
The words of Con that I see are " If someone trolls me, I fight with facts. "
By Pro this line catches my eye most,
"Right to speech is not regulated in social media, so people are using hatred speech without any guilty "
I think this is a good argument, 'Provided Pro backs it up by proof, more statistics and sources would be good.
Pro has a point in talking about how laws change as societies change and new technologies come about,
'But a 'huge problem from the start of this debate, has been clear goalposts.
Con to my view, has been doing better in argument by arguing against Blanket Limitations on Free Speech, as well as arguing for alternative and existing methods of dealing with Hate Speech in India than further limitations.
In my view both sides have used sources, albeit limited,
Pro with change in Hate Speech, Con with Constitutional Article 19(2)
Barring any changes by Con final Round, I am going with equal in all respects but arguments, Arguments I place with Con. Due to my difficulty in parsing Pro's meaning and argument's early on until debate further unfolded,
While Con has been consistent from the start, arguing against vague Free Speech limitations, as well as arguing against premise as unsound, as 'everyone limits tools.
Not that I think Pro didn't have a point, but goalposts were not clearly defined, and I thought Con had many arguments against concerns that Pro raised.
.
Con Round 3
Argues against ambiguity and further restriction of Free Speech laws in India.
Eh, I don't really like the way Con says "Cute" but minor dislike on my part.
"He’s crying over trolling" Ah whoop, 'another comment I dislike.
Tweets 'can cause riots.
I was not bothered by the "bold and underline formatting"
But 'do think Word formatting is important for getting one's words across.
Voter Final Thoughts
I don't really like 'either side's arguments all that much, because debate was too vague for me. But I view the brunt of responsibility for that to be on Pro, while a number of Cons arguments argued 'against ambiguity and the lack of coherence in the title.
Well, some might argue 'certain types of Attorney Client Privilege ought not matter,
Speaking about Confidential Client information on pop TV
VS
Telling the police that your client confidentially admitted to a crime, that is not currently or future occurring.
Some people might agree Attorney Client Privilege is important to prevent a lawyer from blabbing confidential info to paparazzi,
But might think Attorney Client Privilege no longer matters if their client committed a crime in the past.
Gregor Mendel was religious, I think,
Didn't stop him from "gaining recognition as the founder of the modern science of genetics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
Georges Lemaître, also religious, I think,
"Was the first to argue that the recession of galaxies is evidence of an expanding universe and to connect the observational Hubble–Lemaître law[2] with the solution to the Einstein field equations in the general theory of relativity for a homogenous and isotropic universe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Personally I don't think science and religion have to be 'so different.
I find a lot of game theory and psychology from various religions.
I think there are scientists who can be inspired by religion, who have advanced science by their inspiration.
. . .
That said,
Modern science seems a more rigorous examination to me
Something more hard and concrete,
Which does not mean religion is unvaluable,
I don't see soft knowledge as bad, I see it 'as invaluable as hard knowledge.
I think soft knowledge allows for meaning, flexibility, human.
Thanks for voting.
That people should suffer, love, and support their abusive parents, just isn't a viewpoint that appeals to me to argue.
Though I suppose it 'can be a problem for some people, some cultures.
I suppose the Con I was expecting, was to be more about the virtues of selfishness, or a focus on quid pro quo rather than a focus on Parent/Child.
Which I think Con 'could have done, as a number of my arguments 'had Self Interest and Reciprocity as themes.
Con could have argued that Reciprocity, 'not Parent/Child was what I was encouraging, and argued alternate ways it could be established.
Though I also included Moral Assumed Values in my arguments,
Because I 'do lean a bit towards a duty to family, even in situations not in ones interest, or when that duty is not returned.
Abuse, physical or mental, just seemed a low hanging fruit to me,
For 'most? people, it's a cutoff moment with family, I didn't think it would 'examine the nature of family, so much as the nature of unacceptable abuse.
"describes every single member of society as most of us are parents, and all of us are children, whether or not all always can be described by these terms throughout life." - fauxlaw
Something I'm not sure I thought on until I read this, is societies with alternate methods of families.
I can imagine North Korea (The country not the user) seeing a greater value in loyalty to the government, than the family, authoritarian regimes that might reward individuals for reporting on their parents or children's non state approved activities.
In Plato's The Republic, I 'think the abolishment of family was encouraged, to prevent nepotism, the accumulation of private wealth, and family loyalty over the community.
I 'technically agree,
But when a country is richer, it probably has citizens with more capital to buy up businesses and land in other countries,
Has the ability to monopolize trade,
Have largest share of X research, best schools.
Of course other countries wouldn't 'have to let the richer country do as it likes,
And they can take advantage of some of what the richer country offers them, before reapplying the benefits to themselves.
Foreign investment can be contracted to be temporary before returning to the invested in countries government or people.
RFV 1/2
Title and Description
From what I've read other places, people often view this more gray, than black or white.
Goalposts might be difficulty in debate.
McMieky Round 1
Opening Statement,
That doesn't mean I think the baby should be killed, nor that I think I have the fundamental 'right to kill said baby.
I'd agree though, that government restrictions 'can put women's lives in danger, increases unsafe procedures, and disregard the real-life situations.
Arguably though, I'd think there 'can be reasonable restriction.
Banning Abortion Violates Bodily Autonomy,
A fair argument, but there is a difference between forcing someone to have kids, and not allowing someone to kill their kid.
People are forced by the courts to make alimony payments, to preform jury duty, to be drafted into war. Though there are arguments against such, I mention them as argument that bodily autonomy while highly valued, is not generally treated as absolute fundamental in society.
People against abortion don't so much want to force a person to carry a pregnancy, as prevent them from killing the unborn.
Criminalizing Abortion doesn't Stop it, it just makes it more dangerous,
A decent argument, but it's good to use sources to back up claims.
There are also Deontological arguments as well as cultural consequence outcome arguments against legalizing abortion.
Pregnancy can be life threatening,
A fair argument, complete bans on abortion 'can ignore situations that even many Pro Life individuals would support a person's right to an abortion.
Lemming Thoughts,
McMieky brings up common held values such as bodily autonomy and minimizing harm.
Makes decent arguments.
vi_777 Round 1
I disagree with McMieky here, I think babies/pregnancy 'can be dangerous, more or less depending on circumstance. One reason some people dislike an outright ban on abortion, is it can ignore life threatening pregnancies.
1. Psychological Impact of Abortion on Mental Health (Post-Abortion Syndrome)
Sounds more an argument people should avoid abortion, than people should be forced not to choose abortion. I 'do like McMieky's bodily autonomy argument, although it misses Pro Life thrust of being Pro Unborn life, rather than being Pro Control Other's Bodies.
2. Fetal Development Science
Personhood 'is something commonly valued by humans, but not all people value human 'life, if they think said life is not yet a person.
3. Reproductive Health and Population Dynamics
While it can have an impact on society, I'm not sure that government controlling the population's reproduction is a popular value (Depending on country).
Some countries have limited how many kids people can have, such as China.
Additionally as genetic modification improves in science, one might expect government to exert degrees of control more over time.
4. Pregnancy Risks vs. Medical Advances
A good argument against the 'smaller death risks of childbirth.
Though it does not address the high risk situations.
Lemming Thoughts,
I consider the vi_777 Development argument, the better of their arguments. Though the argument still needs be developed.
The societal risks 'might be decent, if further argued.
McMieky argument on high risk situations still stands strong.
I think debate goalposts still vague though, as to what 'banned means.
RFV 2/2
McMieky Round 2
Missed, assumably just didn't have time, but I'll have to read up on voting on conduct and missed round/s.
vi_777 Round 2
Gender Imbalance,
I'm still uncertain about this argument, and think vi_777 needs to more fully justify government and law's control over human reproduction.
Mental Impact on Women,
'Still sounds more an argument people should avoid abortion, than people should be forced not to choose abortion.
Advancements in Medical Care,
Still decent argument against the small risks, but not the large risk situationals.
Conclusion,
I am still unsure if I should interpret debate as
Pro Abortion should be legal in some cases,
Con Abortion should not be legal in any cases.
Or
Pro Abortion should be legal in some cases,
Con Abortion should not be legal in most cases.
McMieky Round 3
Not a 'bad argument, as even if a culture 'had both boys and girls, if it does not 'value one sex or the other, then said sex is 'still going to be poorly treated.
The banning of sex-selective abortion in China 'still resulted in a higher boy to girl population, as some individuals disposed of their daughters in other ways.
. . . Some people argue the 'necessity of the one child policy, though others might argue Chinas population boomed prior to said legislation due to earlier goverment incompetence and policies designed to encourage population growth.
2. Mental Health & Post-Abortion Syndrome
McMieky makes good arguments on stigma and circumstance.
3. Risks of Pregnancy vs. Advances in Medicine
McMieky's strongest line of argument in the debate continues strong.
They also add to it in this round with "emotional, psychological, and economic" argument.
Conclusion,
McMieky 'does address well all of vi_777's arguments, 'except personhood.
. . . 'But, vi_777 did not directly 'state personhood themself, they stated in round 1 pain and human 'life, not personhood.
vi_777
1. Real Independence versus Fetal Honors
While vi_777 'does more explicitly speak of unborn rights/privilege/hurt.
It is 'still in my view 'lightly stated by vi_777, I do not see deep justification and argument of unborn personhood or value,
The value is explicitly asserted, but I think more needed to be elucidated.
2. Moral Twofold Guidelines
I 'think vi_777 is arguing what about the unborns choice?
3. Place of refuge Regulations and Reception Choices
Argument of option unprepared parents can have.
4. Financial and Social Effect of Fetus removal Decline
Society argument, which again for me, feels unfinished, my own culture (America) is 'huge on individual freedom as a value. Rather than government control.
5. Dangerous Slant of 'Decision' Culture
Cultural drift, a good argument, but as it is in last round, I do not tally it as highly as earlier round arguments.
6. Influence on Fathers' Privileges
Late round argument.
Thanks for voting,
Round 1
Well, I think it's a matter of semantics, what makes something a religion,
Plus the site I used to define Atheism had,
"b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
Said site also had Agnostic defined as
"1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something"
The source I used for definitions at a glance, has Atheism as more a religion than Agnosticism.
I could have looked around more for other online definitions, but I like Merriam Webster well enough.
Round 2
I think the concept of vampires existing 'is evidence towards their existing.
Not 'good enough evidence for me, but if there were no talked of concept of vampires, then I think there would be less evidence.
. . . Excepting of course the concept of X existing that we know nothing of.
But I also think we only 'get concepts 'through evidence.
I am doubtful of people's ability to be 'completely original in their imagination.
Still, I admit I didn't think all that much of my own argument, and did not think I posted it well.
Round 3
Wouldn't there 'have to be evidence against even an unproven claim?
A person claims X, so they often have burden of proof,
They claim evidence or reasoning for X,
Doesn't a person refute said claim of X by stating why evidence and reasoning for X is not sufficient for them?
I suppose I don't get why there can only be a lack of evidence,
And not an amount of evidence against a claim.
Round 4
I think people can have rational reasons to believe in God or not, people 'do have different life experiences.
But if one is as rational, cold and calculating as a robot, I think Atheism fits such better.
. . . I also don't think that rational and cold calculation are everything for humans, whether Theist or Atheist.
Round 5
Fair enough,
It's more or less possible that X exists in various scenarios.
Which is why people fall into 'degrees of how hard they hold beliefs I suppose.
Nah, 1 hour was enough time.
It's actually been on my how to list for a while, but kept putting it off.
. . . I 'do think only getting to it in the last hour of voting, hurt my vote quality though.
RFV 1/3
RFD Continued
Pro arguments of forms of proof was convincing, but debate 'did have problem of being a bit open to interpretation.
If one wants consensus of X to be held as standard, maybe it needs to be in description.
Con offered their own views, in large part very materialistic in relation to human interaction with reality.
I thought both sides had points, though Cons was a bit extreme in some places.
Pro Round 1
Reading
Pro argues more paths to truth than physical evidence.
Argues reasoned-to-conclusions as an example.
Thinking
One usually 'bases reason of some physical example, I'd think though?
But then, I imagine various proofs 'have been made through reason and logic, before they could be physically proven through the Senses,
Sensitive Knowledge being where further down Pro argues "physical evidence reigns supreme"
Con Round 1
Reading
Con seems to have a different idea in mind for what knowing by physical evidence means.
Thinking
Debate description is a bit vague,
"I will argue that physical evidence, namely that which science has limited itself to study, is not the only way to know something with certitude. I will be taking the pro side. Con must show that what I present, is somehow doubtable in what it says."
Better to define debate and terms in description, rather than round 1.
Con argument is a bit on the extreme side,
And makes mistake in my view of arguing we need experience to function,
Con apparently positing a person born without ever experiencing physical reality, and arguing said person would know nothing.
But I do not think Pro is arguing that,
After all, people do weird logic thoughts all the time,
All swans are white as an example.
Course Con is arguing the extreme, how could one think of said logic without swans or whiteness?
Course one could just use All As are B as an example.
Reading
Con asks for Pro to give an example of logical axiom proven without physical world observation.
RFV 2/3
Pro Round 2
Reading
Argues you cannot quantify laws.
Argues they are abstractions.
Thinking
I think Pro would have done well to show some reasoned to conclusions as evidence.
Reading
Argues justice as something not of physical evidence.
Thinking
'Short example though, not everyone has reading in philosophy. Many people who argue against Socrates bring up 'examples/physical happenings to argue justice.
Con Round 2
Reading
Claims De Anima (On the Soul) by Aristotle to be a work of fiction.
Thinking
A glance at first few Google results say it is not a work of fiction,
Glancing about some more, it 'does look to be more thoughts about how this world works, philosophy, observation, reasoning. Not that I agree or disagree with it, but it's not 'fiction.
Reading
"retarted claims"
Thinking
Conduct hit.
Reading
Argues axioms are observed.
Argues Pro says logic cannot be proven. Quotes Pro.
Argues "Logic is merely the expression of relation between things"
"My opponent should probably read actual works on logic."
Thinking
Conduct hit.
Reading
forum quote,
Thinking
Eh, Con doesn't 'have to stick from any definitions or arguments he has made elsewhere on the site or internet, unless they are question of the debate, I think.
Reading
Justice
Thinking
Eh, controversial take.
Reading
"Works of fiction"
Thinking
Repeated claim that at a glance is false, hurts you in arguments.
Though one 'might argue it is fiction, that takes 'argument, not claim.
Reading
Asks for extreme example again of person without 'any experience.
Uses round 1 definition against Pro
"Definition of true:
in accordance with reality"
Thinking
Though I'm not sure that concepts and axioms are not part of reality.
Not sure they're 'physical though.
RFV 3/3
Pro Round 3
Reading
Axioms
Thinking
Merrium Webster says "In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful."
I don't quite 'get it myself, even parallel lines not crossing, people usually 'look a bit to see if they would. But eh.
Reading
Pro argues along what seems to fit common understanding of the term axiom.
Argues different forms of proof, observation, reasoning, first principle.
Argues Con 'asked for definition of truth.
Thinking
Glancing at comments, this appears true, but it is 'still a definition used in debate.
But 'again, people might disagree what reality is, concepts such as justice or math?
Reading
Argues Con derailed the debate some.
Thinking
Well, this is why for people who make 'or accept debates, sometimes should hash out details first.
Con Round 3
Reading
Claims De Anima is a work of fiction.
Thinking
Ehh, there 'is argument that people should judge debate by what the debaters say,
But there is also argument of common sense, common knowledge, easily accessed information.
If a debater included claim that Churchill was instrumental in WW2, they would not need to respond to opponent claims that Churchill did not exist and that first debater first needs to prove Churchill exists.
The whole De Anima being a work of fiction is really a sidebar though. As Pro uses it more to accentuate their arguments.
Reading
Argues axioms are observable by repeated experiments.
Claims that if axioms cannot be proven, then resultant claims from them are invalid.
Argues their being contradictory throughout debate
"afraid" 'insanity"
Thinking
Conduct hits.
Reading
Argues more for physical observing.
Thinking
'Some merit to argument, but it is in a way attacking an argument that Pro is not making.
Reading
"Now, if this is the best that "logic degree" gets you, I suggest to other people not to pay too much for such a degree."
Thinking
Conduct hit.
12 of your 15 debates appear to be 5 round debates,
Might help to do debates with less rounds.
Or debate less often, but sometimes when you want to test thoughts you have.
. . .
I think debates 'do require a lot of thought and effort, but that 'can be a positive quality.
Brain exercise and all that,
So long as it isn't unduly stressing one.
Too much stress bad for the body and brain, and all that.
. . .
Why did you first decide to 'start debating?
Why shouldn't you have tried rejoining this website?
It's great that you liked both side's arguments.
But they'd probably also like the know what in 'particular you liked,
To vote as you did.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10oWHhN-eI0eX6TEpW2kgPv1iRCUNTrIHblqn8BRRXL8/edit?tab=t.0
RFV Part 1
I 'really think Moozer325 argument that if a component of a whole lacks an ability, this means the whole will lack the ability, to be flawed.
But as I read it, I can maybe take it to mean for example there is no gun, no bullet being fired, each component is just doing what it does, the trigger does not explode.
Still feels awkward though, and I find MAV99's arguments on it easier to understand. Makes more sense to me.
It comes off to me as though Moozer325 is trying to argue water or wetness do not exist, that only individual particles exist, that wetness is not wetness it is just particles in some arrangement.
I don't see why the particles we are made of would need free will if we had free will.
The components of a computer individually are not able to create for themselves the end result of the computer.
I think the Moozer325 argument that we will only ever choose the one path is better,
Though I am not so sure about the robot argument,
We have 'something more than a robot or a falling domino.
I'm not 'wild about MAV99 argument about having multiple methods to solve a problem.
But I found MAV99's first Round 'Really difficult to follow, not because I think it was explained badly, but because there's a lot of 'specific meanings in their argument.
But I'm not wild about their multiple options argument, because it 'does play a bit towards Moozer325's argument that we will choose X every time.
. . . But then MAV99 'is of 'course aware of causation and specifically speak of it and Aristotle.
Possible problem for Moozer325 might be the starting debate description,
Where both sides are able to use their 'own definitions for Free Will, "the rational appetite" in the case of MAV99.
Though I'm not sure I agree with their arguments such as if the brain cannot suggest multiple means because of a defect.
Unless one is 'incredibly out of it or overpowered by this or that, people, even drunk people I think, are going to have at least two methods occur to them for action.
. . . But perhaps MAV99 would argue they 'have free will, but incredibly depressed free will.
There's still the problem of causation though, I think.
“Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills” - Arthur Schopenhauer
Moozer325 Lego argument doesn't work for me,
A sword and a hammer are made of particles, but the end shapes are different,
The particles only 'gain the ability to chop or hammer 'together, not individually.
Though 'maybe Moozer325 would argue there is no sword or hammer, only particles.
In a 'sense I suppose, but such an argument comes across as for example, Zeno's Paradox of movement, halfway there, therefore never there. Yet clearly objects reach theres.
Though. . . Probably there are logics against Zenos paradox, I'm shallow in my reading.
I see Moozer325 'does make argument in law example,
Of the smaller parts having 'tiny bit of end result power,
So presumably he'd argue particles individually do have cutting and hammering power, force/mass.
. . . I'm not sure that's not a reach though, then one can claim the trigger has the same power as the gunpowder, because it is made of matter and has energy, and all the explosion is is energy released.
. . . There 'are arguments that 'everything has consciousness and will of sorts, even if weird or tiny to us. Or some 'principle of such.
Not that I believe or believe not such.
But there 'is the problem of the description and MAV99 definition of Free Will.
RFV Part 2
MAV99 sing argument,
Arguably there are events that only occur when there is 'enough of something,
Frequencies of sound for example,
A cricket chirp is not a bullhorn, something 'new occurs in wholes. Small sounds don't break glass. Something 'new is there in that whole/size.
MAV99 argument that a computer is not a human, goes over well with me.
Moozer325 binary argument 'also isn't strong I think,
While one 'does have something or not,
Fire for example, 'But there 'is an in between, where the temperature rises,
There is 'much fire and little fire,
There is enough fire to accomplish X, and fire not enough to accomplish X.
I think Moozer325 does well by sticking with his particles lack free will argument,
Though I think MAV99 'does address it with emergent properties,
MAV99 arguments feel yet incomplete due to many of Moozer325 arguments.
What I am expecting this to end with is a tie,
As I think while both sides presented good arguments, they both sides seem 'initial arguments, they both have their Theories,
But as their Theories are different, they focus on different parts of the debate,
Much of the later debate occurs in minor rebuttals to each others views, and minor patching up of said theories without 'deep explanation of said theories, due to each side's rebuttals being a bit light, as each side has maybe more focused out their own views.
. . . Possibly I missed it, but did Moozer325 ever define Free Will?
They stated people do not have it, but I'm not sure they were explicit in stating what Free Will 'is that humans do not have.
I recall arguments for 'why they would not have it.
Singing isn't 'just vibration to humans though,
It's also the concept,
But maybe this falls under illusion for Moozer325 arguments?
. . . But then they say "the whole having qualities that the parts do not is an illusion."
Which I think MAV99 'did address with emergent properties, but again, I'm not sure MAV99 reply went as deep as it might of, the (to me) light cuts (Not bad cuts) of both sides leads towards a tie.
Personally I've never thought site leadership was bad.
I think the site is just a bit niche, maybe not widely known.
Can be hard to get traction, unless you've already got a weight of population.