I think you have a point,
And it's 'easier for me to agree with your point when the cause and effect occur clearly and quickly.
More difficult is when it occurs vaguely and over a long period of time.
. . .
Someone inciting a mob, to kill X group of people within a day or a week,
Cause and Effect seem more obvious.
When there is a cartoon depicting X group as some stereotype or other, and 10 years later an innocent X of said group get's killed by an individual or mob.
The Cause and Effect is more hazy to me.
While I can't say the cartoon had no effect,
Especially if the culture is 'full of the cartoons,
Is the implication then, that one can't say 'anything exaggerated/negative/false/satire about any groups?
Again though,
I'm fairly on board with you on the short term Cause and Effect,
But sometimes the Cause has no Effect,
And we can't tell until the Effect is in Motion or Occurred.
People don't always expect their speeches to have effect.
. . .
And maybe it depends on the environment,
Suppose one makes the same inflammatory statements to two different groups,
Probably easier to incite a group of racists to mob an individual,
Than a group of non racists,
What was 'said, doesn't matter so much as who or when it was said to.
Well, it depends,
I 'think insulting people is legal. (In America)
But I don't think 'slandering people is legal.
Of course people seem to do it all the time, especially 'lately in America,
Though not all the people doing it 'know what they are saying is false.
. . .
Though when does an insult become slander?
If I call an Irishman a terrorist,
Sounds more an insult to me.
If I go around telling everyone that 'all Irish are terrorists,
Eh, still seems more like an insult to me,
Unless people then start trying to citizen arrest every Irish person they see, thinking they're all actually terrorists.
Of course, just saying all X people are thieves,
Can result in them being treated differently by society,
. . . But is one not allowed to stereotype groups based on one's knowledge?
Some groups 'are generally Xs.
Not that I think all Muslims or Irish are terrorists.
But I'm rambling.
I just not sure I care for controlled speech much, even if the law is made with the 'intention of keeping people 'truthful.
People disagree on a lot of 'truths.
I think there might be an orange button between Pro (Green) and Con (Red),
That says something along the lines of publish argument,
I'd say click that.
Thanks for the clarification,
It still sounds like political or societal interference,
But I get what you mean.
It's similar to people saying owning a gun or driving a car should be a basic right,
But many places have 'some sort of limit, requirements, tests, times you can lose said right/privilege.
I imagine a number of people end up in the middle between extremes, for a number of policies and laws.
But there 'are laws and people at the extreme ends.
Would your opponent then have to argue for no abortions for 'any reasons?
Are there any 'limits to this freedom of abortion?
Say 5 minutes before a child would be born naturally, and the mother is in a 0.00023% chance of death.
Does Pro in this debate support abortion at that point?
Suppose there was no chance of death, suppose there was no pain, suppose no bodily damage,
Just a person wanting bodily autonomy over themself,
Does Pro in this debate support abortion at that point?
I only ask, for clarification of the debate parameters.
Moozer325 R1
(Reading)
Section 301 Tariffs on China,
In response to unfair trade,
362 Billion dollars,
$1,200 dollars per American household in just 2020,
Argues raw goods we use for our manufacturing went up in price,
Argues China responded with own tariffs,
Claims no one wins in trade wars.
(Thoughts)
Does this mean one has no choice for good outcome but to let other country be unfair?
Sure you and bully both get bloody noses if you fight them,
But maybe you keep your lunch money,
Wouldn't China be winning if it is allowed to be unfair in trade?
(Reading)
Has lot of sources.
"Section 301 Tariffs on China was a set of Import Taxes Imposed by Trump on China (duh) in response to unfair trade practices. They were primarily from 2018-2019 and they came in four distinct waves, totaling 34B, 16B, 200B, and 160B respectively in revenue. Combined, this was all about 362 Billion dollars"
"Tariffs enacted by China cut American agricultural exports by as much as 26 Billion dollars, a 76 percent reduction of our farming exports"
262 Billion we gained sounds better than 26 billion lost. . . But then "76 percent reduction of our farming exports" also sounds big loss.
greenplanet R 1
(Reading)
Reduced government deficit.
(Thoughts)
Hm, 'maybe good, but if it comes at a high cost to the people, was it 'really good? Can't government find other methods?
Also problem of China Tariffs.
(Reading)
greenplanet argues people hit hard by trade war, still saw it as good action.
eliminating many products of foreign competitive companies which have been seeking for entering the U.S. market.
eliminating many products of foreign competitive companies which have been seeking for entering the U.S. market.
America still able to make use of and tax American business.
( R1 Both Thoughts)
Hm, I'm undecided, economics confuses me.
I can't seem to access the sources that greenplanet is using here. . . Hm, do references 'have to be accessible? If I access a book that isn't free online, does that mean it cannot be sourced?
I suppose if one is 'explicit in posting quotes from source it 'might be acceptable. Hm, I 'see quote makes in greenplanet round 1, but it's not 'completely clear to me.
Moozer325 R 2
(Reading)
Notes famers injured by tariffs in greenplanet R 1
(Thoughts)
Do you think no one wins in 'any war, or just trade wars?
Surely people win in some trade wars, and obviously regular wars have winners (Of sorts)
But debate 'is whether Trump Tariffs did more harm than good, not whether Trade war is possible.
(Reading)
Argues Farmers may not have supported tariffs even if they supported Trump,
Argues farmers still hurt by tariffs, whether they 'thought it was good plan not matter.
Points out greenplanet sources not working.
(Thoughts)
Hm, sources, if I read a debate 10 years or even a year later, sources often disappear or are changed.
Wikipedia for example, it's pages change over time.
greenplanet R 2
(Reading)
lobbyists
(Thoughts)
Lobbyists often hated, I 'suppose one can argue they serve a purpose. But I don't 'like doing so. Argument I don't see is how Lobbyists can be a problem, Lobbyists would be responsible for unfair trade situations I'd think. And thus would require correction via trade war?
(Reading)
Argues Farmer damage temporary.
(Thoughts)
That 'might be, but evidence to support the theory would help your argument a 'lot.
Whether examples in other historical trade wars and some damages being temporary, or policies Trump took to help farmers. I recall talk earlier that criticized Trump for not doing 'enough.
But what 'would enough have been, even if it was not enough, was it a decent trade off, Sometimes one accepts damage to get to a better position in a fight, or to make enemy submit.
greenplanet 'does make argument that Trump tariffs might work out fine, because it would be logical for a politician to support their supporters. Opens possibility of future Trump actions to solve harm problems in trade war.
Flaw in this is it hasn't happened yet.
Flaw in the flaw, is one might say a surgical cut has done more harm than good until it has healed. But 'obviously people expect surgical cut to heal. The future is 'assumed in the harm/good.
(Reading)
We have other markets than China.
China is becoming aggressive.
Again I cannot read source.
(Thoughts)
I lean 'slightly towards Mooze in arguments, but may end up tying, as I think greenplanet has decent points. In an either or winner selection probably choose Mooze, but will probably tie and give Mooze sources.
Moozer325 R 3
(Reading)
Argues Free Trade is good
(Thoughts)
'Maybe, but point of other side argues that times come when war, trade war is necessary.
(Reading)
lobbyists
(Thoughts)
I don't like lobbyists, and like argument of keeping them out of politics, on other hand business, rich people, corporations. 'Create power in a way. Being aware of them growing and pruning them, being aware of their needs, health, allows a country power.
(Reading)
interest groups are against the Tariffs
(Thoughts)
They might not be against 'Trumps actions, rather they are against Chinas Tariff actions.
(Reading)
major Tariffs on those countries too.
(Thoughts)
Hm, fair point, why did Trump do those Tariffs, did countries other than China retaliate?
(Reading)
Sources.
greenplanet R 3
(Reading)
Argues economic action necessary to maintain prestige, and to get Trump re-elected.
(Thoughts)
While economic actions and tariffs sometimes necessary, doesn't mean 'these specific Tariffs were necessary.
But I 'do find arguments about needing to address China actions convincing. But need different than result.
Hm, still not certain about result, in either or, I still go Mooze, but if tie option, tie.
Ehh, I 'suppose one can argue that Trump being elected is better for the American people, thus Tariffs were necessary, bit late and controversial argument though.
(Reading)
Trumps Tariffs didn't hurt farmers, China Tariffs did.
(Thoughts)
Hm,, Interesting thought, but one still sees cause and effect. If I punch bully, my action did not give me a bloody nose, the bully's action did.
But I think my punch probably is part of cause of bully's action.
I don't mean to call China a bully, I'm just trying to simplify my thinking.
(Reading)
Tariffs better than complete embargo, and we need to make sure we have equal trade with China in future. Trump Tariffs part of future plan, thus are good.
(Thoughts)
I suppose.
Final Thoughts
I'm still uncertain whether Trumps Tariffs did more harm or good.
Both sides make points,
Pro, of immediate and easily quantified examples.
Con, in farther reaching and less obvious examples.
If I get into a fight with a bully, I can see we both have bloody noses, I 'can't so easily see if he will back off in the future, until the future has come.
Though Pro 'does make arguments about long term trade,
So does Con.
Debate about 'Trumps Tariffs, not economic policy as general idea.
. . . I'm going with tie,
Though it 'does sound American finances were hurt,
Americans 'also helped by attempts at equal trade positions.
I don't really understand economics. I think this debate could swing either way if others voted.
But both were legible, both good conduct.
Sources Pro, Con sources just had trouble.
What qualifies "The Christian God is a Cruel God"?
If he contains a sliver of cruelty, does that count as a cruel God?
Does it need to reach 51% cruelty?
Do kind cruelties count?
Does God need to make 1+1=3 for them to be considered God?
Saying 'people ought do X,
'Is descriptive though, isn't it?
As people, would have to be defined.
But I 'think, I get that you're trying to avoid,
A person who values kindness, ought be kind and encourage others to be kind.
A person who values pain, ought be in pain and encourage others to be pain.
Maybe what confused me is the is-ought gap,
You're 'not arguing that one can conclude what something ought do from what it is.
You're arguing that people don't have a singular ought?
Arguing against Moral Objectivism, such as people should be kind, or people should be evil?
That there is nothing ought-ing them to be either?
How does something 'ought though?
If something has a Creator, said Creator often has an expectation, whether as some believe God having some expectation for humans,
Or a human who designs a wood axe, it 'ought be used for wood, not human skulls.
. . .
But I imagine one would still expect that people ought to 'something,
Though, I suppose something just 'does, if it 'is something.
One doesn't say that fire has a moral obligation to burn stuff, it just does.
In casual language though, people might toss some wood into a fire, and say that ought burn nicely. But there's probably some specific philosophy terminology that is meant by ought.
Description, I think it was a mistake not to include your definition of Pro Life in the description.
Owen_T Round 1
I think Pros definition of Pro life would be better focused on one definition of Pro Life, allowing multiple definitions allows opponent to focus in on just one, to achieve victory condition. As in God is Pro Life in 'this aspect.
For instance, one could argue that God wants life to 'exist on Earth, life has a lot of death involved in it. Cycle of life.
Though maybe some would argue God 'wants “The wolf will live with the lamb; the leopard will lie down with the young goat. The calf and the lion will graze together, and a little child will lead them.
But that man's Original Sin broke that reality for a time, (Since one is taking all of the Bible as true)
Well, people also talk about in Genisis how wicked those people were,
5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”
I suppose people don't find the execution of murderers very Pro Life, though it might save victims lives. But some people believe in a life after death, but then such a concept wonders why God would say don't kill if death was not death. Then again he says don't kill, he doesn't say don't die, I think. The act of murder can be bad for the murderer.
Bible claims the people God said to slay were wicked, I imagine, claims they sacrificed babies or something. And
Course the Israelites were told to kill the enemies babies.
I think the baby killing and pregnant woman killing is stronger part of Pros Round 1
YouFound_Lxam Round 1
I 'wouldn't have gone for the Pro Life baby argument.
Con makes arguments of how God might value babies, according to them being human life, knitting them from their earliest beginnings in the womb, being against murder.
'Could be a problem for Con, as I vaguely recall something about the Bible saying something about a breathe of life/soul once born.
As well as it only being a fine, not a life for life, if someone causes the death of an unborn. While killing the pregnant mother was a life for life.
But eh, Bible says a lot of things, maybe it says more for the Pro Life definition Con is taking.
(Which there may be, I don't read the Bible much)
. . . But still, would make God Pro Life by Cons definition.
Con argues afterlife and God above human standards.
I suppose that's an argument that could develop.
I consider the argument that God is not being literal with kill them all, weak. Unless Con produces translations or interpretations of the Bible to back up claim, or different parts in the Bible where God speaks non literally (Which there may be, I don't read the Bible much)
Argument about killing the specific injustice people, better.
Argument about children going to Heaven, not 'bad, maybe not 'great though.
God allowed jurisdiction can be seen as God taking the responsibility for this 'specific action, or any specific actions that God orders, and not encouraging or wanting murder.
Con Round 1, okay, but not 'great. Currently I think Pro arguments stronger.
Though I still think Pro arguments have flaws.
Owen_T Round 2
Pro makes strong effort to hit Con with Cons own definition.
Pro gives example of Gods language being followed.
I still lean towards voting Pro
YouFound_Lxam Round 2
Con reminds all of the Commandments and Thou shall not murder,
But it's 'still a problem that Pro is leaning into Cons definition of Pro Life,
But Con 'does try to walk it back a bit, one could view it as people keeping a wolf sanctuary and being Pro Life, but the wolves got to eat.
Some people think there's 'something about existence that humans 'need to experience. Apparent Free Will, for example.
Con pushes against his by arguing, regardless of what God allows causes, he can still consider Abortion bad/be against it.
If Con had continued debate, they 'might have been able to gain traction here, as Pro seemed willing to accept Cons definition of Pro Life.
Con does 'very well in playing into Pros description of the debate, that assumes the Bible is totally accurate, if the Bible 'says that God is something or other, then it will be true regardless of any actions to the contrary that God may take.
'However, I don't remember Con citing the Bible explicitly saying that God is Pro life or Anti Abortion.
Owen_T Round 3
I am not convinced that actions speak louder than words.
Hundreds isn't that many people.
Maybe the deaths were necessary to some ends.
Life after death.
Exceptions.
Still, this is the end,
I think Cons Pro Life definition angle was a mistake, not that one couldn't argue God is Anti Abortion, but many of Cons arguments for such were broad, lacking specificality to Abortion.
A bit like Con tried to narrow the goal of the debate (Fair because of Pro definitions in description and round 1)
But then that Con argued the point broadly, instead of focusing on the goal.
Con could have further developed the concept of God being exempt from human standards and expectations.
Missing rounds 3 and 4 really hurt Con.
Pro manages to make arguments and consistently rebut Con's frequently,
But does Pro make good case of God to be Pro Death, or Pro Neutral?
Though I think arguments can be made against Pro, Con missed half the debate, and didn't dig in as deep as Pro for the time that Con 'was there.
. . . On another hand, Con 'does give many examples of God valuing Life, which as I read debate a second time, I don't 'think Pro addresses well,
Pro 'does have the problem of "assume that the bible is completely accurate"
Hm, God 'says live Pro Life, but 'does say to kill some specific people, and sends natural disasters at some points. But Con argues such are exceptions.
I suppose I'll go with a tie but Conduct to Pro,
If I 'had to choose a side for who won, I would have chosen Pro I think, but tie is an option in this voting system.
. . . My vote is a 'bit unfair in adding my own arguments, but I don't think that's a fault. I subtract my arguments from the person I argue against Pro, I don't 'add them to the person who didn't argue them Con.
Arguments Tie
Sources Tie both used the Bible,
If Con had used sources that for instances argued certain translations effecting understood meaning, could have helped Con.
Legibility equal.
Conduct to Pro, people can miss rounds, but without excuse/reason given in debate or comments, it qualifies as a hit.
@Ferbalot
Sorry if it wasn't the debate you were looking for,
But I don't lean towards conceding in debates, except in the comments sometimes, which I'm not doing here, though I do not think I argued 'well.
But that is what replica debates with different opponents are for.
@NoOneInPaarticular
Lemming asks that nothing Lemmings says in the comments to be used against Lemming in votes.
Example I lifted from were actually baboons,
https://youtu.be/XvMQQsyPirM?t=3246
Stress and Health: From Molecules to Societies
All four of which I assume were males,
Which was more about monopoly on violence, than romance I suppose.
I also found his, Stress: Portrait of a Killer. A National Geographic Documentary (2008), interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYFZAYenR20
And you're right, BuddhistBadass seems to be talking more about romance, and whether one can succeed in achieving it or not.
Argues people often have false or high expectations, likely to fail.
Which I suppose people 'can have. Though not 'necessarily all or most people, depending on people and environment.
“When you see a good person, think of becoming like her/him. When you see someone not so good, reflect on your own weak points.”
― Confucius
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/15321.Confucius
“As Plato said, every soul is deprived of truth against its will. The same holds true for justice, self-control, goodwill to others, and every similar virtue. It’s essential to constantly keep this in your mind, for it will make you more gentle to all.”
—MARCUS AURELIUS, MEDITATIONS, 7.63
https://micropreneur.life/forgive-them-because-they-dont-know/
The Wolf You Feed
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, "My son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Wolves
The Parable of the Sower
(Mark 4:1–9; Luke 8:4–8)
1That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the sea. 2Such large crowds gathered around Him that He got into a boat and sat down, while all the people stood on the shore.
3And He told them many things in parables, saying, “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4And as he was sowing, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it.
5Some fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun rose, the seedlings were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the seedlings.
8Still other seed fell on good soil and produced a crop—a hundredfold, sixtyfold, or thirtyfold.
9He who has ears,a let him hear.”
https://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/13.htm
i
Master Meng said: There was once a fine forest on the Ox Mountain,
Near the capital of a populous country.
The men came out with axes and cut down the trees.
Was it still a fine forest?
Yet, resting in the alternation of days and nights, moistened by dew,
The stumps sprouted, the trees began to grow again.
Then out came goats and cattle to browse on the young shoots.
The Ox Mountain was stripped utterly bare.
And the people, seeing it stripped utterly bare,
Think that the Ox Mountain never had any woods on it at all.
ii
Our mind too, stripped bare, like the mountain,
Still cannot be without some basic tendency to love.
But just as men with axes, cutting down the trees every morning,
Destroy the beauty of the forest,
So we, by our daily actions, destroy our right mind.
Day follows night, giving rest to the murdered forest,
The moisture of the dawn spirit [or wind]
Awakens in us the right loves, the right aversions.
With the actions of one morning we cut down this love,
And destroy it again. At last the night spirit [or wind]
Is no longer able to revive our right mind.
Where, then, do our likes and dislikes differ from those of the animals?
In nothing much.
Men see us, and say we never had in us anything but evil.
Is this man's nature?
iii
Whatever is cultivated rightly, will surely grow.
Whatever is not cultivated rightly must surely perish.
Master Kung (Confucius) said:
Grasp it firmly and you will keep it.
Grasp it loosely, and it will vanish out of your hand.
Its comings and goings have no fixed times:
No one knows its country!
Of man's right mind, of this only does he speak!
- Mencius
https://southerncrossreview.org/114/ox-mountain.html
I suppose, but still I find the action of reminding myself that I have an 'apparent choice, to help me in acting in ways I feel better about afterward,
Than telling myself I have 'no choice, and acting in ways I feel bad about afterward.
Course, I can imagine some people who feel 'better, claiming they had no choice in an action.
. . .
A coworker of mine gave me a smoky black quartz once,
Claimed it helped keep away bad luck.
I found a thought amusing, and a bit reassuring, despite considering it's powers false.
That by keeping the smoky black quartz on my person, I could ward off an bad luck from outside sources, and thus any bad luck I would encounter, would be formed purely of my own action and volition.
Which 'is true in a sense,
I view my thoughts, reactions, and actions,
As all due to my own will,
Should I spill a glass of milk, I have the option to rage and make the situation worse, or I can shrug and mop up the mess.
Figure that it should serve as a cautionary warning for next time, and to pay better attention when having cups containing liquid about me.
Certainly practicing mindfulness 'seems something within my apparent control.
Four cave people,
They group up in gangs of two, and square off over a piece of meat,
One of the cave people runs away, while their partner gets beaten to death by the two cave people who stayed teamed up,
The two cave people eat the piece of meat.
Sure people 'might betray you, but what's the other option?
Fight in a free for all I suppose, and hope no one teams up.
But suppose you break your leg, or catch the sniffles,
Darn, you never bothered to build relationships because you don't believe in them?
Guess you're dead,
Too bad you didn't have a partner like that other cave person.
People sometimes call humans rational, somewhat predictable,
If a woman has a choice between starting a connection between a known wifebeater and a man 'not known as a wifebeater,
Is one of the relationships more likely to work?
Relationships working or not depends on the variables I imagine,
Different people in different scenarios, different outcomes.
Glancing at an introduction to the Federalist Papers,
It claims the Federalists and Anti Federalists had different ideas of Responsibility of elected officials, which a scene from 1776 seems to fit rather well.
"[During the vote to debate the resolution on independence]
Dr. Lyman Hall : Mr. President, Georgia seems to be split right down the middle on this issue - the people are against it, and I'm for it.
[laughter]
Dr. Lyman Hall : However, I'm afraid I'm not quite certain whether representing the people means relying on their judgment or on my own. In all fairness, until I can figure that out, I'd better lean a little on their side. Georgia says nay."
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068156/characters/nm0601409
Also here's a comic I find funny,,
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/564
I don't remember what extend argument means exactly.
I think I vaguely recall some people using it in debates where their opponent forfeited rounds, just as a way of saying, that they are still in the debate, and to move the debate along.
Either out a sense of fairness to their opponent or belief that they themself had nothing more to say yet until their opponent said more.
I vaguely recall some voting guide or other, saying something that voters should consider when a debater extends their arguments,
But I don't remember the guide or what was said. Below is a forum post by a user, but I'm sure I remember 'something 'more.
. . .
"4. When a participant’s argument round is not published by the deadline, the participant automatically forfeits that round and most likely will be punished by the voters. If the number of forfeited rounds for either participant equals or exceeds half the rounds, it is an automatic voted loss of the debate. The opposing participant may indicate “extend argument to next round” in the event an opponent forfeits a round, or, a continuation of argumentation may be entered and published.
5. In any round, either participant may concede the debate. That participant may either abandon the debate at that point [automatic forfeit of each round], or indicate “concede” in each succeeding round[s]. The opposing participant may either continue argumentation in each succeeding round, or indicate “extend argument” in each succeeding round. In any case, concession, without recourse of re-consideration, is a voted loss of the debate."
. . .
It might also be a term for extending one's arguments beyond one's original arguments in round 1.
A tacking on of additional arguments, rather than the development only of original arguments in round 1.
#7
Might one might argue the 'bicycle was evil, if it was a regularly occurring flaw in it's design,
Or the manufactures if it was a 'known frequent flaw,
Or the child if they knew of the flaw as commonplace and a highly potential roadway hazard. (Though of course you say undetected, so this one could not apply perhaps)
One might even argue children as 'an evil, even if not evil in themselves?
If they 'tended to certain behaviors.
I suppose if a race of aliens existed that enjoyed others pain, but lacked control or understanding of what pain to others was,
They would be an evil, but not evil in themselves,
Though I think many consider those who lack control to still be evil.
@NoBodyInParticular
While there is a debate to be had about abusive parents, it wasn't the debate I immediately wanted to have. If one wants debate parameters changed, they can always ask before a debate.
Likewise if this was a debate about having police forces in society, I'm sure abusive or corrupt police 'could factor into it, but I might prefer to focus on other aspects in such a debate, to see other specifics more clearly. Such as alternate methods or financial costs.
I think if I had allowed abusive parents, it would have too easily shifted the debate from a debate about 'normal 'use.
I 'think, Confucianism accepted limits to Filial Piety,
Confucius wrote of a small stick, you should accept punishment; with a big stick, you run.
Mencius wrote that rebellion against the emperor can be justified
While it can, is argued, and some places practiced that one should practice Filial Piety even with abusive parents,
Or have a Police Force, even if they are abusive and corrupt,
It's a fairly common thought I think, of okay Filial Piety or Police force, just not with those people.
I'm more interested in 'Functioning Systems value, compared with other systems or values.
Though I suppose how frequent dysfunction occur, or how deep, are also worthy questions. I still think it's nice to approach some questions in pieces, rather than a whole. Though I did say 'Generally Filial Piety should be encouraged, that's because I expected abusive parents to be the usual focus, and I don't know the other pieces of the debate too well.
Which isn't to say one couldN'T vote for Moozer325 with reasons I could agree with,
I meant to say,
Though maybe no one noticed this, I did, and the missing meaning bothered me.
. . . I do think there were reasons one could vote for me, for reasons I agree with,
But this is more about fixing the missing "n't".
I'm not planning on voting on this one, no.
As someone already did, in a way I'd agree with.
I just don't want to spend the time analyzing the arguments closely, which would take me some time, though probably be quick for others, even in a debate like this, I'd be a bit slow, and don't want to change my methods or spend the time voting.
I don't really know much about the Electoral College.
Round 1 Moozer325, I found the more interesting part of debate.
Point 1.
Doesn't it represent each 'state?
Should the United Nations vote based on population size?
Course United Nations among themselves vote on different stuff than American States among themselves, not so intrusive perhaps,
Not really in the interest of Nations/States with less people,
Course, it also seems a bit silly to let some nation 1000th the size of another have an equal vote,
But there 'are the veto countries, pretty powerful at the time and founders, course the world has changed since then, some.
Could also vote based on 'power I suppose, population size, territory size, military size, economy, amount of gold?
Point 2,
I'm not sure it's that one's vote doesn't 'matter, just because a few states waffle towards the end of a vote, doesn't mean staying true to what one values and voting according to early, 'doesn't matter.
Point 3
So RCV is kind of like voting for your favorite, and voting for your least favorite, so that it ends up in the middle?
Since the other side would have voted your favorite as their least, but would have lost their own favorite?
Conclusion Part,
Not that you're wrong, I'm just going to have to think about your argument a bit.
I suppose money can buy items and situations that tend to make one happier,
Fulfilling basic needs like food, shelter, safety.
Though if one trades pride or family for money to buy those above, still might not make one happy.
If one lacks the intelligence to know what 'to buy, money again might not buy happiness.
There 'are unhappy rich people,
Money can alienate one from friends, family, and ordinary people,
Warp one's values that they cannot relate to ordinary people or their motivations,
Allows power, which sounds good, but you can buy drugs with that, which also seem good, until you've done them too much and go crazy.
Or weird surgeries that your yes men tell you is a good idea, but is not.
Course debate is money 'can buy happiness, and I suppose it 'can, in the sense of items and situations,
Claiming it can't if one doesn't know what to spend it on, is like saying money can't buy food if one lacks the intelligence to identify an apple in a store,
Course being able to identify what will bring one happiness, or being able to 'follow that knowledge, may not be easy for everyone.
Poor people can still be happy, or happier with what they have family, work, honest effort and living, than a great deal of money or gold toilets.
Hm, can't say I agree with what WyIted says in his video,
Which isn't to say one could vote for Moozer325 with reasons I could agree with,
I just don't agree with WyIted's.
Ah well.
I 'am using hyperbole in my arguments,
I find being in a character helps me a bit sometimes in debates,
Easier to grasp what motivates a side sometimes,
Then their ideas/arguments/actions come easier.
I kind of think of each of the trilogies as being single movies.
1,2,3 a movie, 4,5,6 a movie, 7,8,9 a movie.
Same with Lord of the Rings 1,2,3, a movie.
Of course they are separate movies, but it feels very unfinished, to have never seen the before and after in a trilogy, though I've never seen 7,8,9 of Star Wars.
Sure people have a favorite episode in a TV show, or favorite chapter in a book, even when they have continuous plot all tied together beginnings and ends I suppose.
I suppose that was where my mind was going, thinking of the 'best as being a stand alone,
Kind of like if you could only watch 'one movie/episode/chapter for the rest of time, which would it be?
And that one would be the best.
Problem defining 'best I suppose.
But I often have that problem, I blame my shoddy grasp of philosophy.
Then again, even for food I don't really have a long lasting favorite,
Variety can be enjoyable,
Though sometimes I continue eating the same food for a while.
. . . Mmmm, pizza.
. . .
I probably like Episode 5 the best in Star-
No, maybe 6. 5 has that cool reveal, but 6 has that cool conclusive scene. . .
Snow battle. . . Fores- oh right, Ewoks,
Yeah I probably like Episode 5 the best. (Joke, the Ewoks don't bother me) I do like 5 though, just don't know what would be my favorite.
Heh, Palace Leia.
Ah, the reasons just go back and forth.
. . .
A New Hope was also good,
I even liked 1,2 and 3.
Maybe because I was a kid when I saw them, hard to say.
Pro Round 1
Pro states out debate, argues for inconsistencies in human body, cites examples Pro argues are evolution.
Source/definition for Creationism might have been nice, though maybe too limiting.
Of course people have a common conception of it, but they also have many variations in definition and belief in it as well.
Heh, tails, one could argue that 'Primates, are what God created, or that man has evolved and devolved some over time since God creation, but that we did not evolve from a fish.
That might work for longer time Creationism, but not for the 6000 year creationism.
For bigger time Creationism, I hear scientists don't like caveman and dinosaurs together, but a Creationists could argue humans were just hiding.
Species 'can manage to grow even with very few members left.
Some people joke about incest and claim impossible, but Minimum Viable Population theory.
Point #1, eh, even if a fish evolves, it's still a fish, even if a primate evolves it's still a primate.
Of course the problem with such an argument are those evolutionary record claims that whales used to walk on land and have legs.
But eh, even humans born without legs, we still call human.
Point #2 'Is evolution the same as natural selection?
Or does evolution claim bacteria to human evolution?
Sorry if dumb question.
Conclusion, argues for 'tie, but I note debate is an either or. Not whether the question cannot be proven.
Con Round 1
I'm not sure that theories 'ever stop being theories.
Interestingly Con seems to take same approach of neither, as Pro.
"The Theory of Evolution is Correct, and Bible Creationism is Incorrect" dangerous title, puts proof on Pro.
Pro Round 2
My suggestion for a title would be,
Evolution, Pro. Creationism, Con,
As well as explicitly stating in the description, that the burden of proof to be shared,
Perhaps allowing ties in voting (I forget if this is possible).
Biblically correct, heh, that'd be a sneaky loophole,
Though there 'are Theists who believe in evolution, so you could still argue that evolution is Biblically correct.
Still, I think you're fine arguing that correct is speaking of what we conclude to have happened, regardless of Bible record or common interpretation of Bible record.
Well, evolution being 'proven, depends what one 'means by evolution, much as Creationism has various interpretations, so too evolution I'd argue.
Wikipidia Alternatives to Darwinian Evolution
Though I might be misreading this.
"neither side can be definitively proven right because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative" - Pro Round 1
I view more as initial thinking that debate title and description styles debate as choosing the stronger position. Eh still, push on.
Con Round 2
Eh, semantically correct maybe, but such reasoning does not allow the existence of 'any facts then.
Common understanding allow for facts as a word we use to accept as most likely true.
I have a theory I'm using a computer right now, I'm so confident I'll even call it a fact, though I admit I 'could be wrong, common usage allows me to call it a fact.
Con makes efforts against how theory is defined,
Still won't effect my voting, unless Pro gives in to Cons arguments in Round 3.
Arguing that accepted theories are not correct because they are technically theories does not sway me,
They might if this was a debate about it being good too allow slight doubt in all facts/theories/assumptions.
But this is a debate about Evolution being correct and Creationism not being correct.
Though I note Evolution and Creationism 'could both be correct, in some people's arguments outside of this debate.
Pro Round 3
Well, it 'IS still a theory, it's just that ideas have multiple meanings,
And one of our ideas is giving higher status and different name/meaning to certain theories as we 'think them more correct at some given moment.
You 'are backpedaling a bit, but such happens to most everyone in life, we say something not quite as we might have meant, then clarify what we 'did mean.
I backpedal plenty in life.
If I mix a cake batter, and the oven changes the batter into a cake,
Did I not still make the cake?
Additionally if I forge a sword, and the warrior I give it to wraps cloth around the handguard, is it 'not still close enough to my original creation?
Pro makes arguments that the Bible is lacking, to hold it as prime source of all truths in the world.
But this is 'light addressment of part of the debate, remember the title.
Con Round 3
Con points out earlier words of Pro.
Hm, I hope there is a tie option in the vote.
Pro Round 4
It's still bacteria though, not bacteria evolved into humans.
Though it's possible I'm being stupid in my understanding of evolution agreed understandings.
I don't 'like people going against spirit of debate, and using loopholes (Usually),
But it's 'allowed.
Con Round 4
Makes use of Pro statements in Round 4 accepting difficulty in proving one side or another.
@NoOneInParticular
When I create a sand castle, is it necessary that I created the sand?
To say to someone I created the sand castle I mean,
I mean, maybe I 'did create the sand,
But one could argue creating the Earth, is speaking of it's current form, changed from another previous.
Well, probably not, my Biblical knowledge sucks.
P.S.
Hm, possibly I should have voted Con,
Third rereading made me note BOP again,
Ah well, too much effort, and it's not as though I voted Pro,
I voted Tie.
Grayflounder142 Round 1.
Saying that "america gun violence is up by exactly 15.9%"
Doesn't really tell me much, it's more a 'statement, that one can make various inferences about. It lacks a source, a time frame, lacks explanation of 'why the gun violence might have gone up.
Which western Media, where is this quote from?
Generally speaking I suppose one could 'claim media is saying this, but such a claim without proof requires one watches the same media, to accept it.
Round one claims vaguely American gun violence has increased and claims the media has identified guns are a downfall of their generation. Therefore guns are bad.
What if I don't agree with anti-gun media,
What if I identify other causes for gun violence? or identify it as positive, what if the gun violence is only by law abiding citizens against criminals attempting to rob them?
I can't tell without a source.
Silent_assassin Round 1
States various benefits of guns, protection and recreation. Reads a bit like an ad (Not a bad thing). Has sources.
R1 thoughts,
Both debaters state guns being good or bad, causing harm or protection, which work as general ideas, but require further proof of truth.
Though even such truths can be subjective, hence why I was a bit disappointed that Canada did not play a larger role in the debate.
Hunting for example, one might argue would have been more a necessity in early Canada than modern Canada, though there are still people who don't live in cities, who need guns to protect livestock, or for protection in more rural living locations than the city.
A problem I see with the debate is how it sounds purely guns or no guns. Description is a bit wasted, and voters have to assume that there are 'some guns, at least for military and law enforcement.
Grayflounder142 Round 2
Interesting argument, though it's a claim.
I am unsure what 'properly trained means, even in the flintlock era, I can imagine some farmer teaching his son to shoot, teaching them basic common sense rules such as don't let the barrel point at other people, unless you intend to shoot them.
Similar to a knife, don't cut stuff 'towards yourself, but do we need a 'license for a knife?
Well, in some blasted common sense lacking places, though it's only 'needed by law, not 'truly needed to avoid injury.
Still, guns 'can be dangerous, and even many gun enthusiasts advocate for training, sometimes even that training be mandatory, but such an argument doesn't cease all guns, people require drivers licenses for cars in many places, doesn't mean no cars.
Tool https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool#:~:text=%3A%20a%20handheld%20device%20that%20aids%20in%20accomplishing%20a%20task
"a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task"
The argument that there are pellet metal/plastic guns, that can be used instead of real guns, 'does lend against Silent_assassin's recreation argument.
Is recreation a justifiable reason to allow an activity that can be dangerous to oneself and/or others?
Silent_assassin Round 2
Successfully in my view, rebuts Grayflounder142's argument that untrained individuals are dangerous. Simply require training.
Though personally I prefer government staying all the way out of my business.
'Does make arguments that guns do not exist purely to kill.
Makes argument that pellet guns would not fulfill the recreationalists desires,
What is needed here by Grayflounder142 to overcome this, is simply to show and prove guns consequences to lives and such, not be worth the recreational benifits,
We 'do outlaw and lessen various activities, despite participants desires in those acts, to continue as they had in the past. Boxing requiring gloves, various football rules over time, and so on.
I'm uncertain on whether it has been successfully argued either way, that replicas would pose more or less danger in crime.
As Silent_assassin says, they can still be used to threaten, how would a person 'know a replica or not?
Though as Grayflounder142 argues, less accidental stray rounds, as well as unsaid less guns used in intentionally violent death causing crime, though that would still have to be proven to be more common/deadly, which there 'are some decent arguments for such.
Round 2 Thoughts
Grayflounder142 in my view has made an error in their lack of round 1,
Much of this debate allows Silent_assassin to frame the issue, and much of the issue becomes compromising, allowing 'some guns within limits.
Japan is pretty lacking in guns I think, but even there, exists (Highly regulated) shooting ranges.
This is why framing a debate is important, properly framed one could argue that Japan does not allow guns to anyone but the police and military, and that hunters and target shooters exist in circumstances that one would not call 'Allowing guns in Japan.
But Silent_assassin has been able to vaguely argue 'many compromises allowing guns.
Grayflounder142 Round 3
Makes the claim that guns cause death and violence.
Silent_assassin Round 3
Makes argument that even non military/police individuals can train in guns.
Continues with the compromises, that 'really hurt Grayflounder142, due to debate title and definitions.
Restates claim that guns are important enough that replicants lack of realness takes away from the recreational value. (This is something that Grayflounder142 should have been able to argue against more strongly)
Makes weak (I don't mean this negatively or that it is badly done) argument that replicants pose similar enough level of danger as real guns in crime.
Though of course I assume they realize real guns are more dangerous, I assume they're just mitigating Grayflounder142's arguments strength some.
Round 4 thoughts,
John Dillinger's wooden gun.
Debate thoughts,
Grayflounder142 by title's black and whiteness, lack of description, and lack of depth in arguments, allowed much of the debate to be on Silent_assassin's terms,
Allowing Silent_assassin to make compromises allowing 'some guns as seeming reasonable.
I would have liked in the debate for the goalposts to be more clear, more historical examples, more data, and more Canada.
My opinion in that specific situation would be disappointment at the very least, quite likely more than that.
Most humans 'don't tend to help people though,
Least not all the time,
Beyond most humans expected willpower, possibly beyond expected 'care.
People 'have their money, their possessions,
Don't sell all of it and help the poor,
Walk by the homeless, the drugged,
Don't fight in wars,
Launch crusades of help in their neighborhoods.
. . .
Arguably abortion is not 'quite 'like seeing a baby drowning in a pond,
At the very least human perception/culture/reaction to it is different.
A pond is also pretty easy to wade in save the baby,
Not like it's a pond of acid.
Many Pro Life individuals also have lines they draw of where they are against abortion,
Rape, for some of them,
Compared to where they see the existence of the Yet Born in abortions of convenience, as being created in an act of callous disregard of the Yet born.
(Tossed the baby into the pond)
I don't think it is wrong/unexpected of Pro Life individuals for push for laws that help people,
As opposed to Pro Life individuals suffering great pain to help only who they can help individually.
Eh, some people don't want to adopt abused kids either,
Doesn't mean people are wrong to push for laws that take kids from parents that beat/starve/neglect their kids.
I 'think I recall Clausewitz mentions something about science and art, in his On War book.
Ooh, after Googling that a bit in variation, and reading the description in this debate, I'm interested in how this debate might go.
I don't think I've 'thought much about the concept of art.
Kouen's sources didn't fit either quite. Kouen's 'might have, if they had made more arguments, but as they were, I thought them incomplete, hence I didn't give Kouen any points for sources.
I did not think your sources fit either, albeit I thoughts they fit 'worse than Kouen's, because I did not read anywhere in your sources, statements on whether abortion was 'murder or not.
Your articles made statements for abortion not to be criminal, and a right to medically necessary procedures, but this is not the same as stating whether abortion is murder/killing.
Nor whether they considered fertilization the start of human life.
Though it 'is possible I did not read your sources in depth enough, which 'would be a fault on me, and is possible to have occurred.
However, I don't see those 'highlighted in your round 1 gray box quotes either.
. . .
I would argue that personhood is 'often a crux for abortion debates.
. . .
Language and concepts can be vague, bleed into each other.
. . .
I mentioned it in my vote, because Kouen specifically stated his source supported when human 'life started, that's where a vaguery might be,
And where many Pro Choice individuals might have attacked his arguments.
. .
Can one 'murder what is 'not a person?
Arguably one can 'kill life, or even inanimate objects from a certain point of view.
But 'murder,
Though shall not kill,
Usually speaks of 'humans, of persons.
Not trees, art, desks, 'pieces of humans, nor even animals other than humans,
But 'people, individuals.
. . .
I suppose there are ways your sources could have fit in later arguments,
But not in the one you made in round 1, stating that,
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which is the largest group of reproductive scientists and members of the medical field, does not agree that abortion is murder."
Oh I would say myself , that Mr.BrotherD.Thomas has broken the CoC, not you.
Personally, I 'think Mr.BrotherD.Thomas is pretending to be a Christian, and mocking Christianity and Christians in parody.
(Though I 'could be wrong)
1,
"You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is either intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable, so long it is clear that they are parodies and do not parody other site users." - DART COC
Alas I cannot 'prove this,
Hence the not 'clear it is parody.
2,
"Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest. This includes wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones experiences physical harm." - DART COC
"Jesus and I are going to have a lot of fun with this pseudo-christian named "Public-Choice," but it will be at his embarrassing expense in front of the membership for sure!"
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas #18
To me sounds that he's targeting you, intending and 'trying to embarrass you.
3,
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions." - DART COC
Invectives is defined by Webster as "insulting or abusive language." It can also refer to an abusive expression or speech.
"Dolts, Stupid, Fool, Buffoonery, DUMB ASS, DUMBFOUNDED, NEWB, CRYBABY, sniveling"
Are all 'repeatedly used by Mr.BrotherD.Thomas in this 'one comment section alone.
4,
"Spam is prohibited, and any overtly repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam." - DART COC
Their posts are generic and ever the same, spamming paragraphs of insults.
. . . .
I say again,
Even if 'you Public-Choice have thick skin,
I do not think it is right to let such individuals as Mr.BrotherD.Thomas have free reign,
To go about insulting and targeting users.
Observe his words to swordburial17 here,
"Heads up, we're going to have a lot of fun with YOU like we did with the other disgusting camel herder Muslim tigerlord, where you will now take his place, so "chain up" because your ride in this forum is going to be real bumpy at your expense!" - BrotherD.Thomas #45 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9532-non-fallacious-defenses-of-muhammad?page=2
I would like to state that Mods seem to take reports from the targets of harassment more seriously than bystander reports of harassment.
I would also like to argue that it is better for the community if individuals who break the DART Code of Conduct are held responsible,
Even if 'you have thick skin towards them,
'Not reporting certain actions by them,
Allows them to act that way towards other users.
@Barney
In some ways a debate is nicer without participants giving lengthy explanation, that one might already be aware of,
Enough to reference fact/claim/study/idea.
@NoOneInParticular
Argument, not arguement.
Stupid spellcheck user, not 'looking close enough at the words, before changing arguement to agreement.
Easier to convince others,
Good to try to see 'truth for oneself, rather than just assume what may be false.
A manga called Liars Game, had a character who encouraged doubting other people,
“People SHOULD be doubted. Many people misunderstand this concept. Doubting people is just a part of getting to know them. What many people call ‘trust’ is really just giving up on trying to understand others, and that very act is far worse than doubting. It is actually ‘apathy.”
― Shinobu Kaitani, Liar Game, Volume 4
And I remember the Bible mentioning false prophets.
New International Version
"and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people."
https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-11.htm
If it warns people against false prophets, presumably people are being encouraged to not accept without question, what is said by others.
When I say 'kind of,
People with mental illness, can have some pretty big leaps in logic,
Feelings that come upon them, driven by disorder.
Not that religion is an illness or disorder,
I'm just musing on faith, certainty held in an idea.
. .
Course 'unlike a meth addict or individual with schizophrenia,
I imagine many people of religious belief might change their beliefs,
Were proof or a threshold of convincing be done.
Same as an atheist might become a theist, with the same proof or threshold convincing be done.
But it's not 'so easy a proof, one way or the other perhaps,
Various life experiences, presuppositions, leading to conclusions.
'Many groups of people alternatively legalize then illegalize, then legalize actions. And so on.
Though I admit I myself, for a fondness of using the crowds actions to gauge my own.
Still, that we're doing something 'now, doesn't itself make an action good, to my thinking.
Thanks for voting, I admit since I ended up losing to Sir.Lancelot,
I hope a bit to lose all three of these duel debates,
As a sometimes all or nothing person,
Also be a bit funny to see no wins in my profile.
What would you say Lightbringer69's edge was?
I admit I view the debate as a fair bit subjective towards voters,
While dueling may encourage or discourage this or that value,
What the voter might lean towards is 'their own value, and whichever debater in their arguments encourages it.
I think you have a point,
And it's 'easier for me to agree with your point when the cause and effect occur clearly and quickly.
More difficult is when it occurs vaguely and over a long period of time.
. . .
Someone inciting a mob, to kill X group of people within a day or a week,
Cause and Effect seem more obvious.
When there is a cartoon depicting X group as some stereotype or other, and 10 years later an innocent X of said group get's killed by an individual or mob.
The Cause and Effect is more hazy to me.
While I can't say the cartoon had no effect,
Especially if the culture is 'full of the cartoons,
Is the implication then, that one can't say 'anything exaggerated/negative/false/satire about any groups?
Again though,
I'm fairly on board with you on the short term Cause and Effect,
But sometimes the Cause has no Effect,
And we can't tell until the Effect is in Motion or Occurred.
People don't always expect their speeches to have effect.
. . .
And maybe it depends on the environment,
Suppose one makes the same inflammatory statements to two different groups,
Probably easier to incite a group of racists to mob an individual,
Than a group of non racists,
What was 'said, doesn't matter so much as who or when it was said to.
Well, it depends,
I 'think insulting people is legal. (In America)
But I don't think 'slandering people is legal.
Of course people seem to do it all the time, especially 'lately in America,
Though not all the people doing it 'know what they are saying is false.
. . .
Though when does an insult become slander?
If I call an Irishman a terrorist,
Sounds more an insult to me.
If I go around telling everyone that 'all Irish are terrorists,
Eh, still seems more like an insult to me,
Unless people then start trying to citizen arrest every Irish person they see, thinking they're all actually terrorists.
Of course, just saying all X people are thieves,
Can result in them being treated differently by society,
. . . But is one not allowed to stereotype groups based on one's knowledge?
Some groups 'are generally Xs.
Not that I think all Muslims or Irish are terrorists.
But I'm rambling.
I just not sure I care for controlled speech much, even if the law is made with the 'intention of keeping people 'truthful.
People disagree on a lot of 'truths.
Well, it's 'rude, I suppose.
But I think I like Free Speech more than some Hate Laws.
Do you mean they should not have a legal right?
Or that morally it is wrong of them?
Alas, but thanks for voting and feedback.
I think there might be an orange button between Pro (Green) and Con (Red),
That says something along the lines of publish argument,
I'd say click that.
When do you consider a system to no longer be capitalism?
Many governments have a 'mix of economic systems I think.
Also, do theoretical systems count?
Such as a system where robots do near all the manufacturing and mining of resources.
Thanks for the clarification,
It still sounds like political or societal interference,
But I get what you mean.
It's similar to people saying owning a gun or driving a car should be a basic right,
But many places have 'some sort of limit, requirements, tests, times you can lose said right/privilege.
I imagine a number of people end up in the middle between extremes, for a number of policies and laws.
But there 'are laws and people at the extreme ends.
Would your opponent then have to argue for no abortions for 'any reasons?
Are there any 'limits to this freedom of abortion?
Say 5 minutes before a child would be born naturally, and the mother is in a 0.00023% chance of death.
Does Pro in this debate support abortion at that point?
Suppose there was no chance of death, suppose there was no pain, suppose no bodily damage,
Just a person wanting bodily autonomy over themself,
Does Pro in this debate support abortion at that point?
I only ask, for clarification of the debate parameters.
RFV Part 1
Moozer325 R1
(Reading)
Section 301 Tariffs on China,
In response to unfair trade,
362 Billion dollars,
$1,200 dollars per American household in just 2020,
Argues raw goods we use for our manufacturing went up in price,
Argues China responded with own tariffs,
Claims no one wins in trade wars.
(Thoughts)
Does this mean one has no choice for good outcome but to let other country be unfair?
Sure you and bully both get bloody noses if you fight them,
But maybe you keep your lunch money,
Wouldn't China be winning if it is allowed to be unfair in trade?
(Reading)
Has lot of sources.
"Section 301 Tariffs on China was a set of Import Taxes Imposed by Trump on China (duh) in response to unfair trade practices. They were primarily from 2018-2019 and they came in four distinct waves, totaling 34B, 16B, 200B, and 160B respectively in revenue. Combined, this was all about 362 Billion dollars"
"Tariffs enacted by China cut American agricultural exports by as much as 26 Billion dollars, a 76 percent reduction of our farming exports"
262 Billion we gained sounds better than 26 billion lost. . . But then "76 percent reduction of our farming exports" also sounds big loss.
greenplanet R 1
(Reading)
Reduced government deficit.
(Thoughts)
Hm, 'maybe good, but if it comes at a high cost to the people, was it 'really good? Can't government find other methods?
Also problem of China Tariffs.
(Reading)
greenplanet argues people hit hard by trade war, still saw it as good action.
eliminating many products of foreign competitive companies which have been seeking for entering the U.S. market.
eliminating many products of foreign competitive companies which have been seeking for entering the U.S. market.
America still able to make use of and tax American business.
( R1 Both Thoughts)
Hm, I'm undecided, economics confuses me.
I can't seem to access the sources that greenplanet is using here. . . Hm, do references 'have to be accessible? If I access a book that isn't free online, does that mean it cannot be sourced?
I suppose if one is 'explicit in posting quotes from source it 'might be acceptable. Hm, I 'see quote makes in greenplanet round 1, but it's not 'completely clear to me.
Moozer325 R 2
(Reading)
Notes famers injured by tariffs in greenplanet R 1
(Thoughts)
Do you think no one wins in 'any war, or just trade wars?
Surely people win in some trade wars, and obviously regular wars have winners (Of sorts)
But debate 'is whether Trump Tariffs did more harm than good, not whether Trade war is possible.
(Reading)
Argues Farmers may not have supported tariffs even if they supported Trump,
Argues farmers still hurt by tariffs, whether they 'thought it was good plan not matter.
Points out greenplanet sources not working.
(Thoughts)
Hm, sources, if I read a debate 10 years or even a year later, sources often disappear or are changed.
Wikipedia for example, it's pages change over time.
RFV Part 2
greenplanet R 2
(Reading)
lobbyists
(Thoughts)
Lobbyists often hated, I 'suppose one can argue they serve a purpose. But I don't 'like doing so. Argument I don't see is how Lobbyists can be a problem, Lobbyists would be responsible for unfair trade situations I'd think. And thus would require correction via trade war?
(Reading)
Argues Farmer damage temporary.
(Thoughts)
That 'might be, but evidence to support the theory would help your argument a 'lot.
Whether examples in other historical trade wars and some damages being temporary, or policies Trump took to help farmers. I recall talk earlier that criticized Trump for not doing 'enough.
But what 'would enough have been, even if it was not enough, was it a decent trade off, Sometimes one accepts damage to get to a better position in a fight, or to make enemy submit.
greenplanet 'does make argument that Trump tariffs might work out fine, because it would be logical for a politician to support their supporters. Opens possibility of future Trump actions to solve harm problems in trade war.
Flaw in this is it hasn't happened yet.
Flaw in the flaw, is one might say a surgical cut has done more harm than good until it has healed. But 'obviously people expect surgical cut to heal. The future is 'assumed in the harm/good.
(Reading)
We have other markets than China.
China is becoming aggressive.
Again I cannot read source.
(Thoughts)
I lean 'slightly towards Mooze in arguments, but may end up tying, as I think greenplanet has decent points. In an either or winner selection probably choose Mooze, but will probably tie and give Mooze sources.
Moozer325 R 3
(Reading)
Argues Free Trade is good
(Thoughts)
'Maybe, but point of other side argues that times come when war, trade war is necessary.
(Reading)
lobbyists
(Thoughts)
I don't like lobbyists, and like argument of keeping them out of politics, on other hand business, rich people, corporations. 'Create power in a way. Being aware of them growing and pruning them, being aware of their needs, health, allows a country power.
(Reading)
interest groups are against the Tariffs
(Thoughts)
They might not be against 'Trumps actions, rather they are against Chinas Tariff actions.
(Reading)
major Tariffs on those countries too.
(Thoughts)
Hm, fair point, why did Trump do those Tariffs, did countries other than China retaliate?
(Reading)
Sources.
greenplanet R 3
(Reading)
Argues economic action necessary to maintain prestige, and to get Trump re-elected.
(Thoughts)
While economic actions and tariffs sometimes necessary, doesn't mean 'these specific Tariffs were necessary.
But I 'do find arguments about needing to address China actions convincing. But need different than result.
Hm, still not certain about result, in either or, I still go Mooze, but if tie option, tie.
Ehh, I 'suppose one can argue that Trump being elected is better for the American people, thus Tariffs were necessary, bit late and controversial argument though.
(Reading)
Trumps Tariffs didn't hurt farmers, China Tariffs did.
(Thoughts)
Hm,, Interesting thought, but one still sees cause and effect. If I punch bully, my action did not give me a bloody nose, the bully's action did.
But I think my punch probably is part of cause of bully's action.
I don't mean to call China a bully, I'm just trying to simplify my thinking.
(Reading)
Tariffs better than complete embargo, and we need to make sure we have equal trade with China in future. Trump Tariffs part of future plan, thus are good.
(Thoughts)
I suppose.
Final Thoughts
I'm still uncertain whether Trumps Tariffs did more harm or good.
Both sides make points,
Pro, of immediate and easily quantified examples.
Con, in farther reaching and less obvious examples.
If I get into a fight with a bully, I can see we both have bloody noses, I 'can't so easily see if he will back off in the future, until the future has come.
Though Pro 'does make arguments about long term trade,
So does Con.
Debate about 'Trumps Tariffs, not economic policy as general idea.
. . . I'm going with tie,
Though it 'does sound American finances were hurt,
Americans 'also helped by attempts at equal trade positions.
I don't really understand economics. I think this debate could swing either way if others voted.
But both were legible, both good conduct.
Sources Pro, Con sources just had trouble.
Yeah, but sometimes people have a fixed idea of a definition in their head before a debate,
And will accuse another person of shifting the goalposts.
Or just be disappointed, as a debate about what cruelty is, may not be what they wanted to debate.
What qualifies "The Christian God is a Cruel God"?
If he contains a sliver of cruelty, does that count as a cruel God?
Does it need to reach 51% cruelty?
Do kind cruelties count?
Does God need to make 1+1=3 for them to be considered God?
Saying 'people ought do X,
'Is descriptive though, isn't it?
As people, would have to be defined.
But I 'think, I get that you're trying to avoid,
A person who values kindness, ought be kind and encourage others to be kind.
A person who values pain, ought be in pain and encourage others to be pain.
Maybe what confused me is the is-ought gap,
You're 'not arguing that one can conclude what something ought do from what it is.
You're arguing that people don't have a singular ought?
Arguing against Moral Objectivism, such as people should be kind, or people should be evil?
That there is nothing ought-ing them to be either?
How does something 'ought though?
If something has a Creator, said Creator often has an expectation, whether as some believe God having some expectation for humans,
Or a human who designs a wood axe, it 'ought be used for wood, not human skulls.
. . .
But I imagine one would still expect that people ought to 'something,
Though, I suppose something just 'does, if it 'is something.
One doesn't say that fire has a moral obligation to burn stuff, it just does.
In casual language though, people might toss some wood into a fire, and say that ought burn nicely. But there's probably some specific philosophy terminology that is meant by ought.
What is,
"A non-descriptive, prescriptive obligation to do something"?
RFV Part 1
Description, I think it was a mistake not to include your definition of Pro Life in the description.
Owen_T Round 1
I think Pros definition of Pro life would be better focused on one definition of Pro Life, allowing multiple definitions allows opponent to focus in on just one, to achieve victory condition. As in God is Pro Life in 'this aspect.
For instance, one could argue that God wants life to 'exist on Earth, life has a lot of death involved in it. Cycle of life.
Though maybe some would argue God 'wants “The wolf will live with the lamb; the leopard will lie down with the young goat. The calf and the lion will graze together, and a little child will lead them.
But that man's Original Sin broke that reality for a time, (Since one is taking all of the Bible as true)
Well, people also talk about in Genisis how wicked those people were,
5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”
I suppose people don't find the execution of murderers very Pro Life, though it might save victims lives. But some people believe in a life after death, but then such a concept wonders why God would say don't kill if death was not death. Then again he says don't kill, he doesn't say don't die, I think. The act of murder can be bad for the murderer.
Bible claims the people God said to slay were wicked, I imagine, claims they sacrificed babies or something. And
Course the Israelites were told to kill the enemies babies.
I think the baby killing and pregnant woman killing is stronger part of Pros Round 1
YouFound_Lxam Round 1
I 'wouldn't have gone for the Pro Life baby argument.
Con makes arguments of how God might value babies, according to them being human life, knitting them from their earliest beginnings in the womb, being against murder.
'Could be a problem for Con, as I vaguely recall something about the Bible saying something about a breathe of life/soul once born.
As well as it only being a fine, not a life for life, if someone causes the death of an unborn. While killing the pregnant mother was a life for life.
But eh, Bible says a lot of things, maybe it says more for the Pro Life definition Con is taking.
(Which there may be, I don't read the Bible much)
. . . But still, would make God Pro Life by Cons definition.
Con argues afterlife and God above human standards.
I suppose that's an argument that could develop.
I consider the argument that God is not being literal with kill them all, weak. Unless Con produces translations or interpretations of the Bible to back up claim, or different parts in the Bible where God speaks non literally (Which there may be, I don't read the Bible much)
Argument about killing the specific injustice people, better.
Argument about children going to Heaven, not 'bad, maybe not 'great though.
God allowed jurisdiction can be seen as God taking the responsibility for this 'specific action, or any specific actions that God orders, and not encouraging or wanting murder.
Con Round 1, okay, but not 'great. Currently I think Pro arguments stronger.
Though I still think Pro arguments have flaws.
Owen_T Round 2
Pro makes strong effort to hit Con with Cons own definition.
Pro gives example of Gods language being followed.
I still lean towards voting Pro
YouFound_Lxam Round 2
Con reminds all of the Commandments and Thou shall not murder,
But it's 'still a problem that Pro is leaning into Cons definition of Pro Life,
But Con 'does try to walk it back a bit, one could view it as people keeping a wolf sanctuary and being Pro Life, but the wolves got to eat.
Some people think there's 'something about existence that humans 'need to experience. Apparent Free Will, for example.
Con pushes against his by arguing, regardless of what God allows causes, he can still consider Abortion bad/be against it.
If Con had continued debate, they 'might have been able to gain traction here, as Pro seemed willing to accept Cons definition of Pro Life.
Con does 'very well in playing into Pros description of the debate, that assumes the Bible is totally accurate, if the Bible 'says that God is something or other, then it will be true regardless of any actions to the contrary that God may take.
'However, I don't remember Con citing the Bible explicitly saying that God is Pro life or Anti Abortion.
I still lean Pro for vote.
RFV Part 2
Owen_T Round 3
I am not convinced that actions speak louder than words.
Hundreds isn't that many people.
Maybe the deaths were necessary to some ends.
Life after death.
Exceptions.
Still, this is the end,
I think Cons Pro Life definition angle was a mistake, not that one couldn't argue God is Anti Abortion, but many of Cons arguments for such were broad, lacking specificality to Abortion.
A bit like Con tried to narrow the goal of the debate (Fair because of Pro definitions in description and round 1)
But then that Con argued the point broadly, instead of focusing on the goal.
Con could have further developed the concept of God being exempt from human standards and expectations.
Missing rounds 3 and 4 really hurt Con.
Pro manages to make arguments and consistently rebut Con's frequently,
But does Pro make good case of God to be Pro Death, or Pro Neutral?
Though I think arguments can be made against Pro, Con missed half the debate, and didn't dig in as deep as Pro for the time that Con 'was there.
. . . On another hand, Con 'does give many examples of God valuing Life, which as I read debate a second time, I don't 'think Pro addresses well,
Pro 'does have the problem of "assume that the bible is completely accurate"
Hm, God 'says live Pro Life, but 'does say to kill some specific people, and sends natural disasters at some points. But Con argues such are exceptions.
I suppose I'll go with a tie but Conduct to Pro,
If I 'had to choose a side for who won, I would have chosen Pro I think, but tie is an option in this voting system.
. . . My vote is a 'bit unfair in adding my own arguments, but I don't think that's a fault. I subtract my arguments from the person I argue against Pro, I don't 'add them to the person who didn't argue them Con.
Arguments Tie
Sources Tie both used the Bible,
If Con had used sources that for instances argued certain translations effecting understood meaning, could have helped Con.
Legibility equal.
Conduct to Pro, people can miss rounds, but without excuse/reason given in debate or comments, it qualifies as a hit.
@Ferbalot
Sorry if it wasn't the debate you were looking for,
But I don't lean towards conceding in debates, except in the comments sometimes, which I'm not doing here, though I do not think I argued 'well.
But that is what replica debates with different opponents are for.
@NoOneInPaarticular
Lemming asks that nothing Lemmings says in the comments to be used against Lemming in votes.
Fair point.
Example I lifted from were actually baboons,
https://youtu.be/XvMQQsyPirM?t=3246
Stress and Health: From Molecules to Societies
All four of which I assume were males,
Which was more about monopoly on violence, than romance I suppose.
I also found his, Stress: Portrait of a Killer. A National Geographic Documentary (2008), interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYFZAYenR20
And you're right, BuddhistBadass seems to be talking more about romance, and whether one can succeed in achieving it or not.
Argues people often have false or high expectations, likely to fail.
Which I suppose people 'can have. Though not 'necessarily all or most people, depending on people and environment.
“When you see a good person, think of becoming like her/him. When you see someone not so good, reflect on your own weak points.”
― Confucius
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/15321.Confucius
“As Plato said, every soul is deprived of truth against its will. The same holds true for justice, self-control, goodwill to others, and every similar virtue. It’s essential to constantly keep this in your mind, for it will make you more gentle to all.”
—MARCUS AURELIUS, MEDITATIONS, 7.63
https://micropreneur.life/forgive-them-because-they-dont-know/
The Wolf You Feed
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, "My son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Wolves
The Parable of the Sower
(Mark 4:1–9; Luke 8:4–8)
1That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the sea. 2Such large crowds gathered around Him that He got into a boat and sat down, while all the people stood on the shore.
3And He told them many things in parables, saying, “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4And as he was sowing, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it.
5Some fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun rose, the seedlings were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the seedlings.
8Still other seed fell on good soil and produced a crop—a hundredfold, sixtyfold, or thirtyfold.
9He who has ears,a let him hear.”
https://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/13.htm
i
Master Meng said: There was once a fine forest on the Ox Mountain,
Near the capital of a populous country.
The men came out with axes and cut down the trees.
Was it still a fine forest?
Yet, resting in the alternation of days and nights, moistened by dew,
The stumps sprouted, the trees began to grow again.
Then out came goats and cattle to browse on the young shoots.
The Ox Mountain was stripped utterly bare.
And the people, seeing it stripped utterly bare,
Think that the Ox Mountain never had any woods on it at all.
ii
Our mind too, stripped bare, like the mountain,
Still cannot be without some basic tendency to love.
But just as men with axes, cutting down the trees every morning,
Destroy the beauty of the forest,
So we, by our daily actions, destroy our right mind.
Day follows night, giving rest to the murdered forest,
The moisture of the dawn spirit [or wind]
Awakens in us the right loves, the right aversions.
With the actions of one morning we cut down this love,
And destroy it again. At last the night spirit [or wind]
Is no longer able to revive our right mind.
Where, then, do our likes and dislikes differ from those of the animals?
In nothing much.
Men see us, and say we never had in us anything but evil.
Is this man's nature?
iii
Whatever is cultivated rightly, will surely grow.
Whatever is not cultivated rightly must surely perish.
Master Kung (Confucius) said:
Grasp it firmly and you will keep it.
Grasp it loosely, and it will vanish out of your hand.
Its comings and goings have no fixed times:
No one knows its country!
Of man's right mind, of this only does he speak!
- Mencius
https://southerncrossreview.org/114/ox-mountain.html
A Wise Bully - Key & Peele
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwvqCIAAd-M
Zeno's Slave
https://www.eoht.info/page/Slave%20stealing%20parable
I suppose, but still I find the action of reminding myself that I have an 'apparent choice, to help me in acting in ways I feel better about afterward,
Than telling myself I have 'no choice, and acting in ways I feel bad about afterward.
Course, I can imagine some people who feel 'better, claiming they had no choice in an action.
. . .
A coworker of mine gave me a smoky black quartz once,
Claimed it helped keep away bad luck.
I found a thought amusing, and a bit reassuring, despite considering it's powers false.
That by keeping the smoky black quartz on my person, I could ward off an bad luck from outside sources, and thus any bad luck I would encounter, would be formed purely of my own action and volition.
Which 'is true in a sense,
I view my thoughts, reactions, and actions,
As all due to my own will,
Should I spill a glass of milk, I have the option to rage and make the situation worse, or I can shrug and mop up the mess.
Figure that it should serve as a cautionary warning for next time, and to pay better attention when having cups containing liquid about me.
Certainly practicing mindfulness 'seems something within my apparent control.
Four cave people,
They group up in gangs of two, and square off over a piece of meat,
One of the cave people runs away, while their partner gets beaten to death by the two cave people who stayed teamed up,
The two cave people eat the piece of meat.
Sure people 'might betray you, but what's the other option?
Fight in a free for all I suppose, and hope no one teams up.
But suppose you break your leg, or catch the sniffles,
Darn, you never bothered to build relationships because you don't believe in them?
Guess you're dead,
Too bad you didn't have a partner like that other cave person.
People sometimes call humans rational, somewhat predictable,
If a woman has a choice between starting a connection between a known wifebeater and a man 'not known as a wifebeater,
Is one of the relationships more likely to work?
Relationships working or not depends on the variables I imagine,
Different people in different scenarios, different outcomes.
Glancing at an introduction to the Federalist Papers,
It claims the Federalists and Anti Federalists had different ideas of Responsibility of elected officials, which a scene from 1776 seems to fit rather well.
"[During the vote to debate the resolution on independence]
Dr. Lyman Hall : Mr. President, Georgia seems to be split right down the middle on this issue - the people are against it, and I'm for it.
[laughter]
Dr. Lyman Hall : However, I'm afraid I'm not quite certain whether representing the people means relying on their judgment or on my own. In all fairness, until I can figure that out, I'd better lean a little on their side. Georgia says nay."
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068156/characters/nm0601409
Also here's a comic I find funny,,
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/564
I don't remember what extend argument means exactly.
I think I vaguely recall some people using it in debates where their opponent forfeited rounds, just as a way of saying, that they are still in the debate, and to move the debate along.
Either out a sense of fairness to their opponent or belief that they themself had nothing more to say yet until their opponent said more.
I vaguely recall some voting guide or other, saying something that voters should consider when a debater extends their arguments,
But I don't remember the guide or what was said. Below is a forum post by a user, but I'm sure I remember 'something 'more.
. . .
"4. When a participant’s argument round is not published by the deadline, the participant automatically forfeits that round and most likely will be punished by the voters. If the number of forfeited rounds for either participant equals or exceeds half the rounds, it is an automatic voted loss of the debate. The opposing participant may indicate “extend argument to next round” in the event an opponent forfeits a round, or, a continuation of argumentation may be entered and published.
5. In any round, either participant may concede the debate. That participant may either abandon the debate at that point [automatic forfeit of each round], or indicate “concede” in each succeeding round[s]. The opposing participant may either continue argumentation in each succeeding round, or indicate “extend argument” in each succeeding round. In any case, concession, without recourse of re-consideration, is a voted loss of the debate."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4521-proposal-to-edit-debate-section-of-help-center?page=1&post_number=1
. . .
It might also be a term for extending one's arguments beyond one's original arguments in round 1.
A tacking on of additional arguments, rather than the development only of original arguments in round 1.
#7
Might one might argue the 'bicycle was evil, if it was a regularly occurring flaw in it's design,
Or the manufactures if it was a 'known frequent flaw,
Or the child if they knew of the flaw as commonplace and a highly potential roadway hazard. (Though of course you say undetected, so this one could not apply perhaps)
One might even argue children as 'an evil, even if not evil in themselves?
If they 'tended to certain behaviors.
I suppose if a race of aliens existed that enjoyed others pain, but lacked control or understanding of what pain to others was,
They would be an evil, but not evil in themselves,
Though I think many consider those who lack control to still be evil.
@Barney
Thanks for voting,
@NoBodyInParticular
While there is a debate to be had about abusive parents, it wasn't the debate I immediately wanted to have. If one wants debate parameters changed, they can always ask before a debate.
Likewise if this was a debate about having police forces in society, I'm sure abusive or corrupt police 'could factor into it, but I might prefer to focus on other aspects in such a debate, to see other specifics more clearly. Such as alternate methods or financial costs.
I think if I had allowed abusive parents, it would have too easily shifted the debate from a debate about 'normal 'use.
I 'think, Confucianism accepted limits to Filial Piety,
Confucius wrote of a small stick, you should accept punishment; with a big stick, you run.
Mencius wrote that rebellion against the emperor can be justified
While it can, is argued, and some places practiced that one should practice Filial Piety even with abusive parents,
Or have a Police Force, even if they are abusive and corrupt,
It's a fairly common thought I think, of okay Filial Piety or Police force, just not with those people.
I'm more interested in 'Functioning Systems value, compared with other systems or values.
Though I suppose how frequent dysfunction occur, or how deep, are also worthy questions. I still think it's nice to approach some questions in pieces, rather than a whole. Though I did say 'Generally Filial Piety should be encouraged, that's because I expected abusive parents to be the usual focus, and I don't know the other pieces of the debate too well.
Can Filial Piety not be taught with a caveat?
Can children not also expect maternal or paternal piety?
Can they not be taught, the limits of Filial Piety?
Which isn't to say one couldN'T vote for Moozer325 with reasons I could agree with,
I meant to say,
Though maybe no one noticed this, I did, and the missing meaning bothered me.
. . . I do think there were reasons one could vote for me, for reasons I agree with,
But this is more about fixing the missing "n't".
I'm not planning on voting on this one, no.
As someone already did, in a way I'd agree with.
I just don't want to spend the time analyzing the arguments closely, which would take me some time, though probably be quick for others, even in a debate like this, I'd be a bit slow, and don't want to change my methods or spend the time voting.
I'll take a look at the other debate.
I don't really know much about the Electoral College.
Round 1 Moozer325, I found the more interesting part of debate.
Point 1.
Doesn't it represent each 'state?
Should the United Nations vote based on population size?
Course United Nations among themselves vote on different stuff than American States among themselves, not so intrusive perhaps,
Not really in the interest of Nations/States with less people,
Course, it also seems a bit silly to let some nation 1000th the size of another have an equal vote,
But there 'are the veto countries, pretty powerful at the time and founders, course the world has changed since then, some.
Could also vote based on 'power I suppose, population size, territory size, military size, economy, amount of gold?
Point 2,
I'm not sure it's that one's vote doesn't 'matter, just because a few states waffle towards the end of a vote, doesn't mean staying true to what one values and voting according to early, 'doesn't matter.
Point 3
So RCV is kind of like voting for your favorite, and voting for your least favorite, so that it ends up in the middle?
Since the other side would have voted your favorite as their least, but would have lost their own favorite?
Conclusion Part,
Not that you're wrong, I'm just going to have to think about your argument a bit.
I suppose money can buy items and situations that tend to make one happier,
Fulfilling basic needs like food, shelter, safety.
Though if one trades pride or family for money to buy those above, still might not make one happy.
If one lacks the intelligence to know what 'to buy, money again might not buy happiness.
There 'are unhappy rich people,
Money can alienate one from friends, family, and ordinary people,
Warp one's values that they cannot relate to ordinary people or their motivations,
Allows power, which sounds good, but you can buy drugs with that, which also seem good, until you've done them too much and go crazy.
Or weird surgeries that your yes men tell you is a good idea, but is not.
Course debate is money 'can buy happiness, and I suppose it 'can, in the sense of items and situations,
Claiming it can't if one doesn't know what to spend it on, is like saying money can't buy food if one lacks the intelligence to identify an apple in a store,
Course being able to identify what will bring one happiness, or being able to 'follow that knowledge, may not be easy for everyone.
Poor people can still be happy, or happier with what they have family, work, honest effort and living, than a great deal of money or gold toilets.
Hm, can't say I agree with what WyIted says in his video,
Which isn't to say one could vote for Moozer325 with reasons I could agree with,
I just don't agree with WyIted's.
Ah well.
I 'am using hyperbole in my arguments,
I find being in a character helps me a bit sometimes in debates,
Easier to grasp what motivates a side sometimes,
Then their ideas/arguments/actions come easier.
I kind of think of each of the trilogies as being single movies.
1,2,3 a movie, 4,5,6 a movie, 7,8,9 a movie.
Same with Lord of the Rings 1,2,3, a movie.
Of course they are separate movies, but it feels very unfinished, to have never seen the before and after in a trilogy, though I've never seen 7,8,9 of Star Wars.
Sure people have a favorite episode in a TV show, or favorite chapter in a book, even when they have continuous plot all tied together beginnings and ends I suppose.
I suppose that was where my mind was going, thinking of the 'best as being a stand alone,
Kind of like if you could only watch 'one movie/episode/chapter for the rest of time, which would it be?
And that one would be the best.
Problem defining 'best I suppose.
But I often have that problem, I blame my shoddy grasp of philosophy.
Then again, even for food I don't really have a long lasting favorite,
Variety can be enjoyable,
Though sometimes I continue eating the same food for a while.
. . . Mmmm, pizza.
. . .
I probably like Episode 5 the best in Star-
No, maybe 6. 5 has that cool reveal, but 6 has that cool conclusive scene. . .
Snow battle. . . Fores- oh right, Ewoks,
Yeah I probably like Episode 5 the best. (Joke, the Ewoks don't bother me) I do like 5 though, just don't know what would be my favorite.
Heh, Palace Leia.
Ah, the reasons just go back and forth.
. . .
A New Hope was also good,
I even liked 1,2 and 3.
Maybe because I was a kid when I saw them, hard to say.
Part 1/2
Pro Round 1
Pro states out debate, argues for inconsistencies in human body, cites examples Pro argues are evolution.
Source/definition for Creationism might have been nice, though maybe too limiting.
Of course people have a common conception of it, but they also have many variations in definition and belief in it as well.
Heh, tails, one could argue that 'Primates, are what God created, or that man has evolved and devolved some over time since God creation, but that we did not evolve from a fish.
That might work for longer time Creationism, but not for the 6000 year creationism.
For bigger time Creationism, I hear scientists don't like caveman and dinosaurs together, but a Creationists could argue humans were just hiding.
Species 'can manage to grow even with very few members left.
Some people joke about incest and claim impossible, but Minimum Viable Population theory.
Point #1, eh, even if a fish evolves, it's still a fish, even if a primate evolves it's still a primate.
Of course the problem with such an argument are those evolutionary record claims that whales used to walk on land and have legs.
But eh, even humans born without legs, we still call human.
Point #2 'Is evolution the same as natural selection?
Or does evolution claim bacteria to human evolution?
Sorry if dumb question.
Conclusion, argues for 'tie, but I note debate is an either or. Not whether the question cannot be proven.
Con Round 1
I'm not sure that theories 'ever stop being theories.
Interestingly Con seems to take same approach of neither, as Pro.
"The Theory of Evolution is Correct, and Bible Creationism is Incorrect" dangerous title, puts proof on Pro.
Pro Round 2
My suggestion for a title would be,
Evolution, Pro. Creationism, Con,
As well as explicitly stating in the description, that the burden of proof to be shared,
Perhaps allowing ties in voting (I forget if this is possible).
Biblically correct, heh, that'd be a sneaky loophole,
Though there 'are Theists who believe in evolution, so you could still argue that evolution is Biblically correct.
Still, I think you're fine arguing that correct is speaking of what we conclude to have happened, regardless of Bible record or common interpretation of Bible record.
Well, evolution being 'proven, depends what one 'means by evolution, much as Creationism has various interpretations, so too evolution I'd argue.
Wikipidia Alternatives to Darwinian Evolution
Though I might be misreading this.
"neither side can be definitively proven right because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative" - Pro Round 1
I view more as initial thinking that debate title and description styles debate as choosing the stronger position. Eh still, push on.
Con Round 2
Eh, semantically correct maybe, but such reasoning does not allow the existence of 'any facts then.
Common understanding allow for facts as a word we use to accept as most likely true.
I have a theory I'm using a computer right now, I'm so confident I'll even call it a fact, though I admit I 'could be wrong, common usage allows me to call it a fact.
Con makes efforts against how theory is defined,
Still won't effect my voting, unless Pro gives in to Cons arguments in Round 3.
Arguing that accepted theories are not correct because they are technically theories does not sway me,
They might if this was a debate about it being good too allow slight doubt in all facts/theories/assumptions.
But this is a debate about Evolution being correct and Creationism not being correct.
Though I note Evolution and Creationism 'could both be correct, in some people's arguments outside of this debate.
Part 2/2
Pro Round 3
Well, it 'IS still a theory, it's just that ideas have multiple meanings,
And one of our ideas is giving higher status and different name/meaning to certain theories as we 'think them more correct at some given moment.
You 'are backpedaling a bit, but such happens to most everyone in life, we say something not quite as we might have meant, then clarify what we 'did mean.
I backpedal plenty in life.
If I mix a cake batter, and the oven changes the batter into a cake,
Did I not still make the cake?
Additionally if I forge a sword, and the warrior I give it to wraps cloth around the handguard, is it 'not still close enough to my original creation?
Pro makes arguments that the Bible is lacking, to hold it as prime source of all truths in the world.
But this is 'light addressment of part of the debate, remember the title.
Con Round 3
Con points out earlier words of Pro.
Hm, I hope there is a tie option in the vote.
Pro Round 4
It's still bacteria though, not bacteria evolved into humans.
Though it's possible I'm being stupid in my understanding of evolution agreed understandings.
I don't 'like people going against spirit of debate, and using loopholes (Usually),
But it's 'allowed.
Con Round 4
Makes use of Pro statements in Round 4 accepting difficulty in proving one side or another.
@NoOneInParticular
When I create a sand castle, is it necessary that I created the sand?
To say to someone I created the sand castle I mean,
I mean, maybe I 'did create the sand,
But one could argue creating the Earth, is speaking of it's current form, changed from another previous.
Well, probably not, my Biblical knowledge sucks.
P.S.
Hm, possibly I should have voted Con,
Third rereading made me note BOP again,
Ah well, too much effort, and it's not as though I voted Pro,
I voted Tie.
I noted they reminded me of ads, but I didn't make the AI connection,
Even now I don't 'know they used an AI.
Lemming vote part 1/2
Grayflounder142 Round 1.
Saying that "america gun violence is up by exactly 15.9%"
Doesn't really tell me much, it's more a 'statement, that one can make various inferences about. It lacks a source, a time frame, lacks explanation of 'why the gun violence might have gone up.
Which western Media, where is this quote from?
Generally speaking I suppose one could 'claim media is saying this, but such a claim without proof requires one watches the same media, to accept it.
Round one claims vaguely American gun violence has increased and claims the media has identified guns are a downfall of their generation. Therefore guns are bad.
What if I don't agree with anti-gun media,
What if I identify other causes for gun violence? or identify it as positive, what if the gun violence is only by law abiding citizens against criminals attempting to rob them?
I can't tell without a source.
Silent_assassin Round 1
States various benefits of guns, protection and recreation. Reads a bit like an ad (Not a bad thing). Has sources.
R1 thoughts,
Both debaters state guns being good or bad, causing harm or protection, which work as general ideas, but require further proof of truth.
Though even such truths can be subjective, hence why I was a bit disappointed that Canada did not play a larger role in the debate.
Hunting for example, one might argue would have been more a necessity in early Canada than modern Canada, though there are still people who don't live in cities, who need guns to protect livestock, or for protection in more rural living locations than the city.
A problem I see with the debate is how it sounds purely guns or no guns. Description is a bit wasted, and voters have to assume that there are 'some guns, at least for military and law enforcement.
Grayflounder142 Round 2
Interesting argument, though it's a claim.
I am unsure what 'properly trained means, even in the flintlock era, I can imagine some farmer teaching his son to shoot, teaching them basic common sense rules such as don't let the barrel point at other people, unless you intend to shoot them.
Similar to a knife, don't cut stuff 'towards yourself, but do we need a 'license for a knife?
Well, in some blasted common sense lacking places, though it's only 'needed by law, not 'truly needed to avoid injury.
Still, guns 'can be dangerous, and even many gun enthusiasts advocate for training, sometimes even that training be mandatory, but such an argument doesn't cease all guns, people require drivers licenses for cars in many places, doesn't mean no cars.
Tool https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool#:~:text=%3A%20a%20handheld%20device%20that%20aids%20in%20accomplishing%20a%20task
"a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task"
The argument that there are pellet metal/plastic guns, that can be used instead of real guns, 'does lend against Silent_assassin's recreation argument.
Is recreation a justifiable reason to allow an activity that can be dangerous to oneself and/or others?
Silent_assassin Round 2
Successfully in my view, rebuts Grayflounder142's argument that untrained individuals are dangerous. Simply require training.
Though personally I prefer government staying all the way out of my business.
'Does make arguments that guns do not exist purely to kill.
Makes argument that pellet guns would not fulfill the recreationalists desires,
What is needed here by Grayflounder142 to overcome this, is simply to show and prove guns consequences to lives and such, not be worth the recreational benifits,
We 'do outlaw and lessen various activities, despite participants desires in those acts, to continue as they had in the past. Boxing requiring gloves, various football rules over time, and so on.
I'm uncertain on whether it has been successfully argued either way, that replicas would pose more or less danger in crime.
As Silent_assassin says, they can still be used to threaten, how would a person 'know a replica or not?
Though as Grayflounder142 argues, less accidental stray rounds, as well as unsaid less guns used in intentionally violent death causing crime, though that would still have to be proven to be more common/deadly, which there 'are some decent arguments for such.
Round 2 Thoughts
Grayflounder142 in my view has made an error in their lack of round 1,
Much of this debate allows Silent_assassin to frame the issue, and much of the issue becomes compromising, allowing 'some guns within limits.
Japan is pretty lacking in guns I think, but even there, exists (Highly regulated) shooting ranges.
This is why framing a debate is important, properly framed one could argue that Japan does not allow guns to anyone but the police and military, and that hunters and target shooters exist in circumstances that one would not call 'Allowing guns in Japan.
But Silent_assassin has been able to vaguely argue 'many compromises allowing guns.
Lemming vote part 2/2
Grayflounder142 Round 3
Makes the claim that guns cause death and violence.
Silent_assassin Round 3
Makes argument that even non military/police individuals can train in guns.
Continues with the compromises, that 'really hurt Grayflounder142, due to debate title and definitions.
Restates claim that guns are important enough that replicants lack of realness takes away from the recreational value. (This is something that Grayflounder142 should have been able to argue against more strongly)
Makes weak (I don't mean this negatively or that it is badly done) argument that replicants pose similar enough level of danger as real guns in crime.
Though of course I assume they realize real guns are more dangerous, I assume they're just mitigating Grayflounder142's arguments strength some.
Round 4 thoughts,
John Dillinger's wooden gun.
Debate thoughts,
Grayflounder142 by title's black and whiteness, lack of description, and lack of depth in arguments, allowed much of the debate to be on Silent_assassin's terms,
Allowing Silent_assassin to make compromises allowing 'some guns as seeming reasonable.
I would have liked in the debate for the goalposts to be more clear, more historical examples, more data, and more Canada.
My opinion in that specific situation would be disappointment at the very least, quite likely more than that.
Most humans 'don't tend to help people though,
Least not all the time,
Beyond most humans expected willpower, possibly beyond expected 'care.
People 'have their money, their possessions,
Don't sell all of it and help the poor,
Walk by the homeless, the drugged,
Don't fight in wars,
Launch crusades of help in their neighborhoods.
. . .
Arguably abortion is not 'quite 'like seeing a baby drowning in a pond,
At the very least human perception/culture/reaction to it is different.
A pond is also pretty easy to wade in save the baby,
Not like it's a pond of acid.
Many Pro Life individuals also have lines they draw of where they are against abortion,
Rape, for some of them,
Compared to where they see the existence of the Yet Born in abortions of convenience, as being created in an act of callous disregard of the Yet born.
(Tossed the baby into the pond)
I don't think it is wrong/unexpected of Pro Life individuals for push for laws that help people,
As opposed to Pro Life individuals suffering great pain to help only who they can help individually.
Somehow your question and statement go over my head,
Can you rephrase them?
Eh, some people don't want to adopt abused kids either,
Doesn't mean people are wrong to push for laws that take kids from parents that beat/starve/neglect their kids.
Lot of geometry/math in Islamic art I've heard.
I 'think I recall Clausewitz mentions something about science and art, in his On War book.
Ooh, after Googling that a bit in variation, and reading the description in this debate, I'm interested in how this debate might go.
I don't think I've 'thought much about the concept of art.
Kouen's sources didn't fit either quite. Kouen's 'might have, if they had made more arguments, but as they were, I thought them incomplete, hence I didn't give Kouen any points for sources.
I did not think your sources fit either, albeit I thoughts they fit 'worse than Kouen's, because I did not read anywhere in your sources, statements on whether abortion was 'murder or not.
Your articles made statements for abortion not to be criminal, and a right to medically necessary procedures, but this is not the same as stating whether abortion is murder/killing.
Nor whether they considered fertilization the start of human life.
Though it 'is possible I did not read your sources in depth enough, which 'would be a fault on me, and is possible to have occurred.
However, I don't see those 'highlighted in your round 1 gray box quotes either.
. . .
I would argue that personhood is 'often a crux for abortion debates.
. . .
Language and concepts can be vague, bleed into each other.
. . .
I mentioned it in my vote, because Kouen specifically stated his source supported when human 'life started, that's where a vaguery might be,
And where many Pro Choice individuals might have attacked his arguments.
. .
Can one 'murder what is 'not a person?
Arguably one can 'kill life, or even inanimate objects from a certain point of view.
But 'murder,
Though shall not kill,
Usually speaks of 'humans, of persons.
Not trees, art, desks, 'pieces of humans, nor even animals other than humans,
But 'people, individuals.
. . .
I suppose there are ways your sources could have fit in later arguments,
But not in the one you made in round 1, stating that,
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which is the largest group of reproductive scientists and members of the medical field, does not agree that abortion is murder."
From my current viewpoint.
Oh I would say myself , that Mr.BrotherD.Thomas has broken the CoC, not you.
Personally, I 'think Mr.BrotherD.Thomas is pretending to be a Christian, and mocking Christianity and Christians in parody.
(Though I 'could be wrong)
1,
"You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is either intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable, so long it is clear that they are parodies and do not parody other site users." - DART COC
Alas I cannot 'prove this,
Hence the not 'clear it is parody.
2,
"Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest. This includes wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones experiences physical harm." - DART COC
"Jesus and I are going to have a lot of fun with this pseudo-christian named "Public-Choice," but it will be at his embarrassing expense in front of the membership for sure!"
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas #18
To me sounds that he's targeting you, intending and 'trying to embarrass you.
3,
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions." - DART COC
Invectives is defined by Webster as "insulting or abusive language." It can also refer to an abusive expression or speech.
"Dolts, Stupid, Fool, Buffoonery, DUMB ASS, DUMBFOUNDED, NEWB, CRYBABY, sniveling"
Are all 'repeatedly used by Mr.BrotherD.Thomas in this 'one comment section alone.
4,
"Spam is prohibited, and any overtly repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam." - DART COC
Their posts are generic and ever the same, spamming paragraphs of insults.
. . . .
I say again,
Even if 'you Public-Choice have thick skin,
I do not think it is right to let such individuals as Mr.BrotherD.Thomas have free reign,
To go about insulting and targeting users.
Observe his words to swordburial17 here,
"Heads up, we're going to have a lot of fun with YOU like we did with the other disgusting camel herder Muslim tigerlord, where you will now take his place, so "chain up" because your ride in this forum is going to be real bumpy at your expense!" - BrotherD.Thomas #45 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9532-non-fallacious-defenses-of-muhammad?page=2
I would like to state that Mods seem to take reports from the targets of harassment more seriously than bystander reports of harassment.
I would also like to argue that it is better for the community if individuals who break the DART Code of Conduct are held responsible,
Even if 'you have thick skin towards them,
'Not reporting certain actions by them,
Allows them to act that way towards other users.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
@Barney
In some ways a debate is nicer without participants giving lengthy explanation, that one might already be aware of,
Enough to reference fact/claim/study/idea.
@NoOneInParticular
Argument, not arguement.
Stupid spellcheck user, not 'looking close enough at the words, before changing arguement to agreement.
I'd agree it's often good to have 'reasons. .
Easier to convince others,
Good to try to see 'truth for oneself, rather than just assume what may be false.
A manga called Liars Game, had a character who encouraged doubting other people,
“People SHOULD be doubted. Many people misunderstand this concept. Doubting people is just a part of getting to know them. What many people call ‘trust’ is really just giving up on trying to understand others, and that very act is far worse than doubting. It is actually ‘apathy.”
― Shinobu Kaitani, Liar Game, Volume 4
And I remember the Bible mentioning false prophets.
New International Version
"and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people."
https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-11.htm
If it warns people against false prophets, presumably people are being encouraged to not accept without question, what is said by others.
@NoOneInParticular
Can faith 'avoid having evidence and reason?
I'd suppose it can, 'kind of myself.
But if one views this world as one of causation, or cause and effect,
People's faith, are going to have reasons for why they are held.
Course then there's that word 'primary.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When I say 'kind of,
People with mental illness, can have some pretty big leaps in logic,
Feelings that come upon them, driven by disorder.
Not that religion is an illness or disorder,
I'm just musing on faith, certainty held in an idea.
. .
Course 'unlike a meth addict or individual with schizophrenia,
I imagine many people of religious belief might change their beliefs,
Were proof or a threshold of convincing be done.
Same as an atheist might become a theist, with the same proof or threshold convincing be done.
But it's not 'so easy a proof, one way or the other perhaps,
Various life experiences, presuppositions, leading to conclusions.
'Many groups of people alternatively legalize then illegalize, then legalize actions. And so on.
Though I admit I myself, for a fondness of using the crowds actions to gauge my own.
Still, that we're doing something 'now, doesn't itself make an action good, to my thinking.
Still, I am glad for the feedback and the vote.
Thanks for voting, I admit since I ended up losing to Sir.Lancelot,
I hope a bit to lose all three of these duel debates,
As a sometimes all or nothing person,
Also be a bit funny to see no wins in my profile.
What would you say Lightbringer69's edge was?
I admit I view the debate as a fair bit subjective towards voters,
While dueling may encourage or discourage this or that value,
What the voter might lean towards is 'their own value, and whichever debater in their arguments encourages it.