This is a relatively small debate, and I hope you can vote on this if you have time because I have just a week left and I don't think the current vote is reasonable.
Of course you are correct. As I stated previously, "I don't consider the instigator particularly potent in deliberation concerning specific empiricism." Despite the forfeits, the instigator did not even deliver a valid argument that supports his position, and in my view, he conveyed it to a much weaker degree than perceived in the mainstream.
Brought up in previous comments, I think we can all agree on that Barney's vote is ridiculous as an unfortunate representation of the moderation of this platform, as well as our voting standards. There are a number of reasons this is the case. Foremostly, Bones may as well be arguing with concepts Barney does not know well, or understand. There also is the obvious position of bias to a certain side, and perhaps an interest in helping a certain person to win etc. On the former, many people find it difficult to separate these feelings, or even remove them form the consideration of a vote (particularly people with low control over their emotions). My only empathetic apology would be to Bones who was most affected by this. The lack of distinct counter expression is perhaps the best choice. It only encourages this behavior as I have found.
I.B Flaws
There are many issues with both cases. I will give these sections for each round tentatively as they are the main factor by which I may evaluate this debate.
I. Despite being convincing, pro's argument comes with limitations.
a. Pro does not define what abortion is, and he does not distinguish it, or its implications from events like a miscarriage. Unsurprisingly, this creates problems subsequently.
b. Neither does pro establish that abortion bans will reduce the number of abortions that take place. If his policy does not even reduce the amount of abortions that happen, it seems suspect.
c. Pro also does not lay a specific criterion in which abortion is permissible and abortion is not permissible. His final syllogism only leaves me with the implication that if there is a justified reason for abortion it could be allowed, yet pro does not inform me of what these just reasons could be.
II. Con's case made use of many convincing statistics and arguments, however, his case contains many pivotal issues like pro's, perhaps even more so.
a. Con's definition of structural violence was short and vague. Frankly, con does not outright express how this precludes any policy that exists. This places con's syllogism to suspect. It causes one to question makes premise one true. If a policy implements a lesser degree of structural violence than an issue it amends to solve, should this policy be enacted? His argument suggests no. Con's case is consequentialist, yet he does not cover the implications of his own argument which suggests to me that society ought not to be improved in the case where it could be morally, nor does he account for the social issues that said policies resolve to address.
b. Con's sources seem credible, but the contention of elimination of care does not show the scale of which these actions are prevalent. He cites figures from survivors of domestic abuse, however, he does not indicate the degree to which these people compose the paradigm of people.
c. His contention from self-managed abortions seemingly assumes that abortion is permissible in the first place and thus, it is hard to see how this would fall under his category of structural violence any more than people stealing when stealing is by the statuette, illegal.
d. His contention about "overburdening the medical system," does not support the argument suggested by the heading. There is no indication of figures that would suggest hospitals are in clear capacity jeopardy, and this just amounts to an argument that more children would be born, which is not presented as an intrinsically bad or good phenomenon, or as a form of structural violence.
e. His cut-off mark for abortion is 15 weeks, if this is the case why would this restriction not create or ential structural violence as previously cited? Would not all of his contentions apply to abortions at 16 weeks? If it is the case that it does would it not be a policy that "ought not be implemented." This to me, is unclear.
f. Con says that the beginning of personhood does not influence his case. This is peculiar. If it is true that killing an unborn child is morally the same as killing a born one, then why would the implication of adverse conditions impact this, especially when contending a threshold deontological position? The appeal to pro's case of uncertainty seems flawed. Pro argued that inconsequential differences ential the predicate of his framework. If pro is arguing from moral equalization (https://headbirths.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/moral-equalization/) and con does not attempt to reject this, pro's argument expresses that personhood as an ontology must necessarily apply to all humans, and the uncertainty of personhood in respect to pro is inconsequential.
I.
The burden of proof is effectively shared. Pro's argument is straightforward, he makes a case of inconsequential differences using 3/4 of Scott Klusendorf's four contentions (no one intelligent would argue that size confers personhood). He does well in analyzing the failure of arbitrary and poorly analyzed concepts of personhood. The principle of uncertainty did its job. 75% of the outcomes appear to be societally unacceptable, and if pro's previous conditions hold true, we know that there is no morally relevant difference between the unborn and the born. The case allows contention 3's syllogism to be both valid and sound and round one is compelling. Pro arguing that con has additional burdens does not fundamentally alter the provisions within the description. It could be the case that each debater must justify their respective side of the policy, however, con needs to provide the argument for personhood in order to refute pro's side.
Con's syllogism is not complex, and there is no need to restate it. First, the classification of structural violence is clear. Con establishes harm that comes from the elimination of care, and consequences of hesitation to proceed with certain procedures. Domestic abuse from reproductive-related periods as well as patient-provider relationships is somewhat evident, and the measures people will pursue to get abortions are also commonplace in this debate. Subsequent for con is the risk of mortality as well as the overburdening of the medical system. He also properly exploits Bone's lack of distinctly cited exceptions, while going on to cit his own limit at 15 weeks. Con's rebuttals are concise and very well written. He argues that pro coverts a moral case into a policy one, which he asserts is erroneous. He argues that personhood does not impact his case based on structural violence. He argues that pro's standard for personhood claims certainty, while he affirms uncertainty for it as an ontological category. Lastly, he shows that pro has not distinguished between justified and unjustified killing and re-notes his lack of exceptions.
let's start here then. For one, the previous votes as typical provide me with no particular disposition. The unfortunate case presents itself that there is bias present in aspects of them, something that detracts from what I see as the imperative fairness of this debate. It is unfortunate.
A) Utilitarianism
In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism). This becomes a mildly contested point in deliberation. Con's framework that predicated upon the notion of structural violence is more obviously utilitarian to this me, Bones's primary line of argumentation in countenance to such is that the existence of structural violence consequently is not sufficient to make the killing of entity's who hold the same degree of moral value as well as the same rights to life. For one, the unborn do not experience happiness in the womb, and Bone's argument is not contingent on well being or human pleasure related senses.
Bone's case is one of threshold deontology in my interpretation (https://tinyurl.com/thresholddeontology). He posits that the consequences introduced by the contender are no sufficient to entertain the permissibility of systemically violating an intrinsically immoral principle. Utilitarianism in not intrinsically wrong and my tabula rasa inclinations would not allow me to theorize this. However, Pro does well in arguing for Utilitarianisms violation of human rights. Regardless, one framework is utilitarian above another. I doubt pro needed to concede soft utilitarianism, his argument does not even seem to entail this as it is concerned with rights violations rather than utility.
Well, no. I don't see how this even relates to our current larger predicament. We are debating the biblical scriptures, which allow divorce in many provisions (as demonstrated). Now I am currently looking towards your vote...I am not sure how it makes logical sense. The scriptures are a collection of canonical books and verses.
The "law" seems inconsequential here. What I am trying to get us to understand is that you said "pro's job is to show that the entirety of the Bible scriptures agree or permit divorce." If the Bible is cannonical the provisions I cite would apply to all aspects of scriptural derivation, and even if your interpretation was true, there is no sound conclusion that yields your vote.
I suspect you my have some fundamental disconnect on the structure of the Bible. For one, "the biblical scriptures," are simply the scriptures of the Bible. The biblical scriptures are canonical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon). Even of they were multiple independent entities they would all still permit divorce in the cases I listed because different passages entail new laws of the Bible (old laws can become fulfilled and perfected by new doctrines). I fear you may be exhibiting a precarious level of misunderstanding as expressed within he content of your own voting parameters.
If you are not going to change or remove the vote I may as well be wasting time here, but I don't see how your decision makes sense frankly. If I claimed that the constitution allows for the restriction of free speech, it could be the case that there are areas in which it does not, but I simply need to show the areas in which it does. Interpretationally, if the Bible does allow divorce in cases, then it does permit divorce in such distinctions.
I don't think you understand the burdens here. Pro would have to show that the Bible permits divorce in many cases, right? All the resolution entails is that "the biblical scriptures justify/support/permit marital divorce. Secondly, I did not simply bring up bible quotes that stipulate my view, although manifested that way, these are provisions in which the bible allows divorce. The Bible doesn't really work in the way of 1 passage here, one passage there.
Apologies for the mention, however I am in quote the dire situation here and I have 45 minutes to avoid a no vote tie, if you have time can you cast the first ballot here?
This is the same debate as the last one, just duplicated for a shorter voting time we wanted. Since you voted on the previous one, perhaps you would generously consider voting on this one as well, given that time is running out and I need a vote for this debate.
It appears bones is a stronger debater than people like oromagi, barney, and ramshutu, however it is also apparent that he lacks an abundance of legitimate competition. I would also think that your rapping skills are enough to merit any strain of victories.
Of course I will vote on this, as I am the only person I trust to get the decision right. I can't let someone like Barney ruin this again, and doing such when I have preventative ability is but, immoral.
I didn't really expect you to actually remove troll votes (despite this seemingly being against the rules?), give and take, my expectations have been fulfilled sufficiently by your current actions.
The election could have been stolen, and it could have not been. If con is able to present reasonable uncertainty, I would argue that the resolution defaults to the Pakistani gentleman. I don't consider the instigator particularly potent in deliberation concerning specific empiricism.
I don't know if he did, be he isn't debating right? But the title is "THBT the majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of factors or variables outside of racism." Don't you think its rather obvious that this is referring to disparities that relate to policing: "the maintenance of law and order by a police force."
This is a relatively small debate, and I hope you can vote on this if you have time because I have just a week left and I don't think the current vote is reasonable.
I will finish my vote between today and tomorrow.
What a round.
I think Vici won this debate, however, my vote shall not change the unjust outcome, as the situation presents itself.
Of course you are correct. As I stated previously, "I don't consider the instigator particularly potent in deliberation concerning specific empiricism." Despite the forfeits, the instigator did not even deliver a valid argument that supports his position, and in my view, he conveyed it to a much weaker degree than perceived in the mainstream.
Brought up in previous comments, I think we can all agree on that Barney's vote is ridiculous as an unfortunate representation of the moderation of this platform, as well as our voting standards. There are a number of reasons this is the case. Foremostly, Bones may as well be arguing with concepts Barney does not know well, or understand. There also is the obvious position of bias to a certain side, and perhaps an interest in helping a certain person to win etc. On the former, many people find it difficult to separate these feelings, or even remove them form the consideration of a vote (particularly people with low control over their emotions). My only empathetic apology would be to Bones who was most affected by this. The lack of distinct counter expression is perhaps the best choice. It only encourages this behavior as I have found.
I.B Flaws
There are many issues with both cases. I will give these sections for each round tentatively as they are the main factor by which I may evaluate this debate.
I. Despite being convincing, pro's argument comes with limitations.
a. Pro does not define what abortion is, and he does not distinguish it, or its implications from events like a miscarriage. Unsurprisingly, this creates problems subsequently.
b. Neither does pro establish that abortion bans will reduce the number of abortions that take place. If his policy does not even reduce the amount of abortions that happen, it seems suspect.
c. Pro also does not lay a specific criterion in which abortion is permissible and abortion is not permissible. His final syllogism only leaves me with the implication that if there is a justified reason for abortion it could be allowed, yet pro does not inform me of what these just reasons could be.
II. Con's case made use of many convincing statistics and arguments, however, his case contains many pivotal issues like pro's, perhaps even more so.
a. Con's definition of structural violence was short and vague. Frankly, con does not outright express how this precludes any policy that exists. This places con's syllogism to suspect. It causes one to question makes premise one true. If a policy implements a lesser degree of structural violence than an issue it amends to solve, should this policy be enacted? His argument suggests no. Con's case is consequentialist, yet he does not cover the implications of his own argument which suggests to me that society ought not to be improved in the case where it could be morally, nor does he account for the social issues that said policies resolve to address.
b. Con's sources seem credible, but the contention of elimination of care does not show the scale of which these actions are prevalent. He cites figures from survivors of domestic abuse, however, he does not indicate the degree to which these people compose the paradigm of people.
c. His contention from self-managed abortions seemingly assumes that abortion is permissible in the first place and thus, it is hard to see how this would fall under his category of structural violence any more than people stealing when stealing is by the statuette, illegal.
d. His contention about "overburdening the medical system," does not support the argument suggested by the heading. There is no indication of figures that would suggest hospitals are in clear capacity jeopardy, and this just amounts to an argument that more children would be born, which is not presented as an intrinsically bad or good phenomenon, or as a form of structural violence.
e. His cut-off mark for abortion is 15 weeks, if this is the case why would this restriction not create or ential structural violence as previously cited? Would not all of his contentions apply to abortions at 16 weeks? If it is the case that it does would it not be a policy that "ought not be implemented." This to me, is unclear.
f. Con says that the beginning of personhood does not influence his case. This is peculiar. If it is true that killing an unborn child is morally the same as killing a born one, then why would the implication of adverse conditions impact this, especially when contending a threshold deontological position? The appeal to pro's case of uncertainty seems flawed. Pro argued that inconsequential differences ential the predicate of his framework. If pro is arguing from moral equalization (https://headbirths.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/moral-equalization/) and con does not attempt to reject this, pro's argument expresses that personhood as an ontology must necessarily apply to all humans, and the uncertainty of personhood in respect to pro is inconsequential.
I.
The burden of proof is effectively shared. Pro's argument is straightforward, he makes a case of inconsequential differences using 3/4 of Scott Klusendorf's four contentions (no one intelligent would argue that size confers personhood). He does well in analyzing the failure of arbitrary and poorly analyzed concepts of personhood. The principle of uncertainty did its job. 75% of the outcomes appear to be societally unacceptable, and if pro's previous conditions hold true, we know that there is no morally relevant difference between the unborn and the born. The case allows contention 3's syllogism to be both valid and sound and round one is compelling. Pro arguing that con has additional burdens does not fundamentally alter the provisions within the description. It could be the case that each debater must justify their respective side of the policy, however, con needs to provide the argument for personhood in order to refute pro's side.
Con's syllogism is not complex, and there is no need to restate it. First, the classification of structural violence is clear. Con establishes harm that comes from the elimination of care, and consequences of hesitation to proceed with certain procedures. Domestic abuse from reproductive-related periods as well as patient-provider relationships is somewhat evident, and the measures people will pursue to get abortions are also commonplace in this debate. Subsequent for con is the risk of mortality as well as the overburdening of the medical system. He also properly exploits Bone's lack of distinctly cited exceptions, while going on to cit his own limit at 15 weeks. Con's rebuttals are concise and very well written. He argues that pro coverts a moral case into a policy one, which he asserts is erroneous. He argues that personhood does not impact his case based on structural violence. He argues that pro's standard for personhood claims certainty, while he affirms uncertainty for it as an ontological category. Lastly, he shows that pro has not distinguished between justified and unjustified killing and re-notes his lack of exceptions.
That was the beginning of my vote, I will be continuing in the comments.
let's start here then. For one, the previous votes as typical provide me with no particular disposition. The unfortunate case presents itself that there is bias present in aspects of them, something that detracts from what I see as the imperative fairness of this debate. It is unfortunate.
A) Utilitarianism
In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism). This becomes a mildly contested point in deliberation. Con's framework that predicated upon the notion of structural violence is more obviously utilitarian to this me, Bones's primary line of argumentation in countenance to such is that the existence of structural violence consequently is not sufficient to make the killing of entity's who hold the same degree of moral value as well as the same rights to life. For one, the unborn do not experience happiness in the womb, and Bone's argument is not contingent on well being or human pleasure related senses.
Bone's case is one of threshold deontology in my interpretation (https://tinyurl.com/thresholddeontology). He posits that the consequences introduced by the contender are no sufficient to entertain the permissibility of systemically violating an intrinsically immoral principle. Utilitarianism in not intrinsically wrong and my tabula rasa inclinations would not allow me to theorize this. However, Pro does well in arguing for Utilitarianisms violation of human rights. Regardless, one framework is utilitarian above another. I doubt pro needed to concede soft utilitarianism, his argument does not even seem to entail this as it is concerned with rights violations rather than utility.
Well, no. I don't see how this even relates to our current larger predicament. We are debating the biblical scriptures, which allow divorce in many provisions (as demonstrated). Now I am currently looking towards your vote...I am not sure how it makes logical sense. The scriptures are a collection of canonical books and verses.
The "law" seems inconsequential here. What I am trying to get us to understand is that you said "pro's job is to show that the entirety of the Bible scriptures agree or permit divorce." If the Bible is cannonical the provisions I cite would apply to all aspects of scriptural derivation, and even if your interpretation was true, there is no sound conclusion that yields your vote.
IrrationalSadman tried his best, okay.
I suspect you my have some fundamental disconnect on the structure of the Bible. For one, "the biblical scriptures," are simply the scriptures of the Bible. The biblical scriptures are canonical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon). Even of they were multiple independent entities they would all still permit divorce in the cases I listed because different passages entail new laws of the Bible (old laws can become fulfilled and perfected by new doctrines). I fear you may be exhibiting a precarious level of misunderstanding as expressed within he content of your own voting parameters.
If you are not going to change or remove the vote I may as well be wasting time here, but I don't see how your decision makes sense frankly. If I claimed that the constitution allows for the restriction of free speech, it could be the case that there are areas in which it does not, but I simply need to show the areas in which it does. Interpretationally, if the Bible does allow divorce in cases, then it does permit divorce in such distinctions.
I don't think you understand the burdens here. Pro would have to show that the Bible permits divorce in many cases, right? All the resolution entails is that "the biblical scriptures justify/support/permit marital divorce. Secondly, I did not simply bring up bible quotes that stipulate my view, although manifested that way, these are provisions in which the bible allows divorce. The Bible doesn't really work in the way of 1 passage here, one passage there.
Wow, 58 days
I need vote for this, please.
Oh for sure, and the majority opinion was that I won the debate. Unfortunately, the sole voter was some far leftist who came in last minute to rob me.
Potentially
Interesting decision
Apologies for the mention, however I am in quote the dire situation here and I have 45 minutes to avoid a no vote tie, if you have time can you cast the first ballot here?
Maybe you can help us out here? If you have time, that is.
Can anyone please cast a vote here?
What was this?
Thanks a lot
This is the same debate as the last one, just duplicated for a shorter voting time we wanted. Since you voted on the previous one, perhaps you would generously consider voting on this one as well, given that time is running out and I need a vote for this debate.
I really need a vote on this if anyone can. It is quite brief so I don't suspect much time will be required.
It appears bones is a stronger debater than people like oromagi, barney, and ramshutu, however it is also apparent that he lacks an abundance of legitimate competition. I would also think that your rapping skills are enough to merit any strain of victories.
He'll figure something out (presumably).
Ill accept if you make voting one week
To win this debate christianm only has to show that China has detained at least 2 Uyghur Muslims
Can we also have this debate?
Of course I will vote on this, as I am the only person I trust to get the decision right. I can't let someone like Barney ruin this again, and doing such when I have preventative ability is but, immoral.
Do it again, lol, I was briefly away
It's fine, Ill accept it quickly
Wait, can we do this debate again but make voting one week?
LOL
Looks like it will be a forfeit
Do you want to have the same debate later?
I didn't really expect you to actually remove troll votes (despite this seemingly being against the rules?), give and take, my expectations have been fulfilled sufficiently by your current actions.
The election could have been stolen, and it could have not been. If con is able to present reasonable uncertainty, I would argue that the resolution defaults to the Pakistani gentleman. I don't consider the instigator particularly potent in deliberation concerning specific empiricism.
Ill vote for this, but I am leaning towards tie currently.
I am going to be voting on so many debates between today and tomorrow
Thanks a lot, I was afraid I would get a no vote tie. Also, I will get to your debates as there are many debates I will be voting on today
Much apologies for the sudden mention, however I need a last min vote on this hoping it does not turn into a no vote tie
I don't know if he did, be he isn't debating right? But the title is "THBT the majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of factors or variables outside of racism." Don't you think its rather obvious that this is referring to disparities that relate to policing: "the maintenance of law and order by a police force."
Tough one. Both did well
He hasn't casted votes because he has not met the requirements
"Why no citations to Thomas Sowell?"
The way I think this debate will go, I may have some citations for him in my round 2 rebuttal.
"Why no citations to Thomas Sowell?"
The way I think this debate will go, I may have some citations for him in my round 2 rebuttal.