Public-Choice

I understand. I disagree, but understand 🤣

Thanks for explaining. I understand where you are coming from now.

I don't agree, but at least I understand. I think I established good standing, based on Thomas Paine, divine right of kings, the Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution, and other longstanding legal theory, on how rights were violated, which weren't mentioned at all in your RFD, but hey, that's the fun of these. People take away what they think was the better argument.

At the end of the day we were discussing a legal, not moral issue. Should the GOVERNMENT do something. But I guess I wasn't super clear. The answer was they could not so they should not.

At any rate, I'll admit this isn't my best debate. I didn't notice the time constraints and was super busy (I just started a substack right after I accepted doing the debate). That is my fault.

Savant, I would love another debate sometime with longer time constraints on another topic if you're up for it. It was fun!

The description says:

"BoP is shared equally. Pro argues that a system in which the government grants entry to more immigrants is preferable to the status quo. Con defends the status quo as preferable to Pro’s proposal."

I fail to see why I have to respond to PRO in order to win the debate. I just have to establish why the status quo is better. I was not graded on this criteria at all and only graded on how I responded to someone else.

I don't think it is fair for me to have to justify PRO's is as an ought when he doesn't justify it himself. I feel like I was given unnecessary burdens that PRO did not have in your assessment. Byrden of proof for PRO's position is on him. I do nit have to accept his arguments if he did not establish them himself.

Just like with Oromagi, it feels as if you ultimately just said "one guy's argument matters and the other one does not, even though it adequately responded to the qualms."

But thank you for your vote.

Why didn't my sources fit while PRO's did?

They were medical doctors, delivery room medical staff, and gynecologists. All involved in pregnancy and human life. All trained in medicine and human biology.

Also, why does personhood matter? The debate is on whether abortion is murder, not on whether a fetus is a person. I feel you defaulted to PRO even though PRO did not really defend his positon all that well.

(btw, I am actually against abortion and do believe if is murder)

Well... how many of them actually have "America" in the title?

Welp... I learned something new today. We can make it immigrate AND emigrate so it is fair to both of us.

I didn't know immigrate was a word 🤣

May seem grammar nazi-esque. But the truth is I don't want to write "emigrate"and then lose the debate on a silly technicality 🤣

Immigrate means “come to live permanently in a foreign country.”

I am pretty sure the word is emigrate, not immigrate.

Sure. Just one thing. Change immigrate to emigrate and I'll accept.

So we are arguing purely over the amount of immigrants?

I would be arguing we should not raise the current quota and you would be arguing we should?

Or I am arguing we should lower the quota and you are arguing we should raise it?

You said: "yet are shying away and wanting to hide any discussion when it comes to the religion sub forum"

Well, let's put on our thinking caps here...

If I comment regularly on religion in the forums, then how can a person assume I am shying away?

Have you ever considered that I didn't want to deal with sophomoric and pseudo-intellectual arguments about God being "evil" for killing people who were, in fact, evil and unjust themselves?

Or run into the same atheistic unintellectual brain slop of "because evil exists there is no God" or "God is unfair because he doesn't align with my arbitrary, illogical views of right and wrong"?

I don't want to be dog teamed with stupidity and waste my time for no reason. So I don't post in the religious forums. But I obviously am VERY VOCAL about my beliefs in the forums.

How do you define the Status Quo, because immigration execution changes regularly. They always increase or decrease the amount, change which types of immigrants, they allow and from which countries, etc.

Basically I am arguing that your point is moot because they regularly change the amounts of immigrants anyways.

Thanks for your vote!

I am not trying to hide from anything. The times I tried to make forum posts to talk to one person people just started debating the topic amongst each other. It basically defeated the purpose.

I have had no problems with the PM system personally. The above reasons are why I suggested it.

I don't want to shy away over anything. I just want to discuss things with one person if they want a full discussion, not 10 or even 100 people, which is what the IM system is for.

If you are actually open to having am honest discussion, then I am more than happy to talk to you via the messaging system on here.

The forums are not really a great place for dialogue, more for juat saying your side and not taking into account other perspectives.

Why do I need to create forum posts on topics YOU want to talk about? Where is the logic in that?

You said: "Well you are more that welcome to add your two pennies worth to that thread created over a week ago now..."

Well, I would if you were actually interested in an open dialogue. But you aren't, so I'd rather not exercise in futility. I could be Galileo to your flat earther world, but seeing as I don't have to be, I don't WANT to be.

I don't know who hurt you, but taking it out on random internet users doesn't really solve it all that well now does it?

Now, if you are open to an actual DEBATE on these topics then I am totally up for it... after I finish the two I am currently in and another one that I agreed to already via site messaging.

"Imo, you don't have the metal tools nor do you have enough knowledge of the bible to argue a single point when it comes to scripture."

I didn't say I personally agreed with all 3. You leveled a claim against "Christians" saying "we" never thought through the issue. I was simply saying you are wrong, and we have, and those are the 3 most popular responses.

"you haven't read the bible for yourself but instead have totally relied on and listened to the words of the Pastors and Priests"

It's funny you should say that, because I read my bible quite regularly, and I let IT, not the words of some authority figure, speak for itself. You could learn to do the same, since your faulty, mostly-unreferenced thread on original sin speaks volumes of your complete lack of Bible knowledge.

I meant religiously not ethnically. Though that is a bit of a useless distinction anyways.

There are 3 ways Christianity has thought through that issue:

1. Original sin. These people argue that all humankind is automatically guilty due to Adam. An early church council actually affirmed this.

2. God's foreknowledge and omnicience already knew what those babies were going to do, so he still made a just decision.

3. God's ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our thoughts, and we are not privy to all the information anyways.

I think all of them provide a robust response when extrapolated further.

Aren't you Jewish?

Just a friendly reminder that you have about one day to make your argument.

Once again you don't provide simple answers because you cannot square the circle. Keep in your error for all I care.

As usual. The fake televangelist using Christianity as a cover for their hatred couldn't answer a simple Bible question.

The answer, Mr. Thomas, is that it is impossible. Murder is always wrong. Abortion is murder. Therefore Abortion is always wrong.

You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

You shall not murder.

Abortions violate both of these.

So, now kindly piss off and spend more time in that Bible and less time spreading your disinformation.

Also, I didn't bring whiteflame into this. Lemming did.

"What part of my post #24 didn't you understand?"

Basically how none of it had to do with my question to you, honestly.

So I'll ask again. If murder is a violation of the 10 Commandments, then why are you advocating for murdering babies?

You still haven't explained to me how abortion is ok when murder is wrong. Sounds to me that you are biblically illiterate, and running away from the truth, and not me.

So, I'll take that as a "yes."

So, I'd now like to ask you how you support abortion as a Christian when it is murder?

We, as in you and I, are not allowed to murder. So abortion is wrong.

Are you saying I broke conduct? Or that Mr.BrotherD is harassing me?

I'll take that as a no, then.

Be consistent, man. You say we should follow the 10 commandments and then can't even say we shouldn't murder?

In which case, you still haven't disproven my position that abortion is wrong because it is murder.

Simple answer man. Yes or no.

Do you think we should ignore the commandment telling us not to murder?

Let the record show that Mr.BrotherD.Thomas, when asked, could not answer "no" to when he was asked if he was telling me to ignore the 10 Commandments.

idk what Christianity he claims to practice, but it obviously isn't authentic.

Are you saying we should ignore the 10 Commandments?

Thou shalt not murder - 10 Commandments.

God doesn't murder. Therefore neither do I.

Just a reminder that your argument is due in 3 days.

This assumes Russia and North Korea would not want to get involved.

Additionally, China has nukes, too.

However, I don't live in China so I have no idea how military capable the CCP truly is.

For next time... make sure you use the description for things like definitions, who will be arguing what, and how the debate is structured.

Without that stuff people will just do whatever they want without warning and leave it up to the voters to decide.

No worries, man. I wasn't even bothered that you hadn't posted anything.

I just want to clarify that my first round post is not a rebuttal but an establishment of my own position, right?

I figured I was arguing in favor of banning.

And now I know it is from the library proper. Thanks.

I am awaiting your opening argument.

And I will be arguing against banning?

I'm back I suppose 😂

Eh. screw it. I'll accept.

I think you are talking about at the library itself for all kids, not just kid-specific bans. But I can argue either case.

Are you wanting to debate a public ban or a private ban? e.g. Are we debating that parents should be able to ban books from the library proper, or just from their children?

Which society?

Riveting debate.

I think these should be videos instead of responses.

I'll try to vote on this one if I have enough downtime.

If I'm setting it up, I can write a draft description and make a forum post for it where we can hash out the rest and make changes to it, etc.

I'd like to add Whiteflame to the list of judges if he wants to participate.

If you're really fine with giving up a predetermined set of definitions then I'm fine with that, it's your choice.

So the final prompt (I'm assuming you're setting everything up) is " On Balance, Classifying Transgender Women As Women Makes Sense", right?

And did we want to eliminate ignoratio elenchis and do the forfeit one round equals auto-loss? Or did we want no added rules?

The 1 month is kind of a dealbreaker, but I can do 10k characters for 2 weeks response time if that works.

We need the ability to respond with emotions to debate comments. I wanted to "lol" your comment but realized I couldn't.

I apologize for misgendering you. I don't check profiles that often.

If we're doing 25k characters, I'll need a month to respond haha. I work full-time and my weekends are always busy.

Also, I'd like to propose rewording it to: "On Balance, Trans Women Should Be classified As Women" I'd obviously be CON.

Saying things like "more sense" are extremely subjective. Classified is subjective, too. But at least this way we can use objective metrics and such to state our cases.

If you'd like to be CON, then we can reword it by simply adding "not" between "should" and "be."

I usually like to put "IID:" for "it is decided" before debates if I make them.

Some other ground rules, if you're ok with them.

We'll use a medical dictionary and common dictionary that we both agree upon for definitions. That way we don't get into a "war of dictionary definitions."

I'd also like to ban ignoratio elenchis from usage and one forfeit equals an auto-loss.

Do you agree?