You did good work here, imho. I'd like to challenge you to this debate, if you're willing. I'd take the stance that trans women are not real women, because I believe they aren't. You game?
Not to editorialize the debate, but I think the least racist time in American history was the 2000s-2012.
All the "blackness" and "whitness" stuff didn't exist. Nobody told people their color mattered. Inter-ethnic relationships were at all-time highs.
But then again, Americans really shat on Mexicans and Muslims a lot then. So who knows lol. I just know that America is becoming the 1960s again, but now it is white people who aren't represented and black people who get all the jobs. Not good stuff.
That's your presupposition. Which I agree with. However, many would argue that a human doesn't start as a human. And they look at the same developmental process. They argue a human isn't a human until birth when it is fully developed. This is bullshit, but it has been argued. And it can he argued using this definition. I did this on purpose.
You are importing your presuppositions onto the statement. The statement says "developmental plan of its kind." Which means it follows the developmental plan. It doesn't state "human development." Which is altogether a different meaning.
It is up to the debater to prove this developmental plan is ALWAYS human life, and does not TURN INTO human life later, like with a tadpole turning into a frog
I set it up such that it is up to the most convincing argument to prove whether a fetus is a human. That is part of this debate. I win if I can convince the voters that a baby is a human being who is alive. Intelligence wins if he can prove the opposite.
Once again this makes the assumption that the person I'm debating already agrees to either one of two things:
1. It is a human being in the womb and alive.
2. That it is impossibly difficult to debunk the above claim.
While Barney is a fantastic debater, I have found that the debates I've tended to win, both IRL and on DebateArt, are the ones where I let the sources say my points for me.
It just goes to show there's more than one way to skin a cat.
I mean, I probably would have figured it out. I'm not one of those word nazis who will automatically deduct points because you switched pro with con. You're good.
The premeditated and willful removal of a fetus by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage, birth, or delivery procedure. The Plan B pill does not count as a spontaneous miscarriage.
Well, since you were talking about how there would be a mass slaughtering of all meat in every meat farm, the least you could have done, before stating it like a fact ant not a hypothetical, was found a single CEO of a meat company, or an expert on the meat industry, or even, at minimum, a news article, that mentions it. Considering the seriousness of the claim.
Hypotheticals are discussed all the time. Experts, news articles, and UN Meetings regularly discuss hypotheticals. Wouldn't have been that difficult to find... Unless you're the only person who thinks it would happen.
And, FWIW, if you have fewer reliable sources than someone else, you did not have "more reliable sources." And certainly did not have better reliable sources. How could that possibly be? If you cite 3 experts and the other person cites 2, it doesn't matter if one expert is better than another. They are all experts. Unless there is an obvious disparity (like one expert got the Nobel Prize and the other 2 from your opponent are graduates of Full Sail University), the person with more reliable sources has better sources by definition.
If you'd have had more source material to back up your side, it would have been a tie. But you didn't. A simple counting exercise reveals this.
I wasn't "sloppy." I was unimpressed by both parties for half of the debate, the only clear determiner here was more reliable sources, which went to PRO.
All you had to do was back up the mass slaughtering and some of your views earlier than you did, and you might have won it out. But PRO literally didn't get sources for half of your major arguments until at least round 3. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That holds true even if you're RationalMadman.
I'm saying black people don't inherently have a different prefrontal cortex than anyone else, and that testosterone has not been linked to crime in years.
The prefrontal cortex in every rece is the same size, because there's no "races."
You did good work here, imho. I'd like to challenge you to this debate, if you're willing. I'd take the stance that trans women are not real women, because I believe they aren't. You game?
Yeah I forgot to respond... Thanks for the extension
It's to give the other person an extended round to respond.
Yeah. Why not have conditions placed on rights. Sounds like a greeeeeeat plan...
Man I gotta check in more often... barney is actually debating a good debater.
Thanks guys!
If it was a full forfeiture I would have. I just don't know enough about boxing to be a good judge.
Full forfeiture. Please vote if able.
I mean... There's a reason I defined murder in the description... So that people can't just make up their own jacked up definitions.
If it is possible to commit fetal homicide when a pregnant woman is shot, then a fetus doesn't have to be born to be murdered:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841
But, being a police officer for as many years as you claim to have been, you should be perfectly cognizant of that fact.
Ah. I see.
I'm lost... When did I flatter anyone?
Not to editorialize the debate, but I think the least racist time in American history was the 2000s-2012.
All the "blackness" and "whitness" stuff didn't exist. Nobody told people their color mattered. Inter-ethnic relationships were at all-time highs.
But then again, Americans really shat on Mexicans and Muslims a lot then. So who knows lol. I just know that America is becoming the 1960s again, but now it is white people who aren't represented and black people who get all the jobs. Not good stuff.
"Yes, but the subject focuses on abortion, which logically indicates that the fetuses to which you refer are human fetuses."
Only if you presuppose a fetus is a human being.
No. A tadpole is a tadpole.
That's your presupposition. Which I agree with. However, many would argue that a human doesn't start as a human. And they look at the same developmental process. They argue a human isn't a human until birth when it is fully developed. This is bullshit, but it has been argued. And it can he argued using this definition. I did this on purpose.
You are importing your presuppositions onto the statement. The statement says "developmental plan of its kind." Which means it follows the developmental plan. It doesn't state "human development." Which is altogether a different meaning.
It is up to the debater to prove this developmental plan is ALWAYS human life, and does not TURN INTO human life later, like with a tadpole turning into a frog
Do frogs have a developmental plan of its kind?
But we certainly don't call a tadpole a frog.
Eh. Why not lol
Did I define fetus or not?
I set it up such that it is up to the most convincing argument to prove whether a fetus is a human. That is part of this debate. I win if I can convince the voters that a baby is a human being who is alive. Intelligence wins if he can prove the opposite.
I'm strictly speaking to the definitions I've written here. Nothing in them states the fetus is alive or even a human.
"the fetus's being human is tautologically true"
Only on a presupposition. You are making a presupposition.
Just to be clear here. In this one you are arguing that abortion IS murder.
Great to debate you again. Thanks for accepting.
Intelligence is right. There are multiple routes as CON.
Once again this makes the assumption that the person I'm debating already agrees to either one of two things:
1. It is a human being in the womb and alive.
2. That it is impossibly difficult to debunk the above claim.
While Barney is a fantastic debater, I have found that the debates I've tended to win, both IRL and on DebateArt, are the ones where I let the sources say my points for me.
It just goes to show there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Oh. Okie dokie.
Idk why I couldn't comment on the other one, but you made me CON by accident I think.
I mean, I probably would have figured it out. I'm not one of those word nazis who will automatically deduct points because you switched pro with con. You're good.
Thanks.
But if it isn't possible to lower the rating, then I'll make a new debate when I can. I'm at work lol.
Someone else lowered the rating limit once.
U am on my phone and don't see the option to lower the rating so Sir.Lancelot can accept. Can you lower the rating for me?
The premeditated and willful removal of a fetus by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage, birth, or delivery procedure. The Plan B pill does not count as a spontaneous miscarriage.
*argue whether.
If you accept this debate under those pretendes, then I will amend the description to read "except birth or delivery procedures"
Well, I'm not going to argue that a delivery or c-section isn't an abortion.
Ok.
So, I guess this instead?
The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy in all forms except spontaneous miscarriage and delivery.
Though, to be clear, any form of delivery and c-section doesn't count as termination of pregnancy.
Of course I wouldn't. That is a spontaneous miscarriage. That isn't murder because it isn't premeditated.
Will you settle for:
The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy in all forms except spontaneous miscarriage.
If you want this one I'll drop the rating to 1632.
Well, since you were talking about how there would be a mass slaughtering of all meat in every meat farm, the least you could have done, before stating it like a fact ant not a hypothetical, was found a single CEO of a meat company, or an expert on the meat industry, or even, at minimum, a news article, that mentions it. Considering the seriousness of the claim.
Hypotheticals are discussed all the time. Experts, news articles, and UN Meetings regularly discuss hypotheticals. Wouldn't have been that difficult to find... Unless you're the only person who thinks it would happen.
And, FWIW, if you have fewer reliable sources than someone else, you did not have "more reliable sources." And certainly did not have better reliable sources. How could that possibly be? If you cite 3 experts and the other person cites 2, it doesn't matter if one expert is better than another. They are all experts. Unless there is an obvious disparity (like one expert got the Nobel Prize and the other 2 from your opponent are graduates of Full Sail University), the person with more reliable sources has better sources by definition.
If you'd have had more source material to back up your side, it would have been a tie. But you didn't. A simple counting exercise reveals this.
I wasn't "sloppy." I was unimpressed by both parties for half of the debate, the only clear determiner here was more reliable sources, which went to PRO.
All you had to do was back up the mass slaughtering and some of your views earlier than you did, and you might have won it out. But PRO literally didn't get sources for half of your major arguments until at least round 3. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That holds true even if you're RationalMadman.
I'm saying black people don't inherently have a different prefrontal cortex than anyone else, and that testosterone has not been linked to crime in years.
The prefrontal cortex in every rece is the same size, because there's no "races."
https://www.mentalhealthjournal.org/articles/prefrontal-cortex-response-to-threat-race-by-age-variation-in-9-10-year-old-children.html
https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2020.8a16
Without defining better this debate could mean anything.
Natural diamonds are better than lab grown diamonds at being natural diamonds, for instance.
That could be a legitimate argument and I'd win the debate since we never defined better.
I sincerely hope you're joking.
Your hormones and brain structure don't make you a criminal. That stuff has been debunked since the 90s.
Thank you for considering me, but I know almost nothing about boxing history so I would not be a good judge.
Well, in Christianity (and traditional judaism) the trinity is one essence but three persons. So it is One God and three Distinct Persons.
Islam directly opposes this idea in the portions of the Quran I cited.
Right. So then by definition we do not worship the same God.
I don't, because, you know, biology. But some definitely do.