Because it isn't. It's a martial art. They first teach you punches, kicks, and blocks before you learn the judo stuff:
https://youtu.be/zcPlJLn-Mp8
https://youtu.be/ANbPXqAEUTU
https://youtu.be/glDbjKIDLNo
The first thing you learn is striking techniques in a gym not focused on winning tournaments.
As per the voting policy:
"Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."
You literally forfeited 75% of the debate. So I don't have to consider arguments if I don't want to. This is why I put "technical" in front of full forfeiture. It wasn't a complete full forfeiture, but it technically could be considered one.
But on a different train entirely. BJJ isn't a grappling martial art. Idk why some people think that. So most of PRO's round 1 arguments are nonsense. In REAL BJJ they teach you blocks, sweeps, kicks, and punches. Because, you know, it was created for self defense.
Additionally, REAL TKD isn't a kicking martial art. Yes, there's kicking in it, but even my short time in TKD I learned multiple types of punches, blocks, and kicks. And at the black belt level they teach throws, submission techniques, finger locks, and you begin to learn grappling (which is similar to wrestling). It isn't just a "wow, pretty kicks" sport. In competitions it is, but that is because of bullshit rules. Traditionally it wasn't like that at all in competitions.
So this debate is debating straw men of fighting styles.
The only martial arts I know of that aren't a compendium of different techniques are greco-roman wrestling and sumo wrestling. But that is obviously because they were invented for entertainment purposes and strikes were always banned.
"Your girlfriend arranged to cheat on you in front of you abusively with some guys who either hate you or bully you and I don't mean consensually. You are taken by surprise and yes I get it '1v1' but you are originally just 1v1 and this is the entire problem..."
Though I do not think the benefits of chemotherapy outweigh the harms, considering there are two other proven cancer treatments that have been shown to work. But they were abandoned because they are insanely cheap and therefore not a moneymaker like chemotherapy, which literally poisons people.
The problem with that is that it opens the door to relativistic debates. What I consider a harm could be a benefit to you and vice versa. So nothing would really be accomplished.
If something speeds up the transmission of it, it does not slow it down. My argument is that it did not slow the spread because it sped up the spread. That isn't an ignoratio elenchi. It is completely on-topic. An ignoratio elenchi would be if I argued it sped up the spread in lab rats. Since we are talking about human beings, that would be off topic. But it necessarily follows that the spread was not slowed if it was sped up. You need one to have the other. Therefore not off topic.
I could say a few things. But it comes down to DEFINING the form of Libertarianism that is being debated. Technically speaking, anarcho-socialists are libertarians as much as anarcho-capitalists are. Classical Liberals are libertarians just as much as Night Watch Libertarians are. So are Voluntaryists. They are all very different.
I'll say one thing, it sure was nice to have almost all COVID research in almost every journal available for free. That made it great to learn a lot about COVID-19 and immune responses specific to COVID-19 and the vaccine efficacy in general. Normally that stuff is paywalled behind $500/month subscription rates lol
awesome. When this one is over we can establish terms in a forum post and re-debate this. Are you taking the CON or PRO stance? e.g. will you be arguing that COVID vaccines did not slow the spread or that they did? I figure you will be arguing that they did slow the spread, right?
Well my do jeng only had basic rules, not the super complicated ones. And it also had rules that mimicked real life and trained us to practice sparring in everyday circumstances. If your do jeng does that, then TKD is definitely not a waste of time.
Tautological: in logic (= a formal scientific method of examining ideas), relating to a statement that is always true. (Cambridge dictionary)
For this to work, Oro's argument must be PROVEN and not merely stated. A tautological statement is a conclusion, not a premise.
Moreover, his statement "the largest Christian church" faces multiple tautological issues such as:
1. A catholic church that denounces Christianity.
2. An atheist church that calls itself Catholic.
3. An Islamic church that calls itself Catholic.
Moreover, to prove Catholic = Christian, Oro would be required to define Christian and show how the Catholic Church fits that definition.
A tautological expression is not exempt from proof. You're thinking of a self evident statement, which is entirely different.
It is useless if your do jeng (jang?) doesn't offer sparring practice or classes. That is where people REALLY learn to apply what they've learned. Watching two black belts spar is a beautiful art. Especially when the Tae Kwon Do instructors create scenarios that are like real life to practice with.
I can't believe Oro won this one. By his definitions islam is Christian. His definitions don't mean anything. They don't provide any qualifiers. They were meaningless.
I know a very intelligent political scholar who has been published in political journals and been taught at some of the best universities for political theory.
Until 6 years ago or so, his argument was "well this scholar says something so I believe it is true." No joke. This highly educated, intelligent thinker whom I've debated on issues always went back to some authority he trusted above the actual words straight from the mouths of the original people we were talking about.
He one day admitted his fallacy, but he still commits to it, just significantly less so.
The sad part is, his story is the norm, not the exception. Most people I debate will always, ALWAYS stick with an authority, even when I literally pull out the exact quotes from primary sources, or I show them photographs or videos of events, that are totally contradictory to their authority figures, they call me crazy or a conspiracy theorist. They prefer to believe the lie from the authority rather than the actual annals of the events. Age doesn't matter.
Being an adult does not inherently make one a better voter. Being a more logical thinker does.
The problem with RM's argument is that the gross majority of teenage beliefs are formed by parents or schoolteachers and carry far into adulthood for the gross majority of the American population.
Most people believe something because they heard a teacher or an authority say it, and many times they trust that authority figure because, from birth, they were conditioned (or, more likely, brainwashed) into trusting that person despite any real action that authority figure took to prove they deserve that trust.
Teenagers are simply adults who haven't been fully brainwashed yet. And, no, I am not saying this is how people are naturally wired. Nor am I saying this is how people are meant to be. I am simply postulating what is. Most people are quite happy to be brainwashed and do not want to think for themselves. They want someone else to do the thinking for them. Case-in-point, Statichead's story of how she basically told her mother how to vote. Her mother was an adult who took very little interest in doing her own research in the realm of politics and instead relied on someone else to explain it all to her.
Being an adult doesn't magically make someone a better voter. A 12-year-old can vote better than a 50-year-old. It depends on the decision process, not the age.
Do you support telling people with gender dysphoria that gender-affirming therapy is a safe and legitimate therapy method? Or do you support telling them that it is dangerous, experimental, and not effective?
Because, until now, it sounds like you are for the former and not the latter. If I am wrong about your stance then so be it.
Your solution is to promote dangerous and experimental medial treatments and call it "gender affirming therapy." That seems to be your solution.
I am perfectly fine with a consenting adult doing something. But to pretend that slapping on a pair of tits, wearing a dress, and taking estrogen and cutting off your dick is some sort of medical care is dangerous, enabling, and not promoting healthy behavior.
If, after someone hears all of the dangers and risks that could come from gender affirming therapy, and listens to how psychotherapy could be beneficial and is safe, effective, and prevents suicide and alleviates depression, and they still choose the dangerous, unsafe, and experimental option, then that is their choice.
But I'm not for lying to people just to get them to take a treatment. Gender affirming therapy is not safe. It isn't effective. And it is highly experimental. This is the truth.
Moreover, some common side effect of Spironolactone is vaginal bleeding, and painful breasts.
And medline lists these serious side effects as well:
muscle weakness, pain, or cramps
pain, burning, numbness, or tingling in the hands or feet
inability to move arms or legs
changes in heartbeat
confusion
nausea
extreme tiredness
dry mouth, thirst, dizziness, unsteadiness, headache, or other signs of dehydration
unusual bleeding or bruising
lack of energy
loss of appetite
pain in the upper right part of the stomach
yellowing of the skin or eyes
flu-like symptoms
rash
hives
itching
difficulty breathing or swallowing
vomiting blood
blood in stools
decreased urination
fainting
Is the price for gender affirmation worth vaginal bleeding, inability to move arms and legs, and vomiting blood? Maybe psychoanalysis for gender dysphoria, which is significantly less dangerous, is the safer option.
Drugs.com contains info from:
"Data sources include IBM Watson Micromedex (updated 1 Nov 2022), Cerner Multum™ (updated 23 Nov 2022), ASHP (updated 11 Nov 2022) and others."
Moreover it is recommended as a good drug reference by the FDA:
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/frequently-asked-questions-popular-topics/how-can-i-stay-better-informed-about-drugs-there-reliable-website-fda-recommends
"steps to affirm their gender."
This used to be called gender dysphoria for a reason. There are a plethora of natural chemical, biological, and hormonal processes that are designed to work in-tandem with a person's natural sex. But deep psychological trauma or other psychological issues can disrupt your body's natural processes and provide unnecessary stressors yo your body, which can result in seeking dangerous, experimental treatments such as medications known to cause cancer, strokes, blood clots, and more, or a surgery known for resulting in unusually high rates of infection, blood transfusions, and other serious issues.
I wanted to say it in the final round, but I didn't have enough characters remaining. Thank you for the debate, and welcome to the site. I hope you grow to like it as much as I have.
Additionally, the University of California San Francisco medical center isn't even ranked top 10 in the nation and isn't even in the top 3 in California:
https://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/ca/ucsf-medical-center-6930043
Because it isn't. It's a martial art. They first teach you punches, kicks, and blocks before you learn the judo stuff:
https://youtu.be/zcPlJLn-Mp8
https://youtu.be/ANbPXqAEUTU
https://youtu.be/glDbjKIDLNo
The first thing you learn is striking techniques in a gym not focused on winning tournaments.
As per the voting policy:
"Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."
You literally forfeited 75% of the debate. So I don't have to consider arguments if I don't want to. This is why I put "technical" in front of full forfeiture. It wasn't a complete full forfeiture, but it technically could be considered one.
But on a different train entirely. BJJ isn't a grappling martial art. Idk why some people think that. So most of PRO's round 1 arguments are nonsense. In REAL BJJ they teach you blocks, sweeps, kicks, and punches. Because, you know, it was created for self defense.
Additionally, REAL TKD isn't a kicking martial art. Yes, there's kicking in it, but even my short time in TKD I learned multiple types of punches, blocks, and kicks. And at the black belt level they teach throws, submission techniques, finger locks, and you begin to learn grappling (which is similar to wrestling). It isn't just a "wow, pretty kicks" sport. In competitions it is, but that is because of bullshit rules. Traditionally it wasn't like that at all in competitions.
So this debate is debating straw men of fighting styles.
The only martial arts I know of that aren't a compendium of different techniques are greco-roman wrestling and sumo wrestling. But that is obviously because they were invented for entertainment purposes and strikes were always banned.
"Your girlfriend arranged to cheat on you in front of you abusively with some guys who either hate you or bully you and I don't mean consensually. You are taken by surprise and yes I get it '1v1' but you are originally just 1v1 and this is the entire problem..."
This sounds oddly personal...
Thanks all!
Full forfeiture. Can one of you vote?
You're Welcome
I read the description and got a visual of a weatherperson saying "today in Los Angeles, Fetuses are falling from the skies."
I didn't mean to dig up drama. I wasn't on the website two years ago lol
Considering "relating to" was never defined, it could have been won that way.
I think this guy could destroy Novice...
Make sure you remind me in a month. I may forget. I have a lot of stuff going on right now lol
Well I'd want them to be clearly defined. But this will likely be in another month. I have one with Whiteflame scheduled next.
Though I do not think the benefits of chemotherapy outweigh the harms, considering there are two other proven cancer treatments that have been shown to work. But they were abandoned because they are insanely cheap and therefore not a moneymaker like chemotherapy, which literally poisons people.
The problem with that is that it opens the door to relativistic debates. What I consider a harm could be a benefit to you and vice versa. So nothing would really be accomplished.
dang... This might put RM into the no. 2 spot.
The debate prompt is not "what does Geon arbitrarily feel is honest debating."
Intelligence and I are debating whether the vaccine was effective. This requires proof, since we both share the burden of proof.
Yeah we could do that. Do you want the terms to be the same as for this debate?
Yeah sure. I already have another debate Scheduled with Whiteflame, but after that I could.
If something speeds up the transmission of it, it does not slow it down. My argument is that it did not slow the spread because it sped up the spread. That isn't an ignoratio elenchi. It is completely on-topic. An ignoratio elenchi would be if I argued it sped up the spread in lab rats. Since we are talking about human beings, that would be off topic. But it necessarily follows that the spread was not slowed if it was sped up. You need one to have the other. Therefore not off topic.
I could say a few things. But it comes down to DEFINING the form of Libertarianism that is being debated. Technically speaking, anarcho-socialists are libertarians as much as anarcho-capitalists are. Classical Liberals are libertarians just as much as Night Watch Libertarians are. So are Voluntaryists. They are all very different.
Can you remove my vote so that I can get the wording right in my analysis?
Oh shiznit... Good catch.
I'll say one thing, it sure was nice to have almost all COVID research in almost every journal available for free. That made it great to learn a lot about COVID-19 and immune responses specific to COVID-19 and the vaccine efficacy in general. Normally that stuff is paywalled behind $500/month subscription rates lol
I can't wait. It'll be interesting to debate a microbiologist on this subject.
awesome. When this one is over we can establish terms in a forum post and re-debate this. Are you taking the CON or PRO stance? e.g. will you be arguing that COVID vaccines did not slow the spread or that they did? I figure you will be arguing that they did slow the spread, right?
I can re-debate this one with you if you'd like. We can discuss terms in the forum.
What is dishonest about citing research?
Well my do jeng only had basic rules, not the super complicated ones. And it also had rules that mimicked real life and trained us to practice sparring in everyday circumstances. If your do jeng does that, then TKD is definitely not a waste of time.
Ooohhhhh. Strong competition here. What a ride!
FWIW, IID is abbreviated for "It Is Decided." I guess I need to make that clear in future debates.
Ah. I see I managed to be matched with one of the best on this website. This will be fun.
Tautological: in logic (= a formal scientific method of examining ideas), relating to a statement that is always true. (Cambridge dictionary)
For this to work, Oro's argument must be PROVEN and not merely stated. A tautological statement is a conclusion, not a premise.
Moreover, his statement "the largest Christian church" faces multiple tautological issues such as:
1. A catholic church that denounces Christianity.
2. An atheist church that calls itself Catholic.
3. An Islamic church that calls itself Catholic.
Moreover, to prove Catholic = Christian, Oro would be required to define Christian and show how the Catholic Church fits that definition.
A tautological expression is not exempt from proof. You're thinking of a self evident statement, which is entirely different.
It is useless if your do jeng (jang?) doesn't offer sparring practice or classes. That is where people REALLY learn to apply what they've learned. Watching two black belts spar is a beautiful art. Especially when the Tae Kwon Do instructors create scenarios that are like real life to practice with.
I can't believe Oro won this one. By his definitions islam is Christian. His definitions don't mean anything. They don't provide any qualifiers. They were meaningless.
To unpack what I said a little.
I know a very intelligent political scholar who has been published in political journals and been taught at some of the best universities for political theory.
Until 6 years ago or so, his argument was "well this scholar says something so I believe it is true." No joke. This highly educated, intelligent thinker whom I've debated on issues always went back to some authority he trusted above the actual words straight from the mouths of the original people we were talking about.
He one day admitted his fallacy, but he still commits to it, just significantly less so.
The sad part is, his story is the norm, not the exception. Most people I debate will always, ALWAYS stick with an authority, even when I literally pull out the exact quotes from primary sources, or I show them photographs or videos of events, that are totally contradictory to their authority figures, they call me crazy or a conspiracy theorist. They prefer to believe the lie from the authority rather than the actual annals of the events. Age doesn't matter.
Being an adult does not inherently make one a better voter. Being a more logical thinker does.
The problem with RM's argument is that the gross majority of teenage beliefs are formed by parents or schoolteachers and carry far into adulthood for the gross majority of the American population.
Most people believe something because they heard a teacher or an authority say it, and many times they trust that authority figure because, from birth, they were conditioned (or, more likely, brainwashed) into trusting that person despite any real action that authority figure took to prove they deserve that trust.
Teenagers are simply adults who haven't been fully brainwashed yet. And, no, I am not saying this is how people are naturally wired. Nor am I saying this is how people are meant to be. I am simply postulating what is. Most people are quite happy to be brainwashed and do not want to think for themselves. They want someone else to do the thinking for them. Case-in-point, Statichead's story of how she basically told her mother how to vote. Her mother was an adult who took very little interest in doing her own research in the realm of politics and instead relied on someone else to explain it all to her.
Being an adult doesn't magically make someone a better voter. A 12-year-old can vote better than a 50-year-old. It depends on the decision process, not the age.
I think we both agree then.
Do you support telling people with gender dysphoria that gender-affirming therapy is a safe and legitimate therapy method? Or do you support telling them that it is dangerous, experimental, and not effective?
Because, until now, it sounds like you are for the former and not the latter. If I am wrong about your stance then so be it.
Couldn't agree with you more!
Your solution is to promote dangerous and experimental medial treatments and call it "gender affirming therapy." That seems to be your solution.
I am perfectly fine with a consenting adult doing something. But to pretend that slapping on a pair of tits, wearing a dress, and taking estrogen and cutting off your dick is some sort of medical care is dangerous, enabling, and not promoting healthy behavior.
If, after someone hears all of the dangers and risks that could come from gender affirming therapy, and listens to how psychotherapy could be beneficial and is safe, effective, and prevents suicide and alleviates depression, and they still choose the dangerous, unsafe, and experimental option, then that is their choice.
But I'm not for lying to people just to get them to take a treatment. Gender affirming therapy is not safe. It isn't effective. And it is highly experimental. This is the truth.
So your solution is to push people toward dangerous, experimental therapy solutions when a perfectly safe and tested solution is already available?
Moreover, some common side effect of Spironolactone is vaginal bleeding, and painful breasts.
And medline lists these serious side effects as well:
muscle weakness, pain, or cramps
pain, burning, numbness, or tingling in the hands or feet
inability to move arms or legs
changes in heartbeat
confusion
nausea
extreme tiredness
dry mouth, thirst, dizziness, unsteadiness, headache, or other signs of dehydration
unusual bleeding or bruising
lack of energy
loss of appetite
pain in the upper right part of the stomach
yellowing of the skin or eyes
flu-like symptoms
rash
hives
itching
difficulty breathing or swallowing
vomiting blood
blood in stools
decreased urination
fainting
Is the price for gender affirmation worth vaginal bleeding, inability to move arms and legs, and vomiting blood? Maybe psychoanalysis for gender dysphoria, which is significantly less dangerous, is the safer option.
"It's ranked higher than drugs.com"
Drugs.com contains info from:
"Data sources include IBM Watson Micromedex (updated 1 Nov 2022), Cerner Multum™ (updated 23 Nov 2022), ASHP (updated 11 Nov 2022) and others."
Moreover it is recommended as a good drug reference by the FDA:
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/frequently-asked-questions-popular-topics/how-can-i-stay-better-informed-about-drugs-there-reliable-website-fda-recommends
"steps to affirm their gender."
This used to be called gender dysphoria for a reason. There are a plethora of natural chemical, biological, and hormonal processes that are designed to work in-tandem with a person's natural sex. But deep psychological trauma or other psychological issues can disrupt your body's natural processes and provide unnecessary stressors yo your body, which can result in seeking dangerous, experimental treatments such as medications known to cause cancer, strokes, blood clots, and more, or a surgery known for resulting in unusually high rates of infection, blood transfusions, and other serious issues.
So are you agreeing that there are only two genders then?
I'd actually like to debate a similar topic with you on this.
There are only two real human genders: male and female. The rest are not genders but expressions of gender dysphoria.
Thanks for voting!
Votes appreciated.
I wanted to say it in the final round, but I didn't have enough characters remaining. Thank you for the debate, and welcome to the site. I hope you grow to like it as much as I have.
Additionally, the University of California San Francisco medical center isn't even ranked top 10 in the nation and isn't even in the top 3 in California:
https://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/ca/ucsf-medical-center-6930043