If that's the case then why does hormone therapy for trans people repeatedly show an increase in dangerous health symptoms:
"Existing epidemiological data suggest that the use of (certain) estrogens in trans women induces an increased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, the reason that lifestyle management can be an integral part of trans health care."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34982475/
I will literally accept a debate with you with me as con on this to show you how it is winnable. Same prompt and description. I will just be con instead of pro.
I did no such thing. Something is either dangerous or is not dangerous. Also, there is nothing in this debate saying a person cannot argue thresholds of dangerousness.
Because, technically speaking, breathing is dangerous in a city. But that is a really absurd take on breathing.
The problems with these sorts of arguments os that they do not take into consideration that a 6-year-old's mind is nowhere near developed enough yet to make many complicated decisions.
Democracy is a majority vote. Majority vote is oppression of minority peoples. Therefore Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Any method where a group of people votes on policy is an act of oppression over the other group that does not want the policies.
But have you considered the third option that you want to redefine reality based on your own personal opinions and not those of dictionaries?
It is up to CON to argue that democracy is not tyranny. In fact I can think of two ways to do so that would be very strong arguments. It isn't my fault that you think there aren't any strong arguments against it.
Merriam-Webster:
4a: to make the offer of : PROFFER
extending aid to the needy
extending their greetings
b: to make available
extending credit to customers
By saying "extend," I thought he was offering for PRO to make his first argument rather than accepting forfeiture of the debate.
P1: CON and PRO both agree to follow the rules.
P2: The rules state PRO will waive the last round.
P3: CON tells PRO to make an argument in the last round.
P4: CON accepted that PRO will not make an argument in the last round already as per the rules.
P5: CON already agreed that this would not happen.
C: Therefore CON is not adhering to the rules by asking PRO to make an argument in the last round.
Well, as I stated in my RFD:
"PRO was supposed to waive round 4, and CON also broke this rule by offering to extend PRO's opening argument into Round 4."
You broke the rule by asking him to break the rules. The rule was that he must waive round 4. You extended the argument to round four, effectively saying "I want you to break the rules in this round even though you forfeited." You also have to adhere to the rule just as much as he does. So egging him on to break the rules is also breaking the rules.
I was gonna give it to PRO initially because he at least made an argument and you didn't. But since he was required to waive round 4, it voided his argument in round 4. So conduct ultimately went to you since you gave him multiple chances to make his opening argument.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with Best.Korea for once. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump was the best president we ever had, he definitely was top 10 at least.
But he is completely right that Bush and Obama committed blatant war crimes and did blatantly unconstitutional actions while in office but both got a free pass. Obama wanted to conduct drone strikes on U.S. Citizens for goodness sake. In fact he did just that. He literally assassinated at least one U.S. Citizen. But he wasn't impeached. In fact he is considered a national fucking hero by half of the country. Think about that for a second. The media calls Trump a threat to democracy yet glorifies a man who assassinated an American citizen.
What is a bigger threat to democracy? Assassinating American citizens or questioning the results of an election yet still conceding anyways?
That should tell you the pulse of the left right now.
Understood, I'm pretty new here, hardly know what I'm doing.
I'm kinda new here too! Welcome to the site!!
"I don't think you can argue it should be decertified."
Yes but this is a moot point. It is obviously assumed it can be done if we are debating the possibility of it happening. It is also a red herring because that isn't the topic of the debate. By this measure we might as well argue anything we want. Topics become completely unnecessary entirely if we are allowed to debate other things than the topic itself. For instance, I could argue that we should impeach Congress over certifying a fraudulent election. While this is a debate topic, it has nothing to do with the actual topic in the debate.
"I just think it's been tested in court enough that you needed an extraordinary and compelling argument and didn't have one."
The federal rules of evidence are not rules for the VOLUME of evidence, but what is considered evidence. This debate agreed to the Federal Rules of Evidence because we were debating a government action. The whole idea of using rule 7 to argue that my case wasn't voluminous enough is a judgement call. CON also barely made an argument for his case based on voluminous sourcing by this measure. We used largely the same sources and debated largely the same content. We both cited the WEC, the Wisconsin Constitution, and other state and federal laws. I fail to see how my case was not sourced well enough even though CON did not really out-source me.
"I did try to vote on the quality of arguments"
Where did you have a breakdown of our individual arguments and why one was better than the other? You made blanket statements about our two sides and didn't cite any specifics. By "explain" I meant explain why you believed what your believed.
Voting on here is difficult. I had to have a long Q&A with one of the mods before I even had a basic understanding of how it works.
To be clear, you are allowed to agree with one side or another going in, but your reasoning should be adequately explained and you should use the same judgements for both PRO and CON and explain why both sides agreed or disagreed with your standards.
There's a bunch of ways to leave:
1. Apply for temporary residence in another country.
2. Defect to another country.
3. Apply for citizenship in another country.
4. illegally emigrate to another country.
But none of this matters because the plan is to award these people green cards until they pass the citizenship test and all the classes and everything else.
With a green card you have proof of residency anyways,. You just aren't a citizen yet.
I suggest you look up what a visa or green card is sometime. You can't get deported so long as you have not done anything illegal. Your visa can expire for sure. But once you have it, unless you are doing something illegal, and by illegal it has to be serious, then they can't deport you:
Moreover a bunch of countries also do citizenship by descent. Meaning the visa holders here could easily become citizens of their home country by simply having parents from that country.
Italy, Germany, Poland, Ireland and many other countries offer citizenship by ancestry programs as well.
In these 12 countries you can literally just buy citizenship:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/07/28/escape-america-countries-buy-citizenship-second-passport/?sh=1e5f0f6a7f74
Gosh I wish you put that in round two. I could have responded with the requisite U.S. Law that debunks it.
Visa holders are non-citizens who have all the rights you listed except being able to vote. They can even travel to other countries if they do the requisite paperwork for those countries.
Additionally, it takes more than a passport to fly to another country. It depends on the treaty we have with them but oftentimes you are required to get certain vaccines and do other stuff.
Also, there is absolutely nothing stopping a visa holder here from filing for citizenship in another country and becoming a citizen there.
I would have responded with all that with the proper source documentation had it been in the second round.
I fail to see what the big deal is. The debate description said it was unrated. This was obviously a screw up in the setting process.
It would be different if the description was silent and Novice_II already accepted it. But the description says one thing, so that was the clear intent to have an unrated debate.
Well it appears we are working from two different definitions of racism.
The one I am arguing under is this one (in Merriam Webster):
behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice.
You can have discrimination and prejudice but it may not be racist. It is only racist if the behavior or attitudes reflect a racist belief. Ergo, to perform a racist action, you first must actually be racist.
Sure, actions can still be damaging to people, but for an action to be racist it must have racist intent.
You seem to be working under definition 2a:
the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.
By that definition a person can be "accidentally racist" or do racist actions without any sort of racist intent or knowledge. The belief in racism doesn't have to be a part of the equation here.
Personally, I disagree with definition 2a. You can unwittingly do racist things and not realize they are racist. But you weren't actually trying to oppress people. That is damaging, sure. But it isn't racist because there was no racist intent.
It isn't like murder which is an action. You don't need intent to prove murder. But you need intent to prove racism.
Troll votes only get removed generally if they appear before 2 hours left on the clock.
Even I had unwittingly slipped a vote past the mods by posting it too late (this was one of my first votes). Whiteflame messaged me later and said "just for the record, we would have removed it had we had the time." Then I had a huge Q&A with him on how to properly vote.
So if it happens to people who don't have any ill intent and are trying to vote in good faith, then it is easy for trolls to also vote.
"Racism will be defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group,"
And "The police are the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order."
To me it sounds like the debate is over whether the police engage in racism. This is a completely winnable topic. Many of the current police chiefs and other leadership and even police themselves are white supremacists or holdovers from the 50s-era of policing. The Intercept wrote on this and the Marshall Project has a hefty collection of individual racist events.
Yeah it's harder than actions but can we really call an action racist? The intent has to matter too.
Well Novice agreed to make BoP shared. So that at least stops that from happening.
I want to accept with BoP being shared but the only other thing is I have company coming in on Friday so I can't have a debate-a-thon this weekend. For 10,000 characters I'd want a longer debate time so I can read it and actually write a response.
I wish you the best. I want to debate you on this topic but can't accept the terms. BoP should always be shared.
If not then you can assert whatever crazy or inaccurate claim you want and you are completely absolved from the consequences for it. That hardly seems fair to me. But whatever I cite, all you have to do is assert a lie about my data and your claim has complete validity because you don't need burden of proof. I have no counter because you don't need to prove what you're saying at all. Even if I proved it, it wouldn't matter anyways because you don't need to prove your assertions. So voting would literally just default to you.
So for whomever accepts this it will be interesting.
"A very narrow simple task, like chess, is better suited to computer hardware than biological hardware."
That isn't true. We have recently discovered the processes for neurogenesis. Neurogenesis plays a role in brain repair and maintenance and growth throughout our lives. This, in addition to growth of new neurons, shows the Brain has significantly more capacity to learn and grow at skills than a computer does.
The reason Alpha beat stockfish anyways was because they gave Alpha a shit ton more ram anyways. But my point is that the Go community actually learned from Alpha and changed some foundational beliefs about the game. At that time Alpha was a better Go player, but if humans were not so stubborn to keep their fallacious thinking on how to win games, we would learn much more quickly.
Alpha taught the chess world that their evaluation of the piece system is completely off base. Alpha would sacrifice really powerful pieces to gain a great tactical advantage. This was unheard of in the chess community and they lambasted anyone who played like this until Alpha did it and destroyed stockfish.
So I would argue the reason we lose at chess is because we are prideful and stubborn and don't accept new ideas even if they make sense.
I still don't think AI is better than humans at art and chess and stuff. I just think Alpha showed us serious flaws in our orthodoxy of these games and as for art, have you seen those videos where they record random people who are extremely good at one thing? They're even better than the computers.
I think debate will be another one of those things. They will learn from us and we will learn from them. But they won't be "better" because the human brain is insanely more powerful than even 1000 supercomputers. And we can upgrade it by simply exercising it, whereas computers are limited by their current hardware.
If that's the case then why does hormone therapy for trans people repeatedly show an increase in dangerous health symptoms:
"Existing epidemiological data suggest that the use of (certain) estrogens in trans women induces an increased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, the reason that lifestyle management can be an integral part of trans health care."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34982475/
It is still listed on drugs.com as a more popular drug choice
Considering Finasteride is used for hormone therapy, in many cases they do still have a penis.
Hormone therapy and Gender Affirming Surgery are different.
No need to apologize. You are free to set up your debate however you want!
Your choice.
Are you willing to accept a copy debate on this as pro after I finish this one?
No. I think it is winnable from a non-semantic angle
I wouldn't kritik. There's a legitimate way to win this debate as CON.
I will literally accept a debate with you with me as con on this to show you how it is winnable. Same prompt and description. I will just be con instead of pro.
And it'll have to be after this one is finished.
I did no such thing. Something is either dangerous or is not dangerous. Also, there is nothing in this debate saying a person cannot argue thresholds of dangerousness.
Because, technically speaking, breathing is dangerous in a city. But that is a really absurd take on breathing.
There is nothing good about it. And that is what this debate will prove
The problems with these sorts of arguments os that they do not take into consideration that a 6-year-old's mind is nowhere near developed enough yet to make many complicated decisions.
tbh, I would have accepted this one. The harder position is to defend abortion and transgenderism and euthanasia.
Democracy is a majority vote. Majority vote is oppression of minority peoples. Therefore Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Any method where a group of people votes on policy is an act of oppression over the other group that does not want the policies.
idk what can be done in 1000 characters or less, but this'll be fun.
Round 1 sources:
[1] https://rdi.org/defining-democracy-overview/dd-tyranny-of-the-majority/
[2] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178
[3] https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-rise-to-power
[4] https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/07/09/medical-war-crimes-nazis-murdered-mentally-physically-disabled-13172
[5] https://www.dispropaganda.com/single-post/2019/01/30/President-Franklin-D-Roosevelt-crimes
[6] https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/italian-history-biographies/benito-mussolini
But have you considered the third option that you want to redefine reality based on your own personal opinions and not those of dictionaries?
It is up to CON to argue that democracy is not tyranny. In fact I can think of two ways to do so that would be very strong arguments. It isn't my fault that you think there aren't any strong arguments against it.
So, in other words, you think dictionaries shouldn't be used to define words?
So then you agree that Democracy is tyranny?
What do you mean?
Round 3 was scary normal. It would have fooled me if I wasn't told a computer wrote it.
I'm confused. Are we debating whether these people are allowed to exist or whether women identifying as men is bad for women and vice versa?
What is this debate actually about?
nah. They should probably go with the crowd and debate if Barney is a great debater. Apparently this is the biggest issue of our time.
Are you guys gonna debate something?
Merriam-Webster:
4a: to make the offer of : PROFFER
extending aid to the needy
extending their greetings
b: to make available
extending credit to customers
By saying "extend," I thought he was offering for PRO to make his first argument rather than accepting forfeiture of the debate.
Extend = I'll give you another chance to make your argument.
By saying "extend" in the last round, you are offering him the opportunity to break the rules.
So you are not adhering to the debate rules.
P1: CON and PRO both agree to follow the rules.
P2: The rules state PRO will waive the last round.
P3: CON tells PRO to make an argument in the last round.
P4: CON accepted that PRO will not make an argument in the last round already as per the rules.
P5: CON already agreed that this would not happen.
C: Therefore CON is not adhering to the rules by asking PRO to make an argument in the last round.
Well, as I stated in my RFD:
"PRO was supposed to waive round 4, and CON also broke this rule by offering to extend PRO's opening argument into Round 4."
You broke the rule by asking him to break the rules. The rule was that he must waive round 4. You extended the argument to round four, effectively saying "I want you to break the rules in this round even though you forfeited." You also have to adhere to the rule just as much as he does. So egging him on to break the rules is also breaking the rules.
I was gonna give it to PRO initially because he at least made an argument and you didn't. But since he was required to waive round 4, it voided his argument in round 4. So conduct ultimately went to you since you gave him multiple chances to make his opening argument.
It doesn't do that, but it does provide a path toward citizenship.
I understand
Are you casting your vote?
Yeah I figured I didn't have to because of the Dreamers as a textbook example that was common knowledge. But elaboration never hurts.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with Best.Korea for once. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump was the best president we ever had, he definitely was top 10 at least.
But he is completely right that Bush and Obama committed blatant war crimes and did blatantly unconstitutional actions while in office but both got a free pass. Obama wanted to conduct drone strikes on U.S. Citizens for goodness sake. In fact he did just that. He literally assassinated at least one U.S. Citizen. But he wasn't impeached. In fact he is considered a national fucking hero by half of the country. Think about that for a second. The media calls Trump a threat to democracy yet glorifies a man who assassinated an American citizen.
What is a bigger threat to democracy? Assassinating American citizens or questioning the results of an election yet still conceding anyways?
That should tell you the pulse of the left right now.
Understood, I'm pretty new here, hardly know what I'm doing.
I'm kinda new here too! Welcome to the site!!
"I don't think you can argue it should be decertified."
Yes but this is a moot point. It is obviously assumed it can be done if we are debating the possibility of it happening. It is also a red herring because that isn't the topic of the debate. By this measure we might as well argue anything we want. Topics become completely unnecessary entirely if we are allowed to debate other things than the topic itself. For instance, I could argue that we should impeach Congress over certifying a fraudulent election. While this is a debate topic, it has nothing to do with the actual topic in the debate.
"I just think it's been tested in court enough that you needed an extraordinary and compelling argument and didn't have one."
The federal rules of evidence are not rules for the VOLUME of evidence, but what is considered evidence. This debate agreed to the Federal Rules of Evidence because we were debating a government action. The whole idea of using rule 7 to argue that my case wasn't voluminous enough is a judgement call. CON also barely made an argument for his case based on voluminous sourcing by this measure. We used largely the same sources and debated largely the same content. We both cited the WEC, the Wisconsin Constitution, and other state and federal laws. I fail to see how my case was not sourced well enough even though CON did not really out-source me.
"I did try to vote on the quality of arguments"
Where did you have a breakdown of our individual arguments and why one was better than the other? You made blanket statements about our two sides and didn't cite any specifics. By "explain" I meant explain why you believed what your believed.
Voting on here is difficult. I had to have a long Q&A with one of the mods before I even had a basic understanding of how it works.
To be clear, you are allowed to agree with one side or another going in, but your reasoning should be adequately explained and you should use the same judgements for both PRO and CON and explain why both sides agreed or disagreed with your standards.
I reported your vote because the question wasn't if the election was decertifiable but whether it should be decertified.
I also reported because your awarding of conduct is not in accordance with the terms of voting as I understand them.
You also claimed that one of the rules that was for the debate didn't even matter to the debate, which doesn't make any sense.
You also didn't explain how CON made a strong argument and didn't evaluate how my argument was weak.
There's a bunch of ways to leave:
1. Apply for temporary residence in another country.
2. Defect to another country.
3. Apply for citizenship in another country.
4. illegally emigrate to another country.
But none of this matters because the plan is to award these people green cards until they pass the citizenship test and all the classes and everything else.
With a green card you have proof of residency anyways,. You just aren't a citizen yet.
I suggest you look up what a visa or green card is sometime. You can't get deported so long as you have not done anything illegal. Your visa can expire for sure. But once you have it, unless you are doing something illegal, and by illegal it has to be serious, then they can't deport you:
https://www.usa.gov/visas
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/employment/temporary-worker-visas.html
There's even permanent visas:
https://www.usa.gov/green-cards
Moreover a bunch of countries also do citizenship by descent. Meaning the visa holders here could easily become citizens of their home country by simply having parents from that country.
Italy, Germany, Poland, Ireland and many other countries offer citizenship by ancestry programs as well.
In these 12 countries you can literally just buy citizenship:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/07/28/escape-america-countries-buy-citizenship-second-passport/?sh=1e5f0f6a7f74
Yes they can. There is nothing at all in our legal system that forces people to stay in America against their will.
Gosh I wish you put that in round two. I could have responded with the requisite U.S. Law that debunks it.
Visa holders are non-citizens who have all the rights you listed except being able to vote. They can even travel to other countries if they do the requisite paperwork for those countries.
Additionally, it takes more than a passport to fly to another country. It depends on the treaty we have with them but oftentimes you are required to get certain vaccines and do other stuff.
Also, there is absolutely nothing stopping a visa holder here from filing for citizenship in another country and becoming a citizen there.
I would have responded with all that with the proper source documentation had it been in the second round.
Regardless, thanks for the debate!
I fail to see what the big deal is. The debate description said it was unrated. This was obviously a screw up in the setting process.
It would be different if the description was silent and Novice_II already accepted it. But the description says one thing, so that was the clear intent to have an unrated debate.
"Actions can 100% be racist"
Well it appears we are working from two different definitions of racism.
The one I am arguing under is this one (in Merriam Webster):
behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice.
You can have discrimination and prejudice but it may not be racist. It is only racist if the behavior or attitudes reflect a racist belief. Ergo, to perform a racist action, you first must actually be racist.
Sure, actions can still be damaging to people, but for an action to be racist it must have racist intent.
You seem to be working under definition 2a:
the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.
By that definition a person can be "accidentally racist" or do racist actions without any sort of racist intent or knowledge. The belief in racism doesn't have to be a part of the equation here.
Personally, I disagree with definition 2a. You can unwittingly do racist things and not realize they are racist. But you weren't actually trying to oppress people. That is damaging, sure. But it isn't racist because there was no racist intent.
It isn't like murder which is an action. You don't need intent to prove murder. But you need intent to prove racism.
You have less than 30 minutes
Troll votes only get removed generally if they appear before 2 hours left on the clock.
Even I had unwittingly slipped a vote past the mods by posting it too late (this was one of my first votes). Whiteflame messaged me later and said "just for the record, we would have removed it had we had the time." Then I had a huge Q&A with him on how to properly vote.
So if it happens to people who don't have any ill intent and are trying to vote in good faith, then it is easy for trolls to also vote.
I don't follow.
"Racism will be defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group,"
And "The police are the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order."
To me it sounds like the debate is over whether the police engage in racism. This is a completely winnable topic. Many of the current police chiefs and other leadership and even police themselves are white supremacists or holdovers from the 50s-era of policing. The Intercept wrote on this and the Marshall Project has a hefty collection of individual racist events.
Yeah it's harder than actions but can we really call an action racist? The intent has to matter too.
Well Novice agreed to make BoP shared. So that at least stops that from happening.
I want to accept with BoP being shared but the only other thing is I have company coming in on Friday so I can't have a debate-a-thon this weekend. For 10,000 characters I'd want a longer debate time so I can read it and actually write a response.
I wish you the best. I want to debate you on this topic but can't accept the terms. BoP should always be shared.
If not then you can assert whatever crazy or inaccurate claim you want and you are completely absolved from the consequences for it. That hardly seems fair to me. But whatever I cite, all you have to do is assert a lie about my data and your claim has complete validity because you don't need burden of proof. I have no counter because you don't need to prove what you're saying at all. Even if I proved it, it wouldn't matter anyways because you don't need to prove your assertions. So voting would literally just default to you.
So for whomever accepts this it will be interesting.
"A very narrow simple task, like chess, is better suited to computer hardware than biological hardware."
That isn't true. We have recently discovered the processes for neurogenesis. Neurogenesis plays a role in brain repair and maintenance and growth throughout our lives. This, in addition to growth of new neurons, shows the Brain has significantly more capacity to learn and grow at skills than a computer does.
The reason Alpha beat stockfish anyways was because they gave Alpha a shit ton more ram anyways. But my point is that the Go community actually learned from Alpha and changed some foundational beliefs about the game. At that time Alpha was a better Go player, but if humans were not so stubborn to keep their fallacious thinking on how to win games, we would learn much more quickly.
Alpha taught the chess world that their evaluation of the piece system is completely off base. Alpha would sacrifice really powerful pieces to gain a great tactical advantage. This was unheard of in the chess community and they lambasted anyone who played like this until Alpha did it and destroyed stockfish.
So I would argue the reason we lose at chess is because we are prideful and stubborn and don't accept new ideas even if they make sense.
I still don't think AI is better than humans at art and chess and stuff. I just think Alpha showed us serious flaws in our orthodoxy of these games and as for art, have you seen those videos where they record random people who are extremely good at one thing? They're even better than the computers.
I think debate will be another one of those things. They will learn from us and we will learn from them. But they won't be "better" because the human brain is insanely more powerful than even 1000 supercomputers. And we can upgrade it by simply exercising it, whereas computers are limited by their current hardware.