Total posts: 1,065
-->
@Uragirimono
Well, the child didn't get there by accident did it?
I am a huge proponent of contract law. When you know the risks involved going in, and you choose to accept those risks, then you must live with the risks you accepted.
To me, terminating a pregnancy is no different than killing a newborn or a 2-year-old or your parents if they require assisted living. You don't just murder people because they get in your way, ESPECIALLY if you already agreed to the risks involved (like when having any form of sex).
So, to use an analogy, if you agree to love your husband and marry them, and you agree to love them in sickness and in health, and they become completely immobile, then you bear the responsibility to take care of them until they can take care of themselves, since that is the contract you signed. Nobody would seriously consider killing their husband as an option. The simple reality is that you chose a contract and you must live it out unless the other party also consents to a divorce or is abusive to you or cheats or does anything that breaks the contract.
So in the case of a baby in the womb. You are an adult. You know how sex works. You know the risks going in, and have agreed to them. Now it is up to you and your partner to live up to their responsibilities as two consenting adults who knew exactly what they were doing. It is a simple contract. All forms of sex where the penis enters the vagina carry with them a chance of pregnancy. It may be extremely slight or very probable, but either way there is still a risk and therefore consenting adults know this and accept it. So when the baby comes as a result of those actions, then it has every right to be there, since both parties accepted the risks. They willingly participated in the act knowing the consequences involved.
Also, to equate sex with organ donation is a major fallacy. In one instance, you engage in an act that CREATES a dependent human being. In the other, it is largely someone else's actions that cause them to be in a state where they are dependent. These are two completely different cases. In one YOU are the cause, in another THEY are.
FWIW, I also believe whomever you had sex with to create the child is contractually bound to be a husband, since it is his child. This isn't just on the woman.
Now, if an expectant mother finds a suitable person who would be willing to care for the child once it is born, that is perfectly fine. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend the baby in utero has the same option for survival and call the two instances the same. Technology is not advanced enough to carry a baby to term and allow proper development of the baby. So until birth, pregnancy is the only option for the fetus. But, once again, CONSENTING adults know this and CONSENT to it as a risk.
But, and this is really a major axe to grind I have with many, though not all, abortionists, it is appalling how the conversation completely dehumanizes babies and calls them fetuses and risks and unwanted.
These are the very same people who would never dare say this about the Jews in Germany during the Holocaust, but here they are applying the same logic the German government did.
Germany owned the country. The country was basically a uterus for the citizens of Germany. And the government decided to abort Jews, even though they already accepted Jews, gave them residence, and consented to their living in Germany. Globally this was, and is rightly considered today by most, an outrage and affront to Jewish rights. If Jewish people had a right to be there, because they had a contract with Germany saying they could live there, then murdering them is a gross violation of those rights.
Abortion is no different. A baby has every right to be there. The contract was signed when the penis entered the vagina. The risks were clearly delineated and accepted, just like with the Jews in Germany. So to now double back and call it a non-human, treat it with malaise, and say it has no right to live there simply because it is an inconvenience to you is completely wrong, violates the contract, and is fearfully inhumane.
In both cases, the parties involved accepted the third party through a contract. Germany accepted Jewish people via immigration and two consenting adults accepted a child as a risk to their actions. In both cases the third party was accepted. So doubling back and asking what right a fetus has is basically like asking what right the Jews had. In both instances they have every right to be there, since both contracts involved accepting residency as an outcome.
I am not saying you actually believe these things because I don't know what your actual abortion stance is. I am mainly responding to your comment.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I'll accept your insults and lack of evidence and reason as a resignation.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
As such, there is NO child(ren) within the womb. None. That is just a FACT.
Sigh... Here we go...
I shall be using a biology dictionary and a medical dictionary since this is the nature of what we are discussing.
Offspring: New organisms produced by a living thing. [1]
As per the biology dictionary above on the entry for humans:
"The zygote that forms from fertilization divides mitotically and lodges in the uterus to develop into an embryo. The human embryo undergoes the following major embryonic stages: blastula » gastrula » neurula. The embryonic phase covers the first eight weeks of gestation. By the ninth week, the embryo develops into a fetus." [2]
An embryo is specifically called human by biologists for one simple reason, all humans begin their life process as an embryo. Think of it like being a tadpole before becoming a frog. We don't claim the tadpole isn't a frog, because it is one, just not a fully-developed frog. So a human embryo is still a human, we just call it a fetus or an embryo.
So an embryo also counts as an offspring, because the embryo is a new organism produced by a living thing. Therefore, embryos are both human offspring and also the first stage of life for a human.
This is why biologists state that human life begins at conception, even pro-abortion biologists will generally admit this fact.
However, you may argue that it is a cell. Well, human beings are simply collections of cells. This is evidenced from the entry for zygote from the same biology dictionary:
"The cells that sprung from the zygote will essentially have the same genetic composition throughout the body but eventually will acquire a special role or a distinct function as they are organized into tissues, organs, and systems." [3]
So why does it matter how the cells are arranged at all? I'm both cases it is merely cells. The tadpole and frog are both collections of cells. We do not claim a tadpole isn't a frog because it has fewer cells or a different structure. That is absurdity.
So the next question is why are humans different from tadpoles? This is the question of the soul. And there is no reason to believe that fetuses lack a soul. There is zero scientific justification for this. We also do not see a soul magically appear the second a baby is born. It comes out of the womb moving and even crying in some cases. This is clear evidence that fetuses have a soul.
So my question to you is why do you choose to ignore biological evidence? Why do you choose to ignore the cycle of life, the offspring created by us humans as human offspring, and choose to shut your ears to the biological facts that a baby is a baby even when it is an embryo?
SOURCES:
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
If you were a constitutionalist you would be against abortion. Who else do you think the posterity is they spoke of? Apes? Cats? It was their children, and children exist in the womb, too, regardless of what you call them.
Idk what "conservative" means anymore since people keep changing the definition to fit their beliefs.
If George Washington is a supposed "textbook" Burkean Conservative, then all Burkean Conservatives (also called paleoconservatives) are federalists who want a public nanny state and a welfare system.
But if Libertarians are "conservative" then we want an extremely small government that doesn't even have much of a military.
Or what about those neo-conservatives? They want to colonize the world for the U.S. of A. Not very conservative if you ask me.
And are you an originalist or a living-document constitutionalist? Both are technically considered "constitutionalists." I am an originalist.
I am a voluntaryist. We tend to be right-wing and capitalist, but a voluntaryist could be socialist too. I think everyone should be free to choose whatever governing structure they want and whatever culture and relationships they want. There should be absolutely zero coercion whatsoever.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Well I would be happy to beat you in a debate on this. I have heard virtually every silly left-wing and libertarian argument on abortion for years now. Not one of them were able to stand after the facts and logic were unearthed.
Created:
Posted in:
Gosh this forum can be such a liberal circle jerk sometimes.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A person in this case is a human being. A fetus (which derives from the Latin for a baby) is always a human being. It can't possibly be anything different.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Let's have a formal debate on this. I'm open to it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Ben Shapiro's argument is it is always a human, not that it has potential to become one:
This is a point that more than 90% of biologists assert is true. It is also backed by the fact that a baby in the womb meets all the biological determiners for life: growth, metabolism, reproduction, and response to stimuli. [1]
The biggest flaw in abortionists' reasoning is this: they make arbitrary, unscientific claims for when a human being becomes a human being.
Show me a science textbook that says a human being is only a human being when it is born? Or what about a biological study that proves pre-birth humans are not human beings.
Tell me where geneticists have found that pre-birth humans do not have the requisite genetic makeup for being a human being?
Tell me where biologists have proven that a pre-birth human is not alive in the womb?
Genetically and biologically it is a human being. No amount of personal feelings can change that fact.
SOURCES:
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
discussing if Noah was an antivillain or an antihero
I am not sure what you mean. Noah was the protagonist but neither in the story. It wasn't about Noah, it was about God purging the world of extreme evil.
not relative to God and his narcissistic narrative
We can have the Noah debate if you'd like, but I also would like to debate this one. I do not think God is a narcissist, but rather humans, as a species, have inflated egos.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think we were discussing evidence for the Bible in general. That is an extremely vague topic, I agree. So do you want to settle on a particular facet of that?
Like whether the earth is just 6,000 years old or if a particular story in the Bible is historically accurate?
Or do you want to do psychology and the Bible's teaching on human nature?
Or what about if evolution is a factually accurate way of looking at creation?
The ball is in your court. Just make it specific enough.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well what topic do you want to debate?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am open to having a debate on biblical apologetics topics with you if you want.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Are you seriously defending pedophiles? Is that one of those great North Korean values you speak of?
If a person rapes and abuses children, and they aren't repentant of it, and they want to continue doing it, then that is seriously disturbed. Why should they be treated well? People who are predatory abusers don't deserve to be treated well.
Created:
Posted in:
In the latest survey 48% of Meteorologists said climate change isn't happening. This dipped from 60% a couple years prior, but still shows that they certainly are not "bought out."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Actually most Meteorologists disagree with climate change. It is the environmentalists who are bought out, not the Meteorologists. In fact, the founder of the Weather Channel recently voiced how much junk science went into climate change:
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you're into plate tectonics there's some amazing work that shows how a global flood could have caused the radical shifting of the plates, thereby still allowing dinosaurs to exist in North America despite their existing 4 billion years after the plates supposedly began separating. It is called the Flood Model.
If you think about the 1 inch a year, as uniformitarians claim, that would mean the plates moved 4.1 billion inches, which is way too far for dinosaurs to walk, by the time dinosaurs showed up 300 million hears ago. For reference, 4.1 billion inches is 64,709.596 Miles. If you also incorporate the fact that the waters were significantly higher back then supposedly, it becomes impossible dinosaurs walked there. So they must have already been present long before the continents separated. This is great evidence for the flood model.
This link is a summary of the model and the evidence behind it:
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
There's a great book by K.A. Kitchen titled "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".
Here's the Amazon link for it:
It has literally hundreds upon hundreds of archaeological finds in it that document biblical places, peoples, and other such facts.
Kitchen is a world-renowned Egyptologist who works at the University of Liverpool, England. He has written over 250 books and journal articles. [1] So he's no quack by any means.
As far as genetics. It has been established that all of humanity must have arisen from a single Eve. [2]
For historiography, there is more than ample evidence for the existence of Jesus, and every culture and ancient religion has the story of a global flood. [3] [4] Furthermore, we also have proof of the Exodus, [8] the 10 plagues, [5] [8] and that the sun was dark on Jesus's crucifixion. [6]
There's also proof from astronomy. NASA determined there was an eclipse the same year Jesus was crucified, thus confirming the extra-biblical records. [7]
This is just a small snippet of the evidence out there.
SOURCES:
Created:
-->
@Shila
The Bible is being disproven by biblical scholars.
I don't post in the religion forum because it is one big atheist circle jerk and whenever I posted anything of substance in those either nobody responded or they came back with "I don't like your source, so it's automatically wrong."
Thus far archaeology, genetics, and historiography have all proven the Bible to be a very reliable account of historical events.
One thing to consider about "bibilical scholars" is that about 99.9% of them start with presuppositions. They don't start with the facts and then build their presuppositions around those. They start with their own a priori fallacies and then say something was "disproven."
I once got into a debate with someone who told me Isaiah doesn't reference a virgin and therefore wasn't a messianic prophecy. Oh he had plenty of biblical scholars. The only problems were that:
1. The LXX (Septuagint), that was completed 2,200 or 2,300 years ago, translated the Hebrew word in question (betulah) as the Greek word for virgin.
2. There were tablets unearthed from that time period where betulah was used for virgin.
3. There was even a tale written in the native language that used the exact same sentence. This goes in character with many other passages of Scripture where God mocks other false gods.
Of course, the scholars all conveniently ignored this incontrovertible evidence that betulah did, at one point, mean virgin. But, you know, they are Biblical scholars so that means they MUST be right lol.
The thing is, there's always a "flavor of the month" scholar who says something stupid that was never true and everyone just nods in agreement. Then when someone digs up those pesky little things called facts, people call the person with the facts a pseudoscientist, pseudoscholar, or other insults. But they never actually explain why those interpretations are wrong. Because they can't, and they know it.
Created:
-->
@ComputerNerd
I'm interested in most of those subjects. Maybe we can have a challenge?
I'm open to suggestions! Maybe we could debate whether AI will cause mass unemployment!
Created:
-->
@ComputerNerd
Your profile says you're a Christian. If you want to debate someone who will change the way you think, challenge Bones or rayhan16. Bones is a disbeliever, and rayhan is a Muslim. Would be pretty interesting to see.
Well it all comes down to the topic. I, personally, believe the Bible cannot be disproven. I have studied this thoroughly. I even had bouts with atheism at one point. I later realized I was wrong.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So, you're saying that if we just steal everyone's wealth and then redistribute it that we will all be fine.
There's just one problem with that: It would require a massive totalitarian state that removes everyone's freedoms and makes them all slaves to accomplish it.
Let's take your extremely cherry-picked version of Juche Socialism:
Kim Jong Il explains that Socialism centered on masses cannot perish, because masses support it and it supports the masses.
So, in accordance with your supplied idea of "equal standards" for socialism, this would mean, since the only logical way possible for this to happen would be this way, that everyone on the planet must forfeit their jobs, belongings, and bodily autonomy all receive an equal amount of everything, do an equal amount of work, and have an equal number of children, a wife that looks just like all the other wives, and be just as good-looking as everyone else.
If we do not do this, then how do we know for certain if everyone has equal belongings, equal standards, or equal anything?
So to accomplish this massive feat, it would take some central planning body to snoop on everyone's houses, tell people exactly how much more they can and cannot do, exactly what they can and can't do in their free time, whom they can and cannot marry, etc.
Because one person might have better usage of their free time than someone else, we must make sure everyone is doing the same exact thing with their free time.
Because one person might be a more productive worker than someone else, we must limit his speed of work.
Because one person might be more attractive than someone else, they need disfiguring plastic surgery.
Because one person might marry someone more attractive, all women need to be disfigured the same way, have the same haircut, the same body frame, and more. The same with all the men.
Because some are more intelligent than others, we need to physically damage some peoples' brains to make them "equal."
Now, we aren't even through to the distribution of the common wealth yet.
We need cameras and microphones in every room of the home to make sure nobody is hiding anything or doing anything illegal.
We need a prison guard system to force people into the respective schedules.
We need a person or group at the top, somewhere, to keep a schedule of everything and determine who does what, how much a person gets, and more.
But, and here is where the system gets fucked, assuming the above isn't fucked up to you. There is absolutely no way of keeping the person or group at the top accountable. In fact, if we made him/them average, just like everybody else, he/they would be unable to do his/their job. This goes for whomever is in leadership.
Somebody has to be more competent, more intelligent, and significantly freer than everyone else to be able to make decisions and do whatever is needed. So that one person, the dictator or oligarchy (because, ultimately, that becomes his/their role, since he/they must dictate the lives of everyone else) becomes above the huddled masses. And, being intelligent, he/they simply take whatever he/they want, do whatever he/they want, and everyone else is too stupid or uneducated to oppose him/them, since he/they control the intelligence and the education system and peoples' free time.
So this is why your antiquated ideas of socialism and totalitarianism simply don't work. Because you basically create for yourselves a ruling class that has everything and a bunch of unintelligent slaves who have scraps. Kind of like what North Korea is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Here's one example:
From history we have:
Egyptian Pharaohs
Roman Caesars
Arabian Royalty
English Upper Crust
The Un family in North Korea
Chinese Emperors
All groups who had their entire work life done by someone else. Sure, they would walk around and do activities, but most of the time someone else would do everything for them. In the case of Arabian, Roman, Egyptian and Chinese royalty, they would have people carry them around on a sofa bed with a shaded awning so they wouldn't feel the heat of the sun or have to walk anywhere. And when these people wanted something, someone else went to the store to get it for them. They would even have people bathe them, dress them, do their nails and other personal hygiene, make their beds, etc.
At one point in time, this was considered the epitome of wealth and luxury, not having to do anything and have people carry you around when you go out.
Do I, personally, think this is good? No. I prefer to do things myself. But that doesn't mean that is the norm for everybody. It also doesn't mean these lifestyles are healthy. If very little exercise is involved, then it could be very unhealthy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So immigrants shouldn't live in Liberal states? What a racist position to take.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Needless to say, informed opinion disagrees
Have you actually read anything by Q? Or do you just love government documents. You pretend the FBI never lies. Just ask Waco cult members or MLK's family if the FBI lies...
And yet your opinion is so consistent with those dictates
Well, let's see. I agree with BLM that there is structural racism against black people in police departments. I agree with Socialists that the rich are using their wealth to enslave people. I agree with liberals that President Trump was racist against muslims. I agree with Libertarians that gun rights are necessary and that the Federal Government sponsors a portion of mass shootings to take away guns. And, yes, I agree with Qanon that a lot in power are pedophiles and they definitely run a sex trafficking ring.
When you read everything, you take the good and leave the (often boatloads) of bad. I believe every ideology, no matter how stupid or illogical, still has at least one thing right. But oftentimes they have most things wrong. Qanon is no exception here. They are right on some key things, but so completely wrong on most others.
QAnon originates with Michael Flynn,
False. Multiple forensic linguists have released reports that found that Paul Furber and Ron Watkins were both Q. [1] [2] Believe me, I was just as surprised to find out it wasn't the 4chan founder, because he almost certainly fit the bill for someone who would do something like Q.
QAnon is closely associated with perhaps dozens of violent incidences.
I'm still waiting for sources for these "dozen incidences." Also, there are quite literally MILLIONS of Qanon members. They have their own .win community and Similar Webs data shows it receives between 1-2 million visits a month. [3] If even 1,000 of these people are violent, we are only looking at 0.0625% of the KNOWN movement. Let alone the unknown members. Therefore, my statement stands that the movement, as a whole, is nonviolent.
Q published a short manual on information warfare. I didn't get to read it because it was completely taken off the internet before I had the chance, but from massive block quotes of it I found scattered around the internet about a year or so ago it was all about informing the public though nonviolent means, mainly weaponizing social media and using virality as a key method for propagandizing (he called it informing) the public.
This is no different than MLK's ideology or Ghandi's ideology. So people who were violent as a response to MLK's death are not part of the true MLK movement any more than people who are violent following the Qanon movement. That is my point. I find it hard to believe a movement founded in nonviolence is now a violent movement. Like any other movement or cult founded in nonviolence.
Do you believe Hillary Clinton is a pedophile?
I think it's possible, but there isn't any credible evidence of it that I know of. I do, however, think there is credible evidence she is an absolutely vile, nasty, elitist person who had fits of violent rage. [4] [5]
And depending on your take of the Podesta emails, she could even be a satanist. But I can't personally say I've tried to verify that, so I can't say I agree to it.
SOURCES:
[2] https://www.siliconrepublic.com/business/qanon-authors-identity-paul-furber-ron-watkins-linguistics
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Have you ever thought that they take more issue of it with you because you are proven to be one of the best debaters on this site though sheer volume of debates?
Maybe the don't want you doing it because you're good at debating but they aren't as confident about Novice.
I can't judge, personally, as I have only seen a couple debates on here from either of you. But I had thought that gaming the leaderboards was just normal on these sites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
😂🤣
It isn't that. I just want to be neighborly is all. This place is kinda like a saloon for people the rest of society can't stand because we all act like Socrates.
I don't wanna ruin it for some people unless most are on board.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
We should always want DART to continue growing as long as the new users aren't trolls
I agree with you, but just because we agree that doesn't mean everyone else wants to be thrust into brand new site with a bunch of people on it. I just want to make sure thus is what the majority wants before I do this is all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ah. Thanks for the sources and the history lesson. I have to admit I only learned about Russian ownership of Africa in history class. So I was going based off what South Africans told me. The gross majority of them speak british english so I just figured Great Britsin always owned South Africa.
I'll have to check that stuff out.
Created:
*Michael Jackson eating popcorn meme*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Interesting stuff. Thanks for answering my questions!
If you're up to it, would you want to pm back and forth about what it is like in India? I'd love to learn about your home country and culture and such. I know that you don't speak for all Indians, obviously, but it would be cool to learn about India and how it compares to the United States.
I have been reading in this forum post and it just created more questions haha.
I am sorry you experienced people yelling at you to go back to India.
I'm sure you've learned in college that America is NOT about that at all and some people just need to catch up to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
One thing that saddens me about America is how so few people these days even know why we became a country and what the Declaration of Independence says about human rights. How our founding document says all people are created equal.
Yes, this country has not lived up to that for most of its existence, but I really wish we did. Because that was our ideals when we founded this country in 1776.
Created:
Well DUH.
A lot of the most politically active in his fanbase are Qanon cult members.
Do you have references for these circumstances? Because Qanon is strictly nonviolent. Q was never about violence.
I'm not a part of the cult, but I did actually read what Q had to say because I like to have my own opinion on things, not let others die tate my opinion.
Q was nonviolent. His thing was information warfare and using social media to spread his message. So people who are violent are not really embracing his message, tbh.
But, thank you for not reciting mainstream media propaganda about his beliefs. I can't tell you how many times I inaccurately heard people say the "Qanon conspiracy theory" about pedophilia. Like, completely misunderstanding the entire structure of the drops and such.
Once again, not a member of that cult at all. But I think we need to actually understand cults and what they are really teaching so we can counter them with logic and reason and the facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You don't need their permission just go do it, it's a public site.
True. It is a public site. But my actions wouldn't be in a vacuum, ya know? They would affect other people and so I just want to make sure there is consensus on this before I do it.
I don't want people to feel like DebateArt isn't for them by making it some massive website with thousands of active users, ya know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Wikipedia is a place where there's always a tremendous amount of debate going on about facts, wording, biased language, locked articles, locked out users, etc. I think they could really use a formal forum that limits the debate, gives voters an opportunity to decides winning arguments, and records the debate for future reference.
Agreed. The wiki users could be a good audience too.
Created:
Posted in:
Now, before IWantRooseveltAgain decides to create his straw mans and his middle school insults, as is in character for him when someone disagrees with his cultish orthodoxy to whatever the left says is truth today:
There is structural racism in the judicial system and there are racist cops in the leadership at many police departments. This affects policing and minority communities, particularly black communities. I think there is ample evidence of this.
But we also must agree that most cops are not racists. Some are. But most of the racism is in selective community policing, police policy, and in the leadership at police departments, not the average cop on the street.
This must be addressed, but it doesn't change the fact that a black woman can run at a police officer with a knife and the left makes her a martyr of cop killing, and then turns around and villainizes Ashlii Babbit. The situation is the fucking same. In both a person rushes a cop and is a clear and present danger to others around them. But Ashlii Babbit is somehow a horrible person and the cop is a hero while the other black girl is a hero and the cop is a horrible person. It makes no sense.
That disconnect is what is wrong here. Most Americans have abandoned objectivity in favor of cult mentalities and group consensus. This is dangerous for the country.
Created:
Posted in:
I think I hold a minority view here on this issue, but I'm going to say it anyway:
Most of the cop killings CNN showed were legitimate killings. They weren't coonhunting cops on the prowl. Black people actually attacked in most of them. But CNN and the Democrats didn't care. They continued to fucking gaslight the American public, tell them to hate the police, and now, around the country, police are quitting and communities, particularly black communities, are having a crisis of safety.
Then enter Ashlii Babbit. She deserved it too. The area was barricaded, the policeman had U.S. Senators passing behind him and had his gun drawn. This was clear as day it was not an entry point. And she tries to enter to do what, exactly? Shake the cop's hand? Come on people.
But here is what I saw that few others noticed. SUDDENLY, the police became national heroes who protect the vulnerable on CNN and elsewhere. The idea of police killings was basically forgotten about. The police were no longer pigs or evil murdering racists. They were heroes who defended the country.
But I also saw something change on the right, too. Rather than backing the blue, they broke from their bullshit and began to become the new CNN. Suddenly cops are evil people who shoot innocent civilians and have a conspiracy to hurt people.
And this is the crux of my argument here. Most Americans are so fucking devoid of critical thinking abilities that they magically switched sides on the issue and kept debating it, not realizing they suddenly became the position they demonized just a few months before.
To roughly quote George Carlin "Nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. The IQ of the country slips a few points and things move on."
Most Americans are so fucking lost that they just wake up in the morning and get told what to think, and they don't care if it is completely different than what they heard just a few weeks or months or even 12 hours ago. They just unflappably accept whatever bullshit they are told and then go debate it with others without going "hey. Wait a fucking minute here. Last week it was the opposite. Why is that? Let me look into it."
"Nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care."
Created:
Posted in:
Have you been affected by the caste system by Indian immigrants in positions of power here in America?
And (sorry for two questions here) what is your opinion of the caste system and oppression of people according to their genetic background that is in India and is now in Silicon Valley?
I also have a similar one about if you have experiences of structural or systemic racism here in the the U.S. if you'll permit me to ask 3 questions lol.
Not being an asshat here. I just don't know that much about the caste system and its effects here in the U.S. other than from heavily biased propaganda articles from both sides. And you can't learn much of note from propaganda lol.
Created:
Posted in:
Africa is extremely massive. England only owned South Africa. And even then, both sides have committed genocides on each other that reparations at this point would be one big circular hand off. The english would give it to the South Africans and then the South Africans would give it right back.
Created:
Supreme Court Allows Health Plans to Limit Dialysis Benefits
September 14, 2022, Report#: LSB10819
By Jennifer A. Staman, Legislative Attorney
"This past term, the Supreme Court issued a variety of impactful decisions in the health care arena, including some that affect coverage and reimbursement for health care services under federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Among these decisions is Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Benefit Plan v. DaVita, a case about the intersection of Medicare and employment-based health benefits for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In DaVita, the Court held that an employer-sponsored health plan could limit benefits for kidney dialysis services without running afoul of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute, a provision designed to reduce Medicare spending by moving health care costs from the Medicare program to private payment sources. This Legal Sidebar provides background on the MSP statute, discusses the Court’s decision in DaVita, and concludes with selected legal considerations for Congress."
SOURCE:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@Novice_II
Thoughts on my proposition?
Created:
Posted in:
Well, what if we targeted social media groups that are designed for debate?
Like, subreddits, facebook groups, Twitter feeds, and YouTubers who hate cancel culture and just want to debate things freely? They exist and would probably be the best candidates to join the website without cancel culture coming in.
I know r/anarcho-capitalism hates cancel culture with a passion. Some of them might be willing to come on board.
I think r/neoliberal also is anti-cancel-culture. They are the more liberal version of r/anarcho-capitalism. But idk if I would consider them liberals, per se. More like neoconservatives who are liberal on social issues.
r/goldandblack are known specifically for being the AMA for anarcho-capitalism. They always have spirited debates on their subreddit. But they are more prone to censorship than r/anarcho-capitalism.
There's also a subreddit with 50k members called r/debate. Pretty straightforward what that one is used for lol.
r/PoliticalDiscussion also is designed to discuss/debate politics. But I have no idea if they are cancel culture crazy or not, so maybe with a grain of salt here. But they do have 2.2 million redditors in their group.
I'm just saying the audience is there. Idk where the overtly liberals ones are. But we already have an overrepresentation of liberals on here anyways. Why not expand into intelligent conservatives and centrist members to balance it out?
I don't want to start posting if this isn't the route the mods and such and community as a whole want to take. But I actually work in marketing and I could post a few links here and there and see if that garners people willing to sign up or something from these channels.
But, like I said, I first want to make sure this is something people want. I used to run a viral news website, so if I do this, it could create a shit ton of attention, and I want to make sure this is what "the people" want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
However, people are going to be miserable being 600 lbs and watching tv all day. Being that helpless and immobile is soul-destroying.
There are people out there who love being waited on hand and foot. To them being immobile isn't soul crushing but the best luxury in life.
There are also people for whom it WOULD be soul crushing for. I am not saying everyone should be 600 pounds. I am just saying that something like "quality" varies from person to person. So their quality of life can change significantly.
For some, a wife, kids, and picket fenced house is the dream come true. For others, it is being a billionaire with a private jet. Comparative to each other, the quality of life is drastically different. However, they are both a good quality of life.
Some people love food. So eating a lot of it is their ideal quality of life. While others enjoy having an impracticably "swol" body. Others enjoy running marathons and doing Iron Man challenges.
All of these have extreme negatives to them. Bodybuilders can't really use their muscles for anything because they might make a strain by accident. They also need to eat 3,500+ calories a day and maintain 3% body fat, meaning they basically live off of protein shakes and steaks and maybe chicken. Goodbye pizza, carbs, burgers, desserts, and even vegetables to a degree. Most people would call that a horrible quality of life. Body builders are also prone to knee and back injuries.
Marathon runners can have knee and other physiological problems later in life due to the shear volume of running. They might need knee replacements, meniscus operations, and more. These are problems that will affect them the rest of their lives.
And the guy who is 600 pounds can't be mobile. Which h most people would hate.
But we aren't going to say they all have terrible quality of life. It is subjective to what each person wants. To those people, they might be able to live with the consequences for their lifestyles.
This is why it is subjective.
BMI doesn't get any ethnic group but White's "completely wrong".
Not true:
Created:
Posted in:
So I suggested about 2 weeks ago that we all share debates we like on social media platforms.
People told me that if the site got bigger it would suck. I guess I was right and this site needs more members.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So I'm going to trust a foreign expert who is an outsider looking in above people who actually live in Ukraine and give factual evidence for their assertions?
What is this, logical fallacy land?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lair77
Obesity causes diabetes and many other illnesses. It will raise the cost of health care, both privately and publicly. Not to mention quality of life.
Correlation =/= causation.
There are few illnesses that obesity causes. The rest are not necessarily caused by obesity, but tend to be with obese people due to there being similarities in diet, living conditions, etc.
Quality of life is subjective. Some people are completely content watching TV all day. You can be 600 pounds and your quality of life not affected at all if all you do is watch TV.
Also, one other thing to consider is the BMI is being grossly misapplied by the medical complex. It was invented to gauge population obesity, not individual health. But, it particularly is for white people. Nobody realizes this. [1]
Africans, for instance, have a higher bone density than most white ethnicities. [2] Moreover, Asians tend to have a higher body fat percentage than white people of the same BMI measurement. [3] The BMI was based on European ethnicity, so it gets these other ethnic groups completely wrong.
The only way to properly gauge a person's proper weight is based on body fat percentage as derived from objective measures, such as DEXA scans and CT or MRI scans. [4]
Or, for those who don't have the money for these things, looking in the mirror and seeing if they have two chins or a sizeable pot belly or cottage cheese where skin used to be.
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the ONLY person who can properly determine how CONVINCING your arguments areis the PERSON you are debatingSELF-MODERATED DEBATES
Well few people are going to be convinced of something based on a debate they had. Many will just still think they are right even when all the facts and evidence are overwhelming that they are wrong.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Do you have a source for this? It sounds like interesting reading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How the fuck can you represent DART if you're only a member since August 11th 2022? You aren't even DART enough.
I mean, I didn't know RationalMadman's arbitrary length of time on a website qualification counted as a real qualification for this imaginary tournament. I used to be on DDO, too. But I would rather be on the DART team because DDO devolved into horseshit and I don't want to represent horseshit.
Jesus didn't debate people to get followers, neither did Socrates.
I didn't say they did. I said they were so successful that they are still converting people to their positions even after thousands of years. I mean, can you think of a more persuasive debater than someone who is still converting hundreds of millions after their writings are thousands of years old?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Tautology, you define a best debater as that.
So the most influential orators in history who had regular interlocutions with opponents and have managed to this day to persuade hundreds of millions to billions of people of positions despite their writings being thousands of years old is not a good tautology for a "best debater"?
Should we be looking at people who fail to convince anyone of things? Is this our metric? Isn't the purpose of a debate to have more convincing arguments and be more persuasive?
So why would the best debaters not be people who were successful at this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Novice_II
1. Bones2. Christianm3. MisterChris4. Fruit_Inspector5. Semperfortis6. Public-Choice7. Ehyeh8. ossa 9979. ILikePie510. BDPTheGreat
Honored to make your cut!
Created: