I mentioned use of AI to generate citations, so there's no need to undermine my work by labelling it as plagiarized.
Furthermore, you don't have to fully dismiss my arguments as "poisoning the well".
With all due respect, I don't care if you're bothered with it or not - there's no need to accuse me of fallacy within your vote.
Poisoning the well = when someone presents negative information about a person before they speak, to bias the audience against them.
I placed strong emphasis on its effects, and how Con seamlessly ignores its method of production and brushes it under the carpet by saying it's "not morally wrong".
I respect all voters and their votes, except this seems very emotionally charged.
I notice a common pattern. If one wants democracy over dictatorship or autocracy, you go straight towards accusing them of advocating for Sharia law.
Your entire comment is useless - it’s a quite random ramble; comparing Catholicism and Sharia law.
You’ve completely misinterpreted my stance. Either deliberately, or naively.
The imprisonment is targeted at the creators, not the consumers.
Furthermore, aren’t you supposed to be Catholic. Porn completely goes against your Christian morals.
40%? Where’d you get that figure from?
How can you be so certain that the autocrat will be so perfect? The overwhelming majority of autocrats have historically abused their power for their own interests.
Even your beloved Catholic church was extremely corrupt running under an autocratic system.
Islamism refers to a political ideology that seeks to implement Islamic principles in government and society. It is not the same as Islam, the religion.
So your statement - "Islamism, like Christianity and Judaism, is a Judaic and Abrahamitic religion,” — is technically false because Islamism is not a religion, whereas Christianity and Judaism are.
I'd stand Pro with "Circumcision on male infants is immoral unless medically necessary." - so that wouldn't really work.
I'd be happy to debate something else if you're interested.
Possibly - "Does God exist?"
I'd be Pro, and you'd be Con.
This wouldn't be set on sources, but logic.
This debate contains structural bias for the Con side.
Dialectical materialism can proven with documented history.
On the other hand, The whole concept of Christianity or Judaism is faith. Faith is fundamentally being - belief without proof.
The essence of a Christian or Judaic individual's morals are held according to their sacred text (Torah or Bible) - which again, cannot be proven with documented history.
If this debate strictly relies on concrete evidence, Con essentially has no ground to stand on.
I personally think it's good to exchange opinions in a debate, arguments don't always have to be heated conflicts.
The George Floyd incident is a perfect example of present modern day brutality.
In addition to that, Five Memphis police officers beat Tyre Nichols during a traffic stop in 2023. (He died 3 days later).
Aside from these, many other cases of police brutality either don't gain much social traction, or remain private.
From these examples alone, one can conclude that it exists.
I find this area of debate quite interesting. I respect your victory and patriotism.
I was wondering if you'd be open to either re-debate this, or debate a similar topic.
This debate may be extremely hard for Pro.
There's many historical cases of police brutality, along with many present cases in more corrupt countries. - That alone breaks his stance that "Police brutality" doesn't exist.
Though the vote reads more opinion than fact, I respect the vote along with the voter.
However stating - "I can 'imagine white sports players being offended by having to share changing rooms with blacks" - to compare to biological women being forced to uncomfortably change alongside biological men with intact genitalia is a categorical error, and quite frankly risks being stereotypical and prejudiced towards caucasians.
"But Con is also able to cut into Pros sources for bias and limitations."
I'd like to know the description behind this, because I used peer reviewed sources that were newer than his - which he ultimately did not refute sufficiently.
Another problem is - "Pro 'does need to make arguments about the differences between men and women, being more than skin deep."
I cited testimonial evidence of trauma and institutional bullying, along with many peer reviewed sources that show the biological imbalances.
The voter needs to elaborate upon what exactly could be better, rather than leaving a plain and ambiguous statement.
The bottom line:
Respectfully, through the lack of substance behind many claims, the categorical errors and failure to elaborate - I'm bumping this in case it does not meet DART's criteria.
Already addressed that, I won't repeat it. The comment section history has already beaten your whole set of lies. I'm done, go bombard someone else's comment section
Hypocritical for you to say considering you wouldn't respect my decision to not engage in a quarrel, and then priv message me that I'm running away.
There were practically no insults, or any form of disrespect present on my part. Again, very hypocritical coming from you,
Let's be clear - I don't need to "prove my position". I do not need to provide a BoP to you.
You've merely selected a fragment of what I've said in priv chat.
I called you, " a sidedog who keeps coming back to attack me in the comment section." That's colloquial language for a side person.
Now stop lying, and claiming that I've had negative implications.
The fact that you want a "comment section debate" speaks for itself.
Just end this here, cause you're frankly embarrassing yourself.
I offered a formal debate, and you didn't comply. You instead wanted a comment section quarrel, then proceeded to privately message me, saying I "ran away".
To avoid further contact I blocked you. If you do not want to get blocked by other users, learn the manner of giving others respect.
In regard to your warped statement, I already stated that the discussion has ended.
Novice, will you consecutively bump the comments and votes of our current debate after you lose it? Or will you finally turn from novice to master? That being in maturity.
Another perfect Straw man, now coupled with a slippery slope.
You may just be the best debater I've ever spoken to.
(Within the category of fallacies).
I never stated the nonsense in your previous comment.
It's not as if everyone's going to run towards the dark web if it's banned, and if each country really takes legal action to ban it, what makes you think they'll all let it slide underground?
The discussion ends here.
As offered before, if you genuinely want to argue this, I'll debate this topic with you officially.
Yes It would, and that's good.
If you advocate for rapists and human traffickers coercing victims to be sexually abused in front of a camera, for individuals to masturbate to. Say it openly.
As for the viewers, banning porn would strip away an addiction (or strong chance of an addiction).
Your reference to the dark web, pretending as if it isn't one of the main hubs for selling contraband is laughable.
However, I wouldn't expect much from someone who sympathizes with criminals and rapists losing their main - absurdly industrialized - way of committing felonies.
Umbrellacorp's comment is the perfect summary of this comment section after Fauxlaw's vote.
Fauxlaw evidently gave an unbiased vote, which after investigation by moderators of this site, does not breach a single policy.
Contrary to Bones' poor observation, detailed votes like these are what keep intellectuals coming back. This site needs more detailed votes which clearly address the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. You don't let your opinion dictate the vote of a voter who's followed the websites' necessary criteria.
In regard to my opponent - I make public that he has in fact blocked me, without any provocation.
Pathetic. Insecure. Arrogant.
If one cannot handle an appropriate vote, or cannot take a well deserved loss, then he/she is too immature for this site.
Nice classic straw man.
Look, if you really want to argue with me then message me for a debate, and I'll respectfully proceed.
Repeatedly coming back to a comments section where you aren't even debating, solely to mock my stance and argument like a keyboard warrior is quite simply pathetic.
You don't have to engage in Ad Hominem.
If the argument is truly among the worst you've heard, then back that chat with a good argument.
Preferably with at least a grain of respect.
Peter and the apostles could not forgive on God's behalf. It's never biblically implied or stated. Only God himself has the supreme authority to forgive sins.
In the pentecost, the spirit of God came down and blessed the disciples with gifts so that they could preach to the masses, this only gave them some degree of authority in order to spread the gospel.
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Jesus didn't call Peter himself, "his rock", as you state.
As evident above, he said that "upon this rock I will build my church".
the Bible never implies that there will be a Pope elected, one after the other.
So I'd advise religiously latching on to only what the Bible says as it's the pure word and will of God himself.
There is a large amount of historical indoctrination that is fed to people of the Catholic denomination to this day, which goes against what God has to say, and what Jesus said.
The original church was not Catholic (biblically).
If you're historically aware of the reformation and Catholicism in early Christian Ireland, you would know that the Catholics manipulated the Bible for their own means
(which were extremely corrupt and against the Bible). For instance - the sale of indulgences, consubstantiation, Mary being holy (without sin).
There's no mention of any of this within the Bible.
The concept of there being a Pope, and there being a process of "confession" is also not biblically accurate at all.
Furthermore, they also see Genesis as symbolic, which is biblically absurd as it's written in detail as a historical account.
All this is the reason why I follow the Bible alone, these denominations run on their own man made agendas rather than relying on God himself.
No. I'm non denominational. I don't stick to denominational agendas, only whats written in the Bible. In case u want to oppose this, I prefer not to debate religion
If you have knowledge of the Old Testament, I'd say u disagree with the concept of being transgender in general (not to imply hate). So no, I don't think you'd disagree with the title of the debate. I'm not in the catholic denomination, but it's good that you've turned to God if you genuinely have. I'll pray for you.
If giving an effective analysis along with a critique signals strong poor judgement, or strong "lack of smartness" in your perception. then you're not long for this world.
If you prefer being a masochistic punching bag, I do not discriminate.
"I am a man of Jesus Christ.
I am completely against gay sexuality and do not support it, tho I do not see those people as consisting of anything less than equal to heterosexuals."
This is the section of bio this person deems as "hateful".
It indicates that I'm a firm Christian believer and am mentally against gay sexuality.
I also clearly mentions that I do not deem gays as unequal.
An individual holding an opinion which you may not have is not mere "hate".
Grow up
Thanks for accepting the debate and persisting through it. Just to clarify, I’m not a catholic, Paul’s teaching at the end was not relevant to the debate.
I’m not sure how you know that I’m from Ireland, and that doesn’t automatically mean that I’m a catholic.
Don't take it personally, much of what may be perceived as annoyance may just be my style of debate. I commend you for persisting throughout all 3 rounds.
It was in fact there by default, though I craft arguments myself, I deemed it better to generate an argument with my views rather than submitting an unfinished one.
My commitments raised much difficulty in abiding by the 1 day time for argument, particularly for that day. I did not voluntarily forfeit. I am officially announcing this to eliminate any impression that I deliberately forfeited round. Thanks
It's a tiny exchange. Please cast your votes
who's the artist. There's several results for "echoes"
"The best" is subjective and extremely broad. In what category does "best" apply to in this debate?
Why does this keep getting lifted
I mentioned use of AI to generate citations, so there's no need to undermine my work by labelling it as plagiarized.
Furthermore, you don't have to fully dismiss my arguments as "poisoning the well".
With all due respect, I don't care if you're bothered with it or not - there's no need to accuse me of fallacy within your vote.
Poisoning the well = when someone presents negative information about a person before they speak, to bias the audience against them.
I placed strong emphasis on its effects, and how Con seamlessly ignores its method of production and brushes it under the carpet by saying it's "not morally wrong".
I respect all voters and their votes, except this seems very emotionally charged.
I notice a common pattern. If one wants democracy over dictatorship or autocracy, you go straight towards accusing them of advocating for Sharia law.
Your entire comment is useless - it’s a quite random ramble; comparing Catholicism and Sharia law.
You’ve completely misinterpreted my stance. Either deliberately, or naively.
The imprisonment is targeted at the creators, not the consumers.
Furthermore, aren’t you supposed to be Catholic. Porn completely goes against your Christian morals.
40%? Where’d you get that figure from?
How can you be so certain that the autocrat will be so perfect? The overwhelming majority of autocrats have historically abused their power for their own interests.
Even your beloved Catholic church was extremely corrupt running under an autocratic system.
I'd advise you to re-read the title, then look at your comment.
Please cast your votes
Well that got painfully off topic
Islamism refers to a political ideology that seeks to implement Islamic principles in government and society. It is not the same as Islam, the religion.
So your statement - "Islamism, like Christianity and Judaism, is a Judaic and Abrahamitic religion,” — is technically false because Islamism is not a religion, whereas Christianity and Judaism are.
Ah, thought u meant real in the sense of having to prove their existence.
And you never mentioned Islamism in your title or description.
I'd stand Pro with "Circumcision on male infants is immoral unless medically necessary." - so that wouldn't really work.
I'd be happy to debate something else if you're interested.
Possibly - "Does God exist?"
I'd be Pro, and you'd be Con.
This wouldn't be set on sources, but logic.
Never denied that Jesus was alive, I'm a firm believer in Christ.
This debate contains structural bias for the Con side.
Dialectical materialism can proven with documented history.
On the other hand, The whole concept of Christianity or Judaism is faith. Faith is fundamentally being - belief without proof.
The essence of a Christian or Judaic individual's morals are held according to their sacred text (Torah or Bible) - which again, cannot be proven with documented history.
If this debate strictly relies on concrete evidence, Con essentially has no ground to stand on.
I personally think it's good to exchange opinions in a debate, arguments don't always have to be heated conflicts.
The George Floyd incident is a perfect example of present modern day brutality.
In addition to that, Five Memphis police officers beat Tyre Nichols during a traffic stop in 2023. (He died 3 days later).
Aside from these, many other cases of police brutality either don't gain much social traction, or remain private.
From these examples alone, one can conclude that it exists.
I find this area of debate quite interesting. I respect your victory and patriotism.
I was wondering if you'd be open to either re-debate this, or debate a similar topic.
This debate may be extremely hard for Pro.
There's many historical cases of police brutality, along with many present cases in more corrupt countries. - That alone breaks his stance that "Police brutality" doesn't exist.
Though the vote reads more opinion than fact, I respect the vote along with the voter.
However stating - "I can 'imagine white sports players being offended by having to share changing rooms with blacks" - to compare to biological women being forced to uncomfortably change alongside biological men with intact genitalia is a categorical error, and quite frankly risks being stereotypical and prejudiced towards caucasians.
"But Con is also able to cut into Pros sources for bias and limitations."
I'd like to know the description behind this, because I used peer reviewed sources that were newer than his - which he ultimately did not refute sufficiently.
Another problem is - "Pro 'does need to make arguments about the differences between men and women, being more than skin deep."
I cited testimonial evidence of trauma and institutional bullying, along with many peer reviewed sources that show the biological imbalances.
The voter needs to elaborate upon what exactly could be better, rather than leaving a plain and ambiguous statement.
The bottom line:
Respectfully, through the lack of substance behind many claims, the categorical errors and failure to elaborate - I'm bumping this in case it does not meet DART's criteria.
Already addressed that, I won't repeat it. The comment section history has already beaten your whole set of lies. I'm done, go bombard someone else's comment section
Hypocritical for you to say considering you wouldn't respect my decision to not engage in a quarrel, and then priv message me that I'm running away.
There were practically no insults, or any form of disrespect present on my part. Again, very hypocritical coming from you,
Let's be clear - I don't need to "prove my position". I do not need to provide a BoP to you.
You've merely selected a fragment of what I've said in priv chat.
I called you, " a sidedog who keeps coming back to attack me in the comment section." That's colloquial language for a side person.
Now stop lying, and claiming that I've had negative implications.
The fact that you want a "comment section debate" speaks for itself.
Just end this here, cause you're frankly embarrassing yourself.
Please cast vote
"Scam" is ambiguous.
Do you imply that the concept doesn't work, or that people use it improperly to profit?
I offered a formal debate, and you didn't comply. You instead wanted a comment section quarrel, then proceeded to privately message me, saying I "ran away".
To avoid further contact I blocked you. If you do not want to get blocked by other users, learn the manner of giving others respect.
In regard to your warped statement, I already stated that the discussion has ended.
Novice, will you consecutively bump the comments and votes of our current debate after you lose it? Or will you finally turn from novice to master? That being in maturity.
Another perfect Straw man, now coupled with a slippery slope.
You may just be the best debater I've ever spoken to.
(Within the category of fallacies).
I never stated the nonsense in your previous comment.
It's not as if everyone's going to run towards the dark web if it's banned, and if each country really takes legal action to ban it, what makes you think they'll all let it slide underground?
The discussion ends here.
As offered before, if you genuinely want to argue this, I'll debate this topic with you officially.
Yes It would, and that's good.
If you advocate for rapists and human traffickers coercing victims to be sexually abused in front of a camera, for individuals to masturbate to. Say it openly.
As for the viewers, banning porn would strip away an addiction (or strong chance of an addiction).
Your reference to the dark web, pretending as if it isn't one of the main hubs for selling contraband is laughable.
However, I wouldn't expect much from someone who sympathizes with criminals and rapists losing their main - absurdly industrialized - way of committing felonies.
Umbrellacorp's comment is the perfect summary of this comment section after Fauxlaw's vote.
Fauxlaw evidently gave an unbiased vote, which after investigation by moderators of this site, does not breach a single policy.
Contrary to Bones' poor observation, detailed votes like these are what keep intellectuals coming back. This site needs more detailed votes which clearly address the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. You don't let your opinion dictate the vote of a voter who's followed the websites' necessary criteria.
In regard to my opponent - I make public that he has in fact blocked me, without any provocation.
Pathetic. Insecure. Arrogant.
If one cannot handle an appropriate vote, or cannot take a well deserved loss, then he/she is too immature for this site.
Well.... Would you look at that.
Nice classic straw man.
Look, if you really want to argue with me then message me for a debate, and I'll respectfully proceed.
Repeatedly coming back to a comments section where you aren't even debating, solely to mock my stance and argument like a keyboard warrior is quite simply pathetic.
You don't have to engage in Ad Hominem.
If the argument is truly among the worst you've heard, then back that chat with a good argument.
Preferably with at least a grain of respect.
Please cast your votes
As said before, I'm not gonna debate religion. It's like speaking to a wall. U can have the last laugh or call It ignorance, idc tbh
Peter and the apostles could not forgive on God's behalf. It's never biblically implied or stated. Only God himself has the supreme authority to forgive sins.
In the pentecost, the spirit of God came down and blessed the disciples with gifts so that they could preach to the masses, this only gave them some degree of authority in order to spread the gospel.
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Jesus didn't call Peter himself, "his rock", as you state.
As evident above, he said that "upon this rock I will build my church".
the Bible never implies that there will be a Pope elected, one after the other.
So I'd advise religiously latching on to only what the Bible says as it's the pure word and will of God himself.
There is a large amount of historical indoctrination that is fed to people of the Catholic denomination to this day, which goes against what God has to say, and what Jesus said.
The original church was not Catholic (biblically).
If you're historically aware of the reformation and Catholicism in early Christian Ireland, you would know that the Catholics manipulated the Bible for their own means
(which were extremely corrupt and against the Bible). For instance - the sale of indulgences, consubstantiation, Mary being holy (without sin).
There's no mention of any of this within the Bible.
The concept of there being a Pope, and there being a process of "confession" is also not biblically accurate at all.
Furthermore, they also see Genesis as symbolic, which is biblically absurd as it's written in detail as a historical account.
All this is the reason why I follow the Bible alone, these denominations run on their own man made agendas rather than relying on God himself.
No. I'm non denominational. I don't stick to denominational agendas, only whats written in the Bible. In case u want to oppose this, I prefer not to debate religion
If you have knowledge of the Old Testament, I'd say u disagree with the concept of being transgender in general (not to imply hate). So no, I don't think you'd disagree with the title of the debate. I'm not in the catholic denomination, but it's good that you've turned to God if you genuinely have. I'll pray for you.
Join my debate. It's the corrected version of the last one we had
Hello everyone. Please cast your votes when feasible. Thank you
Hello everyone, please cast your votes. Thank you
Dumb = Not smart or showing poor judgment.
If giving an effective analysis along with a critique signals strong poor judgement, or strong "lack of smartness" in your perception. then you're not long for this world.
If you prefer being a masochistic punching bag, I do not discriminate.
"I am a man of Jesus Christ.
I am completely against gay sexuality and do not support it, tho I do not see those people as consisting of anything less than equal to heterosexuals."
This is the section of bio this person deems as "hateful".
It indicates that I'm a firm Christian believer and am mentally against gay sexuality.
I also clearly mentions that I do not deem gays as unequal.
An individual holding an opinion which you may not have is not mere "hate".
Grow up
Thanks for accepting the debate and persisting through it. Just to clarify, I’m not a catholic, Paul’s teaching at the end was not relevant to the debate.
I’m not sure how you know that I’m from Ireland, and that doesn’t automatically mean that I’m a catholic.
Don't take it personally, much of what may be perceived as annoyance may just be my style of debate. I commend you for persisting throughout all 3 rounds.
It was in fact there by default, though I craft arguments myself, I deemed it better to generate an argument with my views rather than submitting an unfinished one.
Its good, no need apologise
My commitments raised much difficulty in abiding by the 1 day time for argument, particularly for that day. I did not voluntarily forfeit. I am officially announcing this to eliminate any impression that I deliberately forfeited round. Thanks
Sure, just skip to round 3