No kill shelters are far more unethical than kill shelters and this is one thing peta got right. This is the worst common criticism of peta. They use so many ignorant extremist tactics but they get bashed for this? They get some stuff right, just deal with it
I refuse accept debates I would win all the time. I'd beat you by arguing for solipsism. An average debater I would lose to with the solipsism argument. You are below average though
that is honestly retarded. If I knock down all your arguments in a single post and provide stronger arguments it would be stupid to award my opponent the win
Admins have no control over whether you will do the ethical thing and instigate as pro. Here is how you do it. You instigate as pro and name the debate "god does not hate homosexuality "
Angel would count as alien here. I am sure pro is aware of that. The point is not to speculate as to where the beings came from whether it is heaven, other intelligent planets, other dimensions or from time travel with life forms so advanced that they appeared like they came from another planet. "Ancient aliens" is a history channel tv show being hinted at referencing in the title. All of this is kinda a moot point anyway, because pro already stated they will accept their opponent's interpretation even if the interpretation is as ridiculous as baked beans
Why do you Jews always overwhelmingly support the most pro establishment person? Do you just do whatever the fuck CNN tells you without any critical thought whatsoever
Actually it all tied in, and focusing on one or two arguments was not possible. I had one argument that was supported by a very very long chain of logic. You didn't understand the logic partly because you have a 2 digit IQ and partly because I did a shitty job of explaining it, but the grammar point was stupid. You only award grammar in very specific circumstances that occur in fewer than 1% of debates and this debate did not fall into that category
I was not very organized. I realized after starting this to thoroughly explain the topic actually would take closer to 60,000 characters. The spelling and grammar criticisms were retarded though. My native language is not english. It is a point that should only be used when spelling and grammar needed to be better for comprehension. Comprehension was tough because of the difficulty of the subject not because of spelling and grammar
That is silly. Whether the universe is created by nature, God or computer programmers has no bearing on what if anything makes it meaningful, and it is not enough to say my premise is wrong. A bare assertion of "deep we should help old ladies carry their groceries " without a premise to support it other than a premise that restates the conclusion. Like "helping is good" is meaningless
con ignored my arguments and came forward with stupid ones that were irrelevent. My premises still stand. technically I did not even need a second round.
premise 1- only existence matter
Con doesn't attack this premise and merely reverts to societal programming "being good is what matters and I refuse to offer evidence of that"
premise 2. if we live in a simulated environment we are more likely to live longer by being significant than by being good
I gave several points to support this, most of which were ignored. the conclusion that we should be significant in said universe is derived from the principles. The judging on this site is retarded. I dhould have been able to forfeit the last 2 rounds and still won
I actually wanted to quit this debate for that reason, but I feel like I am winning and oromagi is undefeated. That is, if I can overcome the inherent bias against me, not just for my position but because people just give the better debater more benefit of a doubt with their arguments even in moments of inferior performance
I thought your comment was on another debate. The answer is no. I think it is far more important to help with things we can better comprehend rather than taking a guess at what somebody with god like intelligence will do
A border wall also means we force Mexico to force their issues, I stead of shipping their dissidents to America. Why would you prefer Mexico stay a 3rd world shithole than to help them by forcing them to keep their dissidents there. Are you against helping our neighbors live the same quality of life as us?
I see, your argument is for open borders. Even if you have an open border policy, why are you against protecting the borders. Little girls are raped and treated like cattle for passage into the United States. Why do you prefer they are raped than we put up border security so they can come in legally and safely?
Of course my policy of reckless speed in pursuit of radical life extension is because the faster we get it done the less people die. Honestly I consider us all dead,so would sacrifice the world if it meant immortality for just 10 people not even known to me. In that case it is a choice between everyone dead or everyone but 10 people dead
I agree with a lot of that. That wasn't my response though just me checking myself for understanding so I could write a valid response. Some things I felt like were true is that the FDA has considered aging a disease recently which will allow it to regulate the market more on those anti aging schemes as well as just when doctors are involved in something they usually have the political power to get there way with mixed bad good results. The results in this case would stop supplement companies for example from competing with them, but in the past have blocked nurse practitioners from filling the gap created by having too few general practitioner doctors.
I do personally think the ends justify the means but would not attempt a persuasive argument around it. Certainly I would argue for not allowing the means we are most likely to take from deterring us from good goals, but instead be aware of the negative means and short term effects of pursuing big goals, so we can mitigate the damage done in obtaining the goal as well as in completion of the goal.
A lot of your arguments seem to stem from a different view of short term vs long term. For me I picture the end result. I don't think it matters how much damage it takes to achieve a good ends. The ends justify the means pretty much. I have seen the same arguments used against a one world government.
It doesn't seem to be the long term benefits and harms you look at, but the short term harms. Mainly a few decades of a market that is more exploitative than what is typical. Even the long period that may come after that where the technology cannot be distributed equally among the rich and the poor. You also seem concerned about the effects of pooling our resources to battle the effects of aging when more important projects that could improve the world immediately such as clean drinking water for everyone should be done.
Am I getting the overall bird's eye view of your arguments correctly?
I thought about some responses to your objections. Would you be interested in extending this conversation through another debate, PMs or in open forums? I am particularly interested in your responses because of your educational background and interest in bioethics. I want to make a post later responding to the objection and see what your criticisms are, if you even have any.
Just discovered some new evidence that our body isn't so much breaking down, as it is it seems to actually be turning on us at a certain point to destroy itself. I would have loved to apply that concept to the debate.
Veganism is not vegetarianism mechtard
Judge based on the arguments presented dumb ass
No kill shelters are far more unethical than kill shelters and this is one thing peta got right. This is the worst common criticism of peta. They use so many ignorant extremist tactics but they get bashed for this? They get some stuff right, just deal with it
Is con going to actually make an argument or merely stick to rebuttals.
I refuse accept debates I would win all the time. I'd beat you by arguing for solipsism. An average debater I would lose to with the solipsism argument. You are below average though
Actually pro made this unwinnable for con, but I could still beat him
that is honestly retarded. If I knock down all your arguments in a single post and provide stronger arguments it would be stupid to award my opponent the win
Seriously keep falling asleep when it is time to post my argument wtf. Oh well. I only need one round to win this
Damn it. Thought I had more time
I actually like this approach.
Are you not trying to get a fee win by idiots who accept your debate thinking they are going to debate alien visitations?
Con contact me if he uses an abusive definition. Of UFO, I will find a way to award you the win
dumb. All BOP is not on con. BoP is shared here equally and even if BOP were on con skipping the first round is a strategic error
Admins have no control over whether you will do the ethical thing and instigate as pro. Here is how you do it. You instigate as pro and name the debate "god does not hate homosexuality "
Never instigate as con mother fuckers. It is dumb, just reword it to be a pro statement
I do now. This changes my approach
How can god hates homosexuals if he engages in sex with other men
Angel would count as alien here. I am sure pro is aware of that. The point is not to speculate as to where the beings came from whether it is heaven, other intelligent planets, other dimensions or from time travel with life forms so advanced that they appeared like they came from another planet. "Ancient aliens" is a history channel tv show being hinted at referencing in the title. All of this is kinda a moot point anyway, because pro already stated they will accept their opponent's interpretation even if the interpretation is as ridiculous as baked beans
It doesn't depend on the definition. the definition depends on the contexrt which is obvious
Why do we have smart asses coming on debates pretending they don't know the instigator is talking about extra terrestrial beings from outer space
Why do you Jews always overwhelmingly support the most pro establishment person? Do you just do whatever the fuck CNN tells you without any critical thought whatsoever
Actually it all tied in, and focusing on one or two arguments was not possible. I had one argument that was supported by a very very long chain of logic. You didn't understand the logic partly because you have a 2 digit IQ and partly because I did a shitty job of explaining it, but the grammar point was stupid. You only award grammar in very specific circumstances that occur in fewer than 1% of debates and this debate did not fall into that category
I was not very organized. I realized after starting this to thoroughly explain the topic actually would take closer to 60,000 characters. The spelling and grammar criticisms were retarded though. My native language is not english. It is a point that should only be used when spelling and grammar needed to be better for comprehension. Comprehension was tough because of the difficulty of the subject not because of spelling and grammar
That is silly. Whether the universe is created by nature, God or computer programmers has no bearing on what if anything makes it meaningful, and it is not enough to say my premise is wrong. A bare assertion of "deep we should help old ladies carry their groceries " without a premise to support it other than a premise that restates the conclusion. Like "helping is good" is meaningless
con ignored my arguments and came forward with stupid ones that were irrelevent. My premises still stand. technically I did not even need a second round.
premise 1- only existence matter
Con doesn't attack this premise and merely reverts to societal programming "being good is what matters and I refuse to offer evidence of that"
premise 2. if we live in a simulated environment we are more likely to live longer by being significant than by being good
I gave several points to support this, most of which were ignored. the conclusion that we should be significant in said universe is derived from the principles. The judging on this site is retarded. I dhould have been able to forfeit the last 2 rounds and still won
Thanks. Hope you enjoy
I actually wanted to quit this debate for that reason, but I feel like I am winning and oromagi is undefeated. That is, if I can overcome the inherent bias against me, not just for my position but because people just give the better debater more benefit of a doubt with their arguments even in moments of inferior performance
I thought your comment was on another debate. The answer is no. I think it is far more important to help with things we can better comprehend rather than taking a guess at what somebody with god like intelligence will do
Yes, I am attempting to be significant anyway, but while also being morally good. I want positive impact. Negative impact is easy.
I would use the same arguments I used to win against opponents superior to you, on Debate.org. doing so would Dox me, so I'll pass
A border wall also means we force Mexico to force their issues, I stead of shipping their dissidents to America. Why would you prefer Mexico stay a 3rd world shithole than to help them by forcing them to keep their dissidents there. Are you against helping our neighbors live the same quality of life as us?
I see, your argument is for open borders. Even if you have an open border policy, why are you against protecting the borders. Little girls are raped and treated like cattle for passage into the United States. Why do you prefer they are raped than we put up border security so they can come in legally and safely?
Why is it a bad ideal?
Interesting argument
Of course my policy of reckless speed in pursuit of radical life extension is because the faster we get it done the less people die. Honestly I consider us all dead,so would sacrifice the world if it meant immortality for just 10 people not even known to me. In that case it is a choice between everyone dead or everyone but 10 people dead
I agree with a lot of that. That wasn't my response though just me checking myself for understanding so I could write a valid response. Some things I felt like were true is that the FDA has considered aging a disease recently which will allow it to regulate the market more on those anti aging schemes as well as just when doctors are involved in something they usually have the political power to get there way with mixed bad good results. The results in this case would stop supplement companies for example from competing with them, but in the past have blocked nurse practitioners from filling the gap created by having too few general practitioner doctors.
I do personally think the ends justify the means but would not attempt a persuasive argument around it. Certainly I would argue for not allowing the means we are most likely to take from deterring us from good goals, but instead be aware of the negative means and short term effects of pursuing big goals, so we can mitigate the damage done in obtaining the goal as well as in completion of the goal.
A lot of your arguments seem to stem from a different view of short term vs long term. For me I picture the end result. I don't think it matters how much damage it takes to achieve a good ends. The ends justify the means pretty much. I have seen the same arguments used against a one world government.
It doesn't seem to be the long term benefits and harms you look at, but the short term harms. Mainly a few decades of a market that is more exploitative than what is typical. Even the long period that may come after that where the technology cannot be distributed equally among the rich and the poor. You also seem concerned about the effects of pooling our resources to battle the effects of aging when more important projects that could improve the world immediately such as clean drinking water for everyone should be done.
Am I getting the overall bird's eye view of your arguments correctly?
Thanks
I thought about some responses to your objections. Would you be interested in extending this conversation through another debate, PMs or in open forums? I am particularly interested in your responses because of your educational background and interest in bioethics. I want to make a post later responding to the objection and see what your criticisms are, if you even have any.
Trust me honey. I know what mmff is ;)
The only authentic statistics are ones that agree with his ideology. Nice try
Okay, I didn't take what percentage of whites were military age. Good point
Your source would indicate a disproportionate number of service members are non white, even if the majority are considered white.
It is, and I am interested in your rebuttal
Thanks for the honorable concession
Thanks for taking the time to read and vote on the debate
Glad you enjoyed it
I'm glad to know that. You had me worried when I saw you accept
Just discovered some new evidence that our body isn't so much breaking down, as it is it seems to actually be turning on us at a certain point to destroy itself. I would have loved to apply that concept to the debate.
Yes, precisely. It is for your own good when our robot overlord comes.