>>He's misidentified the fundamental issue at stake from a UK style confiscation, which is property rights, not the right to self defense.
Then why tag me if it was referring to someone else?
>>Slavery is a poor analogy in this instance. Even prior to the civil war there were people saying that the concept of chattel is invalid, that slaves are equal as people.
If it wasn't property why were white people compensated for losses in profits as in reparations?
Slaves weren't as equal as non-slaves because they were claimed as property by slave owners. Slave owners couldn't be owned as property which is why they are different.
>>2.5M instances a year in which a gun is used defensively. There are far more lives saved by guns than lives taken.
2.5 million defensive use doesn't equal guns saved lives. This can be when a simple call to the police could've resolved the issue. Just this alone is to demonstrate there is no link between the two.
>>In many instances, such as England, gun bans did not have any effect on decreasing murder rate. It actually went up a little bit.
Evidence? Debate me perhaps?
>>If you ban guns, criminals get other guns off the black market or just use other things, like knives.
Which can be offset-ted by effective gun removal. Not impossible and if less people have guns there is less in the circulation which results in less that can be used to commit violent or threatening actions.
>> You are taking away 99.9% of gun owners right to self-defense, and punishing them for the crimes off mentally insane people.
No I would be making everyone safer. Like you failed to discuss what I said earlier, Guns are more effective at killing multiple people. Given most altercations happen in open areas a gun has a much larger distance to be used to gun people down at a distance whereas you are forced with a knife to be really close or the rare case where the person is really lucking with throwing a knife or is the like the one person is a professional at throwing knifes. Guns are easier to commit suicide. One trigger and you are dead. With knifes the person can pull out and still have a possibility of being saved whereas with the gun it is probably lethal.
>>I was primarily thinking about suicide from a gun versus suicide from jumping off of a building or something. Once you jump, there is no going back. It takes effort to do either. Death by fractured limbs is more painful than death by gunshot. People who are suicidal will find creative ways to kill themselves if they have the will to do it.
So pain is more important than the amount of people dead?
We wouldn't have two words that pretty much mean the same thing if that was the case.
>>Do you know that transgenderism is a mental disorder?
Do you know that this isn't true?
Gender dysphoria is the problem.
Transgender is just a label like man and woman.
The ism depends on which thing you follow. I don't really know the ism with it comes to transgender so it can open to who defines it. Care to tell me what transgenderism is?
>>Men on average have more muscle, they tend to run faster and punch harder. This is due to a testosterone advantage that men have over women 42 fold.
Biology is sex.
Gender is social.
Testosterone differences would only matter if all men have higher testosterone but they don't. Women can have more than men which means the biological aspect of sex doesn't neuter what people do with their lives.
Saying x on average has more than y isn't an argument that there are entire class differences. You are just simply stating on average x has more than y. This can't be extrapolated to meaning the entire x is different to the entirety y because that would mean it wouldn't be based on average, it would be based on x having more than y not on average.
Do you have clear data which states all men have something women don't that isn't biological? If you don't then gender is based on what people do with their lives. This can be how they socially behave and other environmental things.
>>Language is a social construct, but gender isin´t. All labels and all words are social constructs, but the concept of gender, rather than the actual word is not a social construct.
You have agreed the label is a social construct. I will move on to gender. Gender is a social construct because it si based on what is socially agreed upon what is a man and a woman. Men equal facial hair and women equal long hair. These are based on the society which is why it is a social construct. Both the label and gender is a social construct.
Social construct: an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society Class distinctions are a social construct.
Man and woman are social construct because gender is a social construct. It is labels we ascribe to things like chairs. tables etc. Those differences don't state otherwise. I am specifically talking about the labels.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20construct
>>It´s like saying that working out will make you better at sports. Is it hard? Yes.
You don't have evidence and resort to a random answered question. I'll ask again do you have evidence?
>>My solution is getting the transgenders mental help with their condition so they are less likely to commit suicide.
Do you have evidence for this solution?
>>It's the condition of being transgender that has caused so many to commit or attempt suicide, not how society treats them.
It is a bit of both. Nature v Nurture thing here.
>>The West treats them pretty good if all they have to worry about is misgendering on the basis of belief. The notion that some states would punish people for misgendering on the basis of belief is truly fascist.
That is what I thought. Your delusion has actually led you to believe things that are not true. Similar to conservatives. Your ideology means more than what is correct. Socialism isn't as palatable as you think nor has it been as productive as capitalism.
>>I think the suicide rate would fall more if transgenders were encouraged to get rehabilitation rather than just acceptance.
Here we go again. You are so sure there is a problem but are not so sure the solution you have is good. That is the problem. You are too busy ragging on something instead of spending some time to actually find a solution (No your whatever bad ideas are in the forums don't count because they don't work and I have demonstrated to you it doesn't work). My side is that I know this helps and you agree with it so I don't need to provide a solution.
>>What is the difference between transgenderism and gender dysphoria?
Transgender is a label of a person and the ism is whatever the group leader or person elected to be the group leader says it is. If there isn't one then they can make the ism whatever they want it to be. Gender dysphoria is a medical diagnosis.
Barely falls is better not falling whatsoever. Do you not see that?
Transgenderism is cured by finding a cure to gender dysphoria. Transgenderism is not a problem. Gender dysphoria is unless of course man and women shouldn't be changed because God said so.
Your socialist revolution is not going to come if you are not convincing. To even think the US is close to a socialist revolution is laughable. Why not attempt to make a case instead of giving the right wing such an easy way of winning?
>>I literally stated the KCA as William Lane Craig would argue it
How about the definition of God?
Oh wait they are different meaning both of you actually meant different things when referring to God. Okay.
>>remarking upon the theological implications of this union of properties."
Oh so Craig meant it with the theist perspective but you meant it with the deist perspective as in 49,000 people vs a lot more.
>>Would you personally, not consider a conscious cause of our universe to be God?
Why does what I personally think matter? You changed the definition to make the KCA pretty much align with it even though it doesn't. God is defined one way and you changed that majority definition which made the KCA different given the change in meanings.
>>There is no socially agreed upon definition of "God" as there exists hundreds of different "God's" pertaining to different religions.
I don't know what you are doing here but you are not convincing me of there isn't a consensus of the word God.
>>Many argue that they, themselves are God in a framework of solipsism -- the fact that they are not omnipotent or omnibenevolent wouldn't refute that.
How many people?
>> If our universe were simulated by a greater intellgence, we would ascribe them as being God. If we were to simulate a universe identical to ours and create life -- we would consider ourselves the "God" of that universe, yet we don't match the definition of God you provided.
What if it isn't? I would like concrete examples how the Abrahamic version of God is not the consensus. Even Hindus also call God the supreme being which if we total all of them up would mean a majority of the population have the same definition of God. Even excluding Hinduism just Christianity and Islam is more than 50% of the population. Hinduism agreeing just makes my case even better.
That was the main argument. The other argument required the first because of how the ideas link. Cause and effect was again used in the second argument but was more important in the first given the KCA was the one that actually fulfilled the burden of proof if I followed your definition. You even mention it here as an addition "Now that it has been established that the universe is contingent upon an efficient cause, I assert that the only a personal cause (i.e an agent of volition) could be the only rational explanation."
>> If that were a truism we would be faced with the fact that our universe was caused by a conscious being.
It is a truism because you defined God differently to fit in the KCA argument basically removing the most important gripes when using the KCA as an argument for God. I called you out in the debate for using different definitions of God when I am guessing you know the commonly agreed definition of God.
>>That's why I stated that Atheism wouldn't be very plausible if it were a truism.
This was about whether or not God exists. Not about atheism.
>>Moreover, the idea of a caused universe is certainly not a truism, the KCA is heavily criticized.
Yeah because it is link to God as in the perfect being not the efficient cause to our universe. Please see my arguments again for a run down on why I challenged the assumptions and how I went about it.
You decided to call God the cause of its existence.
I called it a truism because of that.
You used a very different definition to God essentially make the KCA be an argument for God when it never was if we care about using the socially agreed upon definition of God.
>>He's misidentified the fundamental issue at stake from a UK style confiscation, which is property rights, not the right to self defense.
Then why tag me if it was referring to someone else?
>>Slavery is a poor analogy in this instance. Even prior to the civil war there were people saying that the concept of chattel is invalid, that slaves are equal as people.
If it wasn't property why were white people compensated for losses in profits as in reparations?
Slaves weren't as equal as non-slaves because they were claimed as property by slave owners. Slave owners couldn't be owned as property which is why they are different.
Property rights were at stake when slaves were going about their freedom. What is your point?
No it isn't. Guns are more effective. It is very unlikely for someone to not die from a shot to the head.
>>2.5M instances a year in which a gun is used defensively. There are far more lives saved by guns than lives taken.
2.5 million defensive use doesn't equal guns saved lives. This can be when a simple call to the police could've resolved the issue. Just this alone is to demonstrate there is no link between the two.
>>In many instances, such as England, gun bans did not have any effect on decreasing murder rate. It actually went up a little bit.
Evidence? Debate me perhaps?
>>If you ban guns, criminals get other guns off the black market or just use other things, like knives.
Which can be offset-ted by effective gun removal. Not impossible and if less people have guns there is less in the circulation which results in less that can be used to commit violent or threatening actions.
>> You are taking away 99.9% of gun owners right to self-defense, and punishing them for the crimes off mentally insane people.
No I would be making everyone safer. Like you failed to discuss what I said earlier, Guns are more effective at killing multiple people. Given most altercations happen in open areas a gun has a much larger distance to be used to gun people down at a distance whereas you are forced with a knife to be really close or the rare case where the person is really lucking with throwing a knife or is the like the one person is a professional at throwing knifes. Guns are easier to commit suicide. One trigger and you are dead. With knifes the person can pull out and still have a possibility of being saved whereas with the gun it is probably lethal.
I mean what don't you like?
Not you said you don't like something as in name me something you don't like.
What don't you like?
I am going to change it. Tell me if you like it.
>>I was primarily thinking about suicide from a gun versus suicide from jumping off of a building or something. Once you jump, there is no going back. It takes effort to do either. Death by fractured limbs is more painful than death by gunshot. People who are suicidal will find creative ways to kill themselves if they have the will to do it.
So pain is more important than the amount of people dead?
Which profile I keep changing it?
Doesn't mean they are the same.
If that is your argument then life and death are related.
Are they the same?
wtf
Gender is environment.
Sex is biological.
We wouldn't have two words that pretty much mean the same thing if that was the case.
>>Do you know that transgenderism is a mental disorder?
Do you know that this isn't true?
Gender dysphoria is the problem.
Transgender is just a label like man and woman.
The ism depends on which thing you follow. I don't really know the ism with it comes to transgender so it can open to who defines it. Care to tell me what transgenderism is?
bumping it so I see it at the top.
Competitive as in the capitalist aspects of the system. I don't think I need to go that deep given my opponent but I might.
No you don't and your lack of clarification does imply you can't actually explain yourself.
>>Men on average have more muscle, they tend to run faster and punch harder. This is due to a testosterone advantage that men have over women 42 fold.
Biology is sex.
Gender is social.
Testosterone differences would only matter if all men have higher testosterone but they don't. Women can have more than men which means the biological aspect of sex doesn't neuter what people do with their lives.
Saying x on average has more than y isn't an argument that there are entire class differences. You are just simply stating on average x has more than y. This can't be extrapolated to meaning the entire x is different to the entirety y because that would mean it wouldn't be based on average, it would be based on x having more than y not on average.
Do you have clear data which states all men have something women don't that isn't biological? If you don't then gender is based on what people do with their lives. This can be how they socially behave and other environmental things.
>>Not accurate.
How?
>>Language is a social construct, but gender isin´t. All labels and all words are social constructs, but the concept of gender, rather than the actual word is not a social construct.
You have agreed the label is a social construct. I will move on to gender. Gender is a social construct because it si based on what is socially agreed upon what is a man and a woman. Men equal facial hair and women equal long hair. These are based on the society which is why it is a social construct. Both the label and gender is a social construct.
If it works then I am for it. Since the Nordic countries are not really competitive with global markets I don't care.
>>Gender is not a social construct
Social construct: an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society Class distinctions are a social construct.
Man and woman are social construct because gender is a social construct. It is labels we ascribe to things like chairs. tables etc. Those differences don't state otherwise. I am specifically talking about the labels.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20construct
>>It´s like saying that working out will make you better at sports. Is it hard? Yes.
You don't have evidence and resort to a random answered question. I'll ask again do you have evidence?
I guess unless of course the person I am facing actually can make a good argument. I have never seen it.
I don't have to be for the nordic model to be on the left.
What?
You can edit your debate and add that thing you missed.
Welcome another person who doesn't know what they are talking about.
>>My solution is getting the transgenders mental help with their condition so they are less likely to commit suicide.
Do you have evidence for this solution?
>>It's the condition of being transgender that has caused so many to commit or attempt suicide, not how society treats them.
It is a bit of both. Nature v Nurture thing here.
>>The West treats them pretty good if all they have to worry about is misgendering on the basis of belief. The notion that some states would punish people for misgendering on the basis of belief is truly fascist.
Not anything about your solution.
That is what I thought. Your delusion has actually led you to believe things that are not true. Similar to conservatives. Your ideology means more than what is correct. Socialism isn't as palatable as you think nor has it been as productive as capitalism.
>>I think the suicide rate would fall more if transgenders were encouraged to get rehabilitation rather than just acceptance.
Here we go again. You are so sure there is a problem but are not so sure the solution you have is good. That is the problem. You are too busy ragging on something instead of spending some time to actually find a solution (No your whatever bad ideas are in the forums don't count because they don't work and I have demonstrated to you it doesn't work). My side is that I know this helps and you agree with it so I don't need to provide a solution.
>>What is the difference between transgenderism and gender dysphoria?
Transgender is a label of a person and the ism is whatever the group leader or person elected to be the group leader says it is. If there isn't one then they can make the ism whatever they want it to be. Gender dysphoria is a medical diagnosis.
Barely falls is better not falling whatsoever. Do you not see that?
Transgenderism is cured by finding a cure to gender dysphoria. Transgenderism is not a problem. Gender dysphoria is unless of course man and women shouldn't be changed because God said so.
You still haven't changed.
Your socialist revolution is not going to come if you are not convincing. To even think the US is close to a socialist revolution is laughable. Why not attempt to make a case instead of giving the right wing such an easy way of winning?
Oh okay.
That crucial information isn't stated there for some reason.
But it does say that though
"YitzGoldberg - 9/3/19 by Virtuoso"
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2305/site-official-ban-log
Liked the new one.
Thanks for taking the time.
Thanks for taking the time.
Let us see if Virtuoso or Ramshutu agree or not.
I believe it is unfair and await for the moderators to see if they agree.
Report Ragnar's if you think it is unfair.
Can you tell me how semperfortis won?
It wasn't clear in your vote.
The dark side is waiting.
Do I have to beg?
Guns are cool but dangerous.
About what?
In the debate?
Can you discuss the debate after it is finished?
Good luck as well.
Guess you deleted your blatant vote influencing.
Do you want to carry on speaking or is this it for you influencing voter decision?
Why are you telling me this now?
Are you trying to influence voters?
I didn't start this in the comment section you did.
Are there other things you would like to tell voters to influence their decision?
Not going anywhere and don't want to talk about it.
Please make another debate which puts an unfair burden on your opponent if they don't decide to challenge your assumptions.
>>I literally stated the KCA as William Lane Craig would argue it
How about the definition of God?
Oh wait they are different meaning both of you actually meant different things when referring to God. Okay.
>>remarking upon the theological implications of this union of properties."
Oh so Craig meant it with the theist perspective but you meant it with the deist perspective as in 49,000 people vs a lot more.
>>Would you personally, not consider a conscious cause of our universe to be God?
Why does what I personally think matter? You changed the definition to make the KCA pretty much align with it even though it doesn't. God is defined one way and you changed that majority definition which made the KCA different given the change in meanings.
>>There is no socially agreed upon definition of "God" as there exists hundreds of different "God's" pertaining to different religions.
I don't know what you are doing here but you are not convincing me of there isn't a consensus of the word God.
>>Many argue that they, themselves are God in a framework of solipsism -- the fact that they are not omnipotent or omnibenevolent wouldn't refute that.
How many people?
>> If our universe were simulated by a greater intellgence, we would ascribe them as being God. If we were to simulate a universe identical to ours and create life -- we would consider ourselves the "God" of that universe, yet we don't match the definition of God you provided.
What if it isn't? I would like concrete examples how the Abrahamic version of God is not the consensus. Even Hindus also call God the supreme being which if we total all of them up would mean a majority of the population have the same definition of God. Even excluding Hinduism just Christianity and Islam is more than 50% of the population. Hinduism agreeing just makes my case even better.
>>But my argument wasn't just the KCA
That was the main argument. The other argument required the first because of how the ideas link. Cause and effect was again used in the second argument but was more important in the first given the KCA was the one that actually fulfilled the burden of proof if I followed your definition. You even mention it here as an addition "Now that it has been established that the universe is contingent upon an efficient cause, I assert that the only a personal cause (i.e an agent of volition) could be the only rational explanation."
>> If that were a truism we would be faced with the fact that our universe was caused by a conscious being.
It is a truism because you defined God differently to fit in the KCA argument basically removing the most important gripes when using the KCA as an argument for God. I called you out in the debate for using different definitions of God when I am guessing you know the commonly agreed definition of God.
>>That's why I stated that Atheism wouldn't be very plausible if it were a truism.
This was about whether or not God exists. Not about atheism.
>>Moreover, the idea of a caused universe is certainly not a truism, the KCA is heavily criticized.
Yeah because it is link to God as in the perfect being not the efficient cause to our universe. Please see my arguments again for a run down on why I challenged the assumptions and how I went about it.
That isn't my position.
The resolution was God does not exist.
KCA is an argument for a cause of its existence.
You decided to call God the cause of its existence.
I called it a truism because of that.
You used a very different definition to God essentially make the KCA be an argument for God when it never was if we care about using the socially agreed upon definition of God.