Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
Round 1 PinkFreud08/
His arguments were:
His arguments were:
“Homosexuality and sexual pleasure, in general,is great for one's health”
This was supported by the source so basically is claims weresupported by the source stating sex improves immunity, lowers blood pressure,relives pain and improves sleep. This enough of an argument to consider sex tobe a good thing.
The instigator did this which I would advise against:
The instigator did this which I would advise against:
“They bite the bullet and agree to remainlogically consistent
They don't bite the bullet and don't remainlogically consistent
They try to prove why these analogies don't apply”
This to me is not a good strategy because you are pretty muchtelling the opponent what your cards are. They can use this by stating anargument that is different to the scenarios you picked out or decide to rebutthese points rather than focus on your actual arguments.
“Homosexuals can't reproduce”
This wasn’t an argumentfor why homosexuality doesn’t lead to reproduction is bad more so it was anargument to see if his opponent remained logically consistent. This is a badapproach to take it because the instigator did not state why homosexuals not reproducingis bad more so if you care about it then you should care about this as well.This would be considered a whataboutism when a point can be made without it.
The instigator did thisagain:
The instigator did thisagain:
“They bite the bullet and agree to remainlogically consistent
They don't bite the bullet and don't remainlogically consistent
They try to prove why these analogies don't apply”
I already stated myproblems but I say it again. Making the opponent aware of your tactic leaves itopen to them either engaging too much with what you said here or deny that anyof them apply to them. It is best to keep your rebuttals until it is requiredin the debate.
Another argument fromthe instigator is:
Another argument fromthe instigator is:
“Homosexuality isn't natural”
This is the best pointmade by the instigator. The instigator clearly shows that if they considerhomosexuality to be unnatural they be extension should consider fans, medicine,dyed hair and buildings unnatural as well. The point would be better if theinstigator did point out the fallacy which is an appeal to nature.
This happened again:
This happened again:
“They bite the bullet and agree to remainlogically consistent
They don't bite the bullet and don't remainlogically consistent
“They try to prove why these analogies don'tapply”
Round 1 Tiwaz/
“P1. Homosexuals Contract STDs at Rates MuchHigher Than Straight People”
Basically stated evidence for this but didn’t say how it isharmful to society. All this needed was AID’s is harmful because of X and forthat reason homosexuals are more harmful than heterosexual men.
“P2. Sex is Harmful”
Opens up with an attack by saying “Sex, contrary to what contemporary liberals state, is by far the singlemost dangerous activity one may engage in.” So basically insulting liberalseither being not intelligent or just a general insult. Everything else wasbasically stating sex is harmful. Nothing was substantiated. Made claimswithout supporting it with evidence.
“P3. Homosexuality is Indicative of Psychosexual Immaturityas defined by Freud.”
This isbasically the contender’s argument. Claim supported without evidence.
“P4. Homosexuality is ethically objectable, itdegrades the relationship of love to a game.”
Same as above. Claim supported without evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Can you use Calibri (Body) as your font choice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Where did she say that?
I checked the video and she did not say it.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah time-travel is really difficult to do right. I don't even have a good example of it done anywhere correctly which has definitely hindered the movie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
If you want to see the likelihood of such an idea. Post it in the platform development section. Debateart.com can tell you if it is possible in the short term or even in the long term.
Created:
Posted in:
A kangaroo is a bipedal primate mammal.This is a direct quote from post 110.Maybe you did not mean to say kangaroos are primates but you kinda did.
Didn't realize that. Was supposed to say a kangaroo is a bipedal mammal.
Created:
Posted in:
I am the opposite which is why I love Spider-Man 2 a drama.I would agree to a level bc i hate dramas
but i agree character development is important... but this was freaking Endgame man... we had 10 years of character development...
Character development is good and all but it requires a pay off. I only saw one person really done justice. Black Widow is a boring character, Hawkeye had something interesting happening. Captain America kind of was executed well because he did what he couldn't in the past but wanted but I am sure the time-travel thing messes up what the hell went on. Was Cap fighting Loki, Ultron or Thor or was he spending time with Peggy? That time travel thing doesn't make sense because a young Cap was there not an old one so basically either there was 2 Caps or 1 that was never in those Avengers movies so basically those movies don't really matter because Cap the leader of the Avengers was not there. Don't know how you are supposed to execute time-travel well. Don't think it is possible.
i wanted to see them fighting together all powers combined at peek level.
If there was one thing that didn't matter was power levels. Scarlet Witch and Captain Marvel can individually take down Thanos yet I am supposed to believe an angry Scarlet wanted to be slow about it and Captain Marvel would have a tendency to do things quick because she was patrolling the entire galaxy. She can't be in a place for too long because that would mean less time would be spent on other galaxy problems.
but it was like 2 hours of talking instead.
I like talking. It gives meaning to the action scenes. I much have an 80% talking and 20% fight scenes because the talking builds up the fights if done correctly.
Iron Man dies and the girl next to me starts sniffling for the next 10 minutes.
That is pretty funny. I wasn't really impacted by his death so much because I have grown tired of watching pretty much all of the MCU movies.
Maybe i just need to watch it again alone... but first go, i was frustrated. I was waiting for an epic showdown... not a TV show-ish level film.
If you mean they had a TV show budget to create the fight scenes I feel you. Infinity War was more grandiose and Endgame had one fight scene comparable to Infinity War which was the ending fight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
His original claim was about bipedal mammals not about primates.Um Omar I don't mean to be contentious but kangaroos,are not primates. Marsupials aren't even placental mammals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Well guess you are doubling down. Your original claim was that humans a bipedal mammals here:Was it the Homo sapiens that tripped you up genius? Maybe you haven't covered that in school yet, which then I would owe you an apology otherwise what I said is all correct. Saying that you aren't very bright isn't an insult it's an observation.
a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)
Then I said what about kangaroos? here:
A kangaroo is a bipedal primate mammal.
Then you moved the goalposts to something that was not your original claim:
Kangaroos are marsupials.
So basically you have moved the goalposts and you have based differences not on something real instead you base it on classification. That is not an argument and for you to say that really goes to show what you are capable or incapable of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Well I couldn't really care about CGI because there are other things that I find more important like character development and story. I much have a 1 in CGI so that I can have a 10 in story and character development. Stories if told correctly don't get stale but CGI does. It is only asethitcally pleasing images generated. With people interacting you can have so many directions you can take the movie. This would be talking about the philosophy of the movie in whatever direction they take it and how do character's progress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Kangaroos are marsupials.Primates include monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas and the like. No. Primates are placental mammals, and marsupials are a separate group of mammals.you just aren't very bright are you.
That distinction doesn't even matter. The most common thing about marsupials is that they carry around their young in a pouch. Humans do that with a tool. This is certainly not a big enough difference and doesn't actually defend your original claims that humans are humans are bipedal mammals when kangaroo's are also bipedal mammals?
I know you are not very bright which is why you resort to insults.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
If rights are invaluable, having a basis in truth independent of value, they are certainly not a "value claim".If "rights" are a value claim, the personal contention is not actually referring to a right in theory or practice
I don't even understand what you said so I can't rebut your claims. I think you purposefully make your point more complicate than it should be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Tell me how does that address what I said?Rights are thought to have a basis in truth. Whether you value the truth or not is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
lol backtracking again I see, never said the government doesn't enforce the rights set forth by the constitution and bill of rights,
So you have provided no actual claim against mine instead decided to waste time just because you think it was necessary. So basically you like providing nothing important and want attention.
there you go lying again in an attempt to deflect from being wrong. you are pathetic
While saying:
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a recognition of inalienable rights, they are not given/granted by government,
You said:
ok kid here ya go, happy now?a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)
A kangaroo is a bipedal primate mammal. Are they know a homo-sapien?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Rights are a value claim. It would be at its simplest I value X therefore I will protect and/or enforce this.Rights don't need protection or enforcement. People do.
Since the government is used to represent the people those rights are created based on the people around them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
None of this debunks what I said. The government a more powerful entity values the constitution therefore it is protected and enforced. Actually have a rebuttal for it?The rights mentioned in the constitution are not contingent upon it, or the government of the United States. Assuming you are native born your education has been an utter disaster, as this is practically common knowledge among United States citizens. Law is still practiced as such up till present time within the United States of America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you are ignorant about the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights, but feel free to start a topic about it because you are wrong for a variety of historical, legal and factual reasons.
Says the person who doesn't even know something doesn't have value until something values it. The government values the constitution therefore it is protected and enforced. You can't even understand a simple concept yet I am supposed to make a thread about it for you to have a take like the one you gave.
you pick a definition, it's your thread.
It is best for you to pick because you used it as a source. Saying it is my thread doesn't mean I have to pick a definition. So are you actually define what I told you to do define or are you going to push the burden to me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is subjective?I think if we have demonstrated anything in this thread it is that what constitutes a "person" is subjective. There are no subjective facts. You don't "know" what a person is you determine it subjectively and cannot force anyone to agree with you
What is a fact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
"The Constitution's first three words—We the People—affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens."The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a recognition of inalienable rights, they are not given/granted by government, if they were they wouldn't be rights they would be privileges.So there you go I've explained how you are wrong, easy enough.
The government is the reason the constitution is relevant to this day. Not because of the constitution. This means without the government power like what the US has the constitution would hold nothing of value.
"they are not given/granted by government"
Completely false. You are free because of the government. Your rights are enforced and kept the same way because of the government. The government is the reason why the constitution is relevant not the constitution because the constitutions has no power but the government does and they choose to value the constitution.
Do pick a definition.
Created:
Posted in:
they are not given by the government in the U.S. which country are we talking about because that would make a difference.Some would argue abortion is a good thing because of the disproportionate number of black women who have them. Perhaps being pro-death can be because of racism to some people, racists don't think straight to begin with but I could see them thinking that way.each human has unique human dna, perhaps start there as a basis for a human life.
Rights are given and enforced by the government and you haven't explained how I am wrong.
What makes a human?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well yeah but having a standard does help because it is pretty much something fundamental needed to know in order to make laws around it.I don't know either but I'm pretty sure what qualifies as a person is entirely subjective. There may be no concrete criteria but I at least am reluctant to attribute personhood to any being unable to communicate it's personhood to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
YesBut somertimes aborting a pregnancy is 'more good' (better!) than not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't know. Whenever a good intelligence measurement comes out.How do we go about measuring "potential intelligence" as opposed to actual intelligence which is pretty hard to measure as it us?
Created:
Posted in:
@Poly-Witch
What I said:
What makes being born so important?
What you think I said:
You asked what born means.
Do you see the problem?
Created:
Posted in:
@Poly-Witch
You are too stupid to continue talking to.
I asked you questions and you call me "stupid". Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So more intelligent = more rights? In that case a fetus still has no rights since they do not display intelligence.
More so the capability of intelligence or what their potential intelligence is compared to other intelligent life.
Created:
Posted in:
@Poly-Witch
A born person is born. Not sure what other qualifications you think they need to have.
What makes being born so important?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
We do not grant equal rights to the vast majority of organisms with brains. Clearly that is not what makes one a person. Otherwise fish and frogs and even insects are people. Am I wrong?
Saying we do not doesn't mean we shouldn't. So I take the position since other animals are also sentient they also should have rights. This would be how I stay consistent with this. With insects it would be difficult to perceive or actively avoid stepping on them so I don't think it is reasonable for them to have the same rights as lets say dogs, dolphins etc. Sure there is a gap in knowledge between a dog and a human but that is due to humans being higher on the food chain and exploiting others below. If dogs were on the top they would be the dominant and the most intelligent animal but that is not the case.
Created:
Posted in:
@Poly-Witch
The unborn are not a person.
To even classify it as "unborn" it is pretty much a person just lesser than what you would consider a full person.
What is the difference between an unborn and a born human being?
They are not citizens. They do not have rights.
Since you like appealing to the law so much I'll bite. Did you know if you murder a pregnant lady it counts as two murders? So basically the government has given the same rights as the mother when it comes to unlawful act of violence. This would mean even the government consider fetuses to be worthy to have rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no reason to believe that a fetus possesses sentience.
Sentience is defined as:
A brain is required to feel, perceive and experience subjectively and fetuses have it. Am I wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
I am glad. Lets hope it stays that way or someone better takes his place.
Hail King Ramshutu!
*Until he dies or loses his kingship*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If they say yes then I can say why. It is sort of a trick question where there is only one right answer which is no. Saying yes would mean even in a perfect world you still think abortion should be legal even though thinking about an abortion would mean you are not exactly living in a perfect world.Your question is a little nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
@Poly-Witch
Rights are given by the government. Why should the government not give rights to the unborn which are the future generation?Because a born person has rights, especially over their own body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes.It is very hard to construct a definition of person that includes everything you deem a person but also excludes everything that you do not consider a person isn't It?
You are welcome to try again. Maybe fourth time will be the charm.
I don't know. I'll come back to it when I find something else.
Created:
Posted in:
@Poly-Witch
You said:Would you still allow the option in a perfect world for an abortion?
Yes
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
Just like any organ. One cell at a time.
Okay then.
Would you like to adjust your definition again?
I'll remove reproduce and add in the potential to reproduce and the potential to be functional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How can an appendix grow?then an appendix only qualifies for two out of three of those distinctions.
Created:
Posted in:
@Poly-Witch
Would you still allow the option in a perfect world for an abortion?In a perfect world no one would need one. I have no issue with abortion as a choice for anyone who wants one. I would rather people terminate a pregnancy then have a child that can't handle having for whatever reason. 21 weeks is a more than reasonable cut off for elective abortion. As long as no one is forced to have them I don't care what choices they make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyseGui
In a perfect world there would be no mistakes. Would you still allow abortions to take place?I am for abortion in specific situations. Rape, maybe underage pregnancies, at risk pregnancies. But not just so woman can fix a mistake they made. I understand it is a woman's body and they should be able to make this choice but men can't carry children so woman have to have more accountability in this area. Understand that men can't make these choices. At the end of the day this topic is too nuanced to firmly side either way.
Saying it is a woman's choice leaves out that there is a person inside the body. We don't allow people to get away with murder that same treatment should be given to women who abort. This would be in context of a perfect world. In a less than perfect world I would allow abortions because the environment a child is brought in is not good enough and is taxing on the parent so much so it halts career development that can lift them out of the predicament they are in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
An appendix qualifies as human under your definition on. Please adjust accordingly
How does an appendix have life?
My conditions for life would be something that can grow, reproduce and has the capability of death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I find you hating me without a cause to in fact be what is irrational.
If you find telling the truth about you "hating" on you then I can't imagine how actual hate would trigger you.
I believe that my first post was on topic, and certainly reflects a worldview that is accepted by abortion activists all round.
No it wasn't. I wanted an actual argument for abortion or critique of my stance not a troll who has nothing better to do. There is a difference and I hope you see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Quite the contrary, it is difficult for me NOT to make fun of people.And if you couldn't tell, I was making fun in that post that you called me irrational over.
Why are you still here? Haven't you got something better to do or you really want attention?
Oh, I like this one... abortion is good for the environment. Population control in the name of sustainability!The kind of door that type of thinking opens for evik... gyeh...
Irrational comment by an irrational person.
Created:
Posted in:
@Poly-Witch
I thought that made it clear here:Perhaps since this is the philosophy forum the question should be is abortion moral and/or ethical to avoid the political or religious aspect of the argument.
but in a perfect world and now I still take the stance abortion is wrong if wrong is we don't murder humans.
and
Personally I am not for abortion if this was a perfect world but because it isn't
and
You can decide to talk about your argument for abortion preferably outside law
This pretty much says I would like to talk about abortion outside law and I would like to know in a perfect world would you still be okay with abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That is funny. I'll just reply with making fun of people that advocate for abortions:Sometimes the hardest thing for me to do is not to make fun of people.
Abortion is a good thing because now I can CHOOSE to live the kind of life I WANT. I can CHOOSE whether or not I WANT to get fat and pregnant, which would destroy my figure and sex appeal, and I can CHOOSE to do with MY BODY what I WANT.Girls just WANT to have fun! Pregnancy is INCONVENIENT and a total buzz kill.
Also how many times you insults people's intelligence directly or indirectly. It is not difficult for you to make fun of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Guess you can't escape irrational people like you. Wasn't really addressing what I said. Care to try?
Created:
Posted in:
Please rigorously define human and murder. Then we can examine your stated goals.
Human as in something with DNA that is alive. Specifically part of the homosapien speices.
Murder is committing an action to another person which results them in losing their life.
Person and human are the same to me.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes and later on I said this:Literally the first thing you said.
I still take the stance abortion is wrong if wrong is we don't murder humans.
What you should have gathered was that I consider abortion wrong so bad. Non-abortion good so a right thing to do.
Created: