I personally believe that I beat FishChaser soundly in this debate. If you think that he won, I would like you to explain why you think so (via private message or comment section) before you officially cast your vote. However, you really don't need my permission to vote against me.
But if we have no jobs we make no money. No money means more stress. Therefore saying ai is good because it takes away the jobs of people is illogical and supports the Con side more than anything.
Exactly. He purposefully makes it so that Pro is unable to rebut any of his points. Con gives himself the advantage by intentionally turning a four round debate into a two round debate, meaning he not only gets the last word, but also stops Pro from being able to counter anything he says.
Please remove jonrohith's vote. His reasoning has nothing to do with the actual content contained within the debate and he just makes a blunt, opinion-based statement.
If you go to his profile you will find he has repeatedly made similarly poor votes. I would advocate that you at least temporarily ban him from voting until he learns that the voting system here expects a basis of logic, thoroughly reading the material, and putting aside personal biases.
Respected pro:
I already said religion was beneficial during our older generations, because in before there was no internet, communication, people usually work and fight , their free time is high.
But nowadays religion is turned into commercial, business, many people spending much money in it even though they are poor, hereby I give following statistics.
. Spending on Religious Services:
Urban India: 5.7% of monthly per capita expenditure is spent on religious services.
Rural India: Around 9% of monthly per capita expenditure is spent on religious services.
Poorest 20% in rural areas: 7% of their monthly expenses are on religious activities.
Richest 20% in rural areas: Almost 10% of total expenditure is on religious activities.
From this we can understand , poor people spend 10 % of their earnings into religious , They are thinking religion and praying God make them rich , they don't trust their soul, these superstitious belief is very danger.
People may kill people for their religion, In some religions like Muslims, some Muslims are very religious , they dot let their girls to work, higher studies , many restrictions to girls.
We want religion, but not these older religion, religion should not be commercial, it must not intrude in our personal life.
Gaining hope:
" WE SHOULD NOT LIVE FOR RELEGION,WE MUST LIVE FOR OUR FAMILY"
Gaining knowledge :
" WE MUST ALLOW GIRLS TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE, NOT WASTING TIME IN RELIGION"
PURPOSE:
"Living for our soul, not for others soul"
"Soul is the greatest God, Humanity is our one and only religion"
Welcome:
"Religious people live longer than atheists."
My opponent, where did you get this data?
Religion is the best:
Why am I saying this? Am I contradicting myself? Yes, religion was valuable in the past. Earlier generations may have created religion to serve a purpose back then.
Religion is the worst (now):
Religion today has become problematic. Many major terrorist attacks are driven by extreme religious beliefs. Just saying "religion has changed" doesn't solve the problem—current religions are outdated. Many have become scams or commercialized.
Does religion reduce stress? Maybe, but stress often comes from laziness or boredom. In those moments, it's better to go to entertaining or natural places. There's not much to experience in a church or temple. They might reduce stress a little, but they don’t offer much to explore. A trip, on the other hand, gives us new experiences.
Religious beliefs often turn into superstitions, which can be dangerous. Why do we still follow these old, outdated traditions? We don’t use other outdated things from the past—so why religion?
We should create a new kind of religion: a religion of science. One world, one belief system. Old religions waste time. Museums are the temples of the modern generation. We should explore and learn from them instead of spending money on religion.
Welcome
History:
What is history? History is an old subject that covers our primitive past. But why do we need it? Some say it's just for entertainment—like finding out where treasure was hidden or where a king was buried.
BUT WHY DO WE NEED IT?
Can anyone give a logical reason why we actually need history? Some argue that history is a fake subject, filled with manipulated stories and outdated things meant to attract tourists. For example, people treat ancient mummies like gods, while in reality, many people in Africa live in mummy-like conditions due to starvation.
What benefit do we really get from studying the past? Historical sites are often used to manipulate people into visiting. In fact, many historical places and stories are fake or heavily exaggerated. Of course, no one can say something like “34.5% of history is fake” 😅—but even experts agree on this:
A significant portion of historical stories are exaggerated, biased, incomplete, or sometimes completely fabricated. – by ChatGPT
Your point was that animals bites happen frequently. However you failed to show that those animal bites are a result of domestication. Also your statistic about dog bites is irrelevant since this debate concerns 'wild animals', which I provided a definition for.
A clearer and less difficult burden of proof in your resolution would be:
The existence of God as the sole designer of the universe is not disproven by the theory of evolution.
Your resolution isn't "If the OT is true, then original Judaism is true", it's "If the OT is true, then Judaism is true". You failed to clarify that you only meant original Judaism (that has nothing to do with whether Jesus is our savior or not) so this is hardly a 'steamroll'. The comment you made is a clearly desperate attempt to sway votes in your favor.
It's very simple. I laid out the criteria for criminalizing something. Kissing failed to meet the criteria. I simply can't understand your vote from a logical standpoint
1.) You are not supposed to vote for people because of 'What they didn't get to clarify/say'
2.) I showed that everything he said in round one was obsolete in the face of the resolution.
"Since Con agreed if 1 is a yes, the law passes and Pro clarified he addressed it in prior Round, Con loses."
It sounds like you didn't fully read the debate... I said that kissing had to meet at least one of the criteria for it to even be considered a possible candidate for illegality. It did not meet 1 since it wasn't concerning direct harm such as assault. I clarified that in round four...
He did exactly what he was supposed to. It's the job of negative to refute what Pro says. Pro said nothing, and so Con let you have the first argument, while still not forfeiting anything. His conduct was perfect. Even though you had the same amount of arguments, Con wins by default according to standard debate rules. Sorry if that upsets you, but that's just how it works.
I understand your point, but in most debate formats, forfeiting a significant portion of the rounds—like two out of three—typically results in a default loss. The reasoning is that debates are meant to be an exchange of arguments, and if one side isn't participating for the majority of the rounds, it’s considered a lack of engagement. Even if your opponent didn't argue much, they at least showed up for the rounds, which, by standard rules, counts as participation. In this case, forfeiting 66% of the debate essentially concedes the match by default.
That is a blatant subject change. I literally never said anything about harming animals. The topic is whether animals would be considered people with my definition. Now you are resorting to red herrings since you are out of logical arguments. You also just repeated yourself instead of addressing anything I just said. If you don't have any logical arguments to make, then don't post anything. Or at least just say you disagree with my definition instead of resorting to fallacies.
When I am talking about conditions, I'm just talking about something IRREGULAR that stops a a being (that would otherwise grow to achieve rational thought or understanding of right vs wrong). Conditions that fit that description are
1. Early death. Their brain didn't have time to develop the aforementioned things.
2. Mental illness. Their brain just doesn't function properly.
A regular, healthy, average human will attain both rational thought and understanding of right vs wrong. Therefore they are a person.
A regular, healthy, average animal will NEVER attain those attributes. No animal, regardless of circumstance, will ever or has ever attained either of those attributes. Therefore no animals are to considered 'persons'.
That is, frankly, incorrect. Humans are not 'intelligent' because of the environment they are in or the circumstances they encounter. Even more important though, you seem to be using the word 'intelligent' equivocally. I purposefully never used the word 'intelligent' in my definition, but used 'capable of rational thought' instead. Animals never have been and never will be capable of rational thought, and that is hardly due to "worldly conditions." They are by nature incapable of rational thought. Humans are by nature capable of rational thought. Animals are by nature incapable of understanding right vs wrong. Humans are by nature capable of understanding right vs wrong. Threrefore animals do not fit my definition.
First off, when I say 'worldly condition' I am referring to a circumstance that prevents a being from becoming aware of right and wrong or rational thoughts. Things that fit into 'worldly condition' would be things like early death or mental illness. What I'm saying, quite simply, is if a being would grow to have the aforementioned traits, but is stopped by some sort of illness or early death, it is still considered a person. Early death and mental illness are not preventing animals from acquiring the traits. Therefore animals are to be considered as 'persons'
"Because world conditions didnt allow them. So animals are persons."
What in the world do you mean by this? I feel like that claim is both baseless and vague. Also, you conveniently left out the part where I showed what I meant by worldly conditions by listing possible circumstances.
Yes. I changed my definition to encompass all humans. No my definition does not directly encompass animals now. My definition for person is currently:
A being that either will be capable of rational thinking or understanding right vs wrong OR that would be able to engage in either of those things if not stopped by worldly circumstances (such as death, mental illness, etc.)
Animals are incapable of either of those things in any circumstance. Therefore animals are not 'persons.'
I knew you were going to say that lol 😂.
1. When I say "will be able to experience" I mean "will be able to experience (in the event that all goes well and they survive)" To put it simply: If a being WOULD understand right vs. wrong or rational thinking if nothing went wrong in their life, then I would count that being as a person. I'm not saying if something goes wrong that stops the being from achieving either of those things, then it no longer is considered a person. YOU are just trying to staw man attack me since I didn't spell it out for you. Well, now I have spelled it out for you. Are you happy?
That's obviously not what I meant but I'll clarify that my definition includes beings that aren't capable of either of the things in their current state, but will be able to experience or have experienced one of them at some point in their lives. Also, I would just define person as a human being normally, but I'm saying the definition I have just given makes more sense for this sort of debate IMHO.
VOTE QUICK!!!
I personally believe that I beat FishChaser soundly in this debate. If you think that he won, I would like you to explain why you think so (via private message or comment section) before you officially cast your vote. However, you really don't need my permission to vote against me.
Wanna vote? It's not exactly a close battle.
That's literally communism @jonrohith
This is your one week reminder :)
@jonrohith
But if we have no jobs we make no money. No money means more stress. Therefore saying ai is good because it takes away the jobs of people is illogical and supports the Con side more than anything.
Deleting votes against him for that reason encourage that bad behavior
Exactly. He purposefully makes it so that Pro is unable to rebut any of his points. Con gives himself the advantage by intentionally turning a four round debate into a two round debate, meaning he not only gets the last word, but also stops Pro from being able to counter anything he says.
Here is yet another vote by jonrohith that I believe to be unacceptable.
Here's another bad vote by jonrohith.
Here's another vote by jonrohith with poor reasoning that I reverse vote bombed.
Please remove jonrohith's vote. His reasoning has nothing to do with the actual content contained within the debate and he just makes a blunt, opinion-based statement.
If you go to his profile you will find he has repeatedly made similarly poor votes. I would advocate that you at least temporarily ban him from voting until he learns that the voting system here expects a basis of logic, thoroughly reading the material, and putting aside personal biases.
Please remove jonrohith's vote. It's not even my debate but it pains me to see him make a vote while so obviously having not read the debate at all.
CON ROUND TWO CLEARER ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Respected pro:
I already said religion was beneficial during our older generations, because in before there was no internet, communication, people usually work and fight , their free time is high.
But nowadays religion is turned into commercial, business, many people spending much money in it even though they are poor, hereby I give following statistics.
. Spending on Religious Services:
Urban India: 5.7% of monthly per capita expenditure is spent on religious services.
Rural India: Around 9% of monthly per capita expenditure is spent on religious services.
Poorest 20% in rural areas: 7% of their monthly expenses are on religious activities.
Richest 20% in rural areas: Almost 10% of total expenditure is on religious activities.
From this we can understand , poor people spend 10 % of their earnings into religious , They are thinking religion and praying God make them rich , they don't trust their soul, these superstitious belief is very danger.
People may kill people for their religion, In some religions like Muslims, some Muslims are very religious , they dot let their girls to work, higher studies , many restrictions to girls.
We want religion, but not these older religion, religion should not be commercial, it must not intrude in our personal life.
Gaining hope:
" WE SHOULD NOT LIVE FOR RELEGION,WE MUST LIVE FOR OUR FAMILY"
Gaining knowledge :
" WE MUST ALLOW GIRLS TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE, NOT WASTING TIME IN RELIGION"
PURPOSE:
"Living for our soul, not for others soul"
"Soul is the greatest God, Humanity is our one and only religion"
CON ROUND ONE CLEARER ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Welcome:
"Religious people live longer than atheists."
My opponent, where did you get this data?
Religion is the best:
Why am I saying this? Am I contradicting myself? Yes, religion was valuable in the past. Earlier generations may have created religion to serve a purpose back then.
Religion is the worst (now):
Religion today has become problematic. Many major terrorist attacks are driven by extreme religious beliefs. Just saying "religion has changed" doesn't solve the problem—current religions are outdated. Many have become scams or commercialized.
Does religion reduce stress? Maybe, but stress often comes from laziness or boredom. In those moments, it's better to go to entertaining or natural places. There's not much to experience in a church or temple. They might reduce stress a little, but they don’t offer much to explore. A trip, on the other hand, gives us new experiences.
Religious beliefs often turn into superstitions, which can be dangerous. Why do we still follow these old, outdated traditions? We don’t use other outdated things from the past—so why religion?
We should create a new kind of religion: a religion of science. One world, one belief system. Old religions waste time. Museums are the temples of the modern generation. We should explore and learn from them instead of spending money on religion.
PRO ROUND ONE CLEARER ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Welcome
History:
What is history? History is an old subject that covers our primitive past. But why do we need it? Some say it's just for entertainment—like finding out where treasure was hidden or where a king was buried.
BUT WHY DO WE NEED IT?
Can anyone give a logical reason why we actually need history? Some argue that history is a fake subject, filled with manipulated stories and outdated things meant to attract tourists. For example, people treat ancient mummies like gods, while in reality, many people in Africa live in mummy-like conditions due to starvation.
What benefit do we really get from studying the past? Historical sites are often used to manipulate people into visiting. In fact, many historical places and stories are fake or heavily exaggerated. Of course, no one can say something like “34.5% of history is fake” 😅—but even experts agree on this:
A significant portion of historical stories are exaggerated, biased, incomplete, or sometimes completely fabricated. – by ChatGPT
English is not his first language
Also, keep in mind that domestication is not specific to keeping animals as pets.
Additionally, petting wild animals ≠ domesticating them.
Your point was that animals bites happen frequently. However you failed to show that those animal bites are a result of domestication. Also your statistic about dog bites is irrelevant since this debate concerns 'wild animals', which I provided a definition for.
If someone full forfeits, their opponent wins. It's kind of common sense
A clearer and less difficult burden of proof in your resolution would be:
The existence of God as the sole designer of the universe is not disproven by the theory of evolution.
Your resolution isn't "If the OT is true, then original Judaism is true", it's "If the OT is true, then Judaism is true". You failed to clarify that you only meant original Judaism (that has nothing to do with whether Jesus is our savior or not) so this is hardly a 'steamroll'. The comment you made is a clearly desperate attempt to sway votes in your favor.
Would appreciate a vote!
Would appreciate some votes, this was a lively debate 😁!
Could I get some more voters in here?
It's very simple. I laid out the criteria for criminalizing something. Kissing failed to meet the criteria. I simply can't understand your vote from a logical standpoint
1.) You are not supposed to vote for people because of 'What they didn't get to clarify/say'
2.) I showed that everything he said in round one was obsolete in the face of the resolution.
"Since Con agreed if 1 is a yes, the law passes and Pro clarified he addressed it in prior Round, Con loses."
It sounds like you didn't fully read the debate... I said that kissing had to meet at least one of the criteria for it to even be considered a possible candidate for illegality. It did not meet 1 since it wasn't concerning direct harm such as assault. I clarified that in round four...
Please remove twenty one pilot's vote.
Wanna debate this without the description being declared absolute? 😃
oops I voted wrong 💀
Both sides put effort into their arguments. I would really appreciate some votes.
Both sides put effort into their arguments. I would really appreciate some votes.
In most formal debate settings and other debate sites, forfeiture of over 50% of a debate results in an instant loss.,
It doesn't matter the intent or circumstances behind forfeiture. It's just the way it works. Sorry 🤷
He did exactly what he was supposed to. It's the job of negative to refute what Pro says. Pro said nothing, and so Con let you have the first argument, while still not forfeiting anything. His conduct was perfect. Even though you had the same amount of arguments, Con wins by default according to standard debate rules. Sorry if that upsets you, but that's just how it works.
I understand your point, but in most debate formats, forfeiting a significant portion of the rounds—like two out of three—typically results in a default loss. The reasoning is that debates are meant to be an exchange of arguments, and if one side isn't participating for the majority of the rounds, it’s considered a lack of engagement. Even if your opponent didn't argue much, they at least showed up for the rounds, which, by standard rules, counts as participation. In this case, forfeiting 66% of the debate essentially concedes the match by default.
That is a blatant subject change. I literally never said anything about harming animals. The topic is whether animals would be considered people with my definition. Now you are resorting to red herrings since you are out of logical arguments. You also just repeated yourself instead of addressing anything I just said. If you don't have any logical arguments to make, then don't post anything. Or at least just say you disagree with my definition instead of resorting to fallacies.
When I am talking about conditions, I'm just talking about something IRREGULAR that stops a a being (that would otherwise grow to achieve rational thought or understanding of right vs wrong). Conditions that fit that description are
1. Early death. Their brain didn't have time to develop the aforementioned things.
2. Mental illness. Their brain just doesn't function properly.
A regular, healthy, average human will attain both rational thought and understanding of right vs wrong. Therefore they are a person.
A regular, healthy, average animal will NEVER attain those attributes. No animal, regardless of circumstance, will ever or has ever attained either of those attributes. Therefore no animals are to considered 'persons'.
Well, I disagree with that. Can you explain that position and provide evidence?
That is, frankly, incorrect. Humans are not 'intelligent' because of the environment they are in or the circumstances they encounter. Even more important though, you seem to be using the word 'intelligent' equivocally. I purposefully never used the word 'intelligent' in my definition, but used 'capable of rational thought' instead. Animals never have been and never will be capable of rational thought, and that is hardly due to "worldly conditions." They are by nature incapable of rational thought. Humans are by nature capable of rational thought. Animals are by nature incapable of understanding right vs wrong. Humans are by nature capable of understanding right vs wrong. Threrefore animals do not fit my definition.
First off, when I say 'worldly condition' I am referring to a circumstance that prevents a being from becoming aware of right and wrong or rational thoughts. Things that fit into 'worldly condition' would be things like early death or mental illness. What I'm saying, quite simply, is if a being would grow to have the aforementioned traits, but is stopped by some sort of illness or early death, it is still considered a person. Early death and mental illness are not preventing animals from acquiring the traits. Therefore animals are to be considered as 'persons'
"Because world conditions didnt allow them. So animals are persons."
What in the world do you mean by this? I feel like that claim is both baseless and vague. Also, you conveniently left out the part where I showed what I meant by worldly conditions by listing possible circumstances.
Yes. I changed my definition to encompass all humans. No my definition does not directly encompass animals now. My definition for person is currently:
A being that either will be capable of rational thinking or understanding right vs wrong OR that would be able to engage in either of those things if not stopped by worldly circumstances (such as death, mental illness, etc.)
Animals are incapable of either of those things in any circumstance. Therefore animals are not 'persons.'
Vote?
Vote?
I knew you were going to say that lol 😂.
1. When I say "will be able to experience" I mean "will be able to experience (in the event that all goes well and they survive)" To put it simply: If a being WOULD understand right vs. wrong or rational thinking if nothing went wrong in their life, then I would count that being as a person. I'm not saying if something goes wrong that stops the being from achieving either of those things, then it no longer is considered a person. YOU are just trying to staw man attack me since I didn't spell it out for you. Well, now I have spelled it out for you. Are you happy?
That's obviously not what I meant but I'll clarify that my definition includes beings that aren't capable of either of the things in their current state, but will be able to experience or have experienced one of them at some point in their lives. Also, I would just define person as a human being normally, but I'm saying the definition I have just given makes more sense for this sort of debate IMHO.