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.
I still say it's a little bit sneaky. I feel like a more fair/logical definition for a person would be a creature that is capable of rational thinking or understanding right vs wrong.
I say it's sneaky because he says the Con is not allowed to challenge it at all. And, if Con didn't read the description thoroughly, he has a great disadvantage.
I know you want it to be a secret now, but it's pretty obvious if you look at the debates 'BestKorea should not be banned from this site' and 'most children are evil'
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6060-bestkorea-should-not-be-banned-from-this-site
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5737-most-children-are-evil
This is a stupid topic for debate ngl. If we follow your definition of war crimes, Israel factually did commit war crimes. It's impossible to argue the Con side.
Who are you do declare that it's a "barely relevant issue"? Who are you to declare that telling people what the Bible says is not worth losing potential followers? What you essentially said is we should intentionally not tell people interested in Christianity things that conflict with their lifestyle. If someone is only a 'Christian' because they don't know that the Bible says they have to change their lifestyle, then they are not actually a follower of 'Christianity' but a follower of 'some of the Bible's rules'. If you don't accept all of what the Bible says, you are simply not a true Christian. You can not pick and choose which rules to follow. Obeying just SOME of God's commandments doesn't make you a Christian. If I wanted to disregard every rule in the Bible except 'do not murder', would you say I am a Christian because I followed that commandment? Of course not! To be considered a genuine Christian, you must regard all of the moral laws set in place by God
That's not how religion works bro. We can't lie about the rules in the Bible to get more followers. The purpose of Christianity is not to get as many followers as possible, but to teach people what God says is right and wrong and how God says they should live. It's up to people who hear about what the Bible says whether they want to follow its rules or not. Therefore intentionally not informing people on certain things that the Bible says defeats the purpose of telling them about it in the first place.
Obviously there is at least some evidence for there being a God. IMO The debate should be whether the evidence is strong enough to constitute a higher probability of a God existing than not.
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.
I still say it's a little bit sneaky. I feel like a more fair/logical definition for a person would be a creature that is capable of rational thinking or understanding right vs wrong.
I say it's sneaky because he says the Con is not allowed to challenge it at all. And, if Con didn't read the description thoroughly, he has a great disadvantage.
Which religion/s?
My comment or this debate???? I'm confused
I would define a person as a human being. That's also how the dictionary defines it
Bro again with the sneaky definitions in the description?
Wanna return the favor and drop a vote? It's an easy one!
I feel like this topic is very vague. Is it just me?
Bro, you/icon literally admitted to being you/sungod in the first link
I know you want it to be a secret now, but it's pretty obvious if you look at the debates 'BestKorea should not be banned from this site' and 'most children are evil'
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6060-bestkorea-should-not-be-banned-from-this-site
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5737-most-children-are-evil
I know you are just thegreatsungod on your trolling alt account. You literally admitted it in several previous debates.
Why did bro only leave two hours per argument
I tried to help you out here with my vote but it appears everyone is siding with Con
😬😬😬
'advanced' is an interesting word there...
I hadn't even had 'the talk' at 8
8 is craaaazy 💀
looks like it lol
thank you
@whiteflame
do that please
I accidentally clicked the wrong thing in my vote. Can you let me edit it somehow?
I'm not super well versed in the topic so it would be an interesting debate to read
I think a more arguable topic is whether Israel's war crimes are worse than Hamas
This is a stupid topic for debate ngl. If we follow your definition of war crimes, Israel factually did commit war crimes. It's impossible to argue the Con side.
Thank you for your vote @Barney
No (helpful) votes 😔
Least obvious rage bait lol
vote?
You also claimed that Jesus and the Bible never made any direct statements concerning LGBT or virgin marriage, which is simply false.
Who are you do declare that it's a "barely relevant issue"? Who are you to declare that telling people what the Bible says is not worth losing potential followers? What you essentially said is we should intentionally not tell people interested in Christianity things that conflict with their lifestyle. If someone is only a 'Christian' because they don't know that the Bible says they have to change their lifestyle, then they are not actually a follower of 'Christianity' but a follower of 'some of the Bible's rules'. If you don't accept all of what the Bible says, you are simply not a true Christian. You can not pick and choose which rules to follow. Obeying just SOME of God's commandments doesn't make you a Christian. If I wanted to disregard every rule in the Bible except 'do not murder', would you say I am a Christian because I followed that commandment? Of course not! To be considered a genuine Christian, you must regard all of the moral laws set in place by God
That's not how religion works bro. We can't lie about the rules in the Bible to get more followers. The purpose of Christianity is not to get as many followers as possible, but to teach people what God says is right and wrong and how God says they should live. It's up to people who hear about what the Bible says whether they want to follow its rules or not. Therefore intentionally not informing people on certain things that the Bible says defeats the purpose of telling them about it in the first place.
Would appreciate some votes if you can spare the time!
Obviously there is at least some evidence for there being a God. IMO The debate should be whether the evidence is strong enough to constitute a higher probability of a God existing than not.
So much spam and nonsense. focus on relevant and strong points instead of insane quantities. It's a better experience for everyone