-> Its not possible to stop certain things. 50% of 13 year olds in USA watch porn.
I've heard that watching porn is very different from having sex; different chemicals are released in your brain when you have sex than when you watch porn and masturbate. I think a requirement to be able to watch porn is there needs to be an algebra problem you need to be able to solve like, 3x+20=29, solve for x (and there needs to be a way for the system to not let you in if you answer "X=3" if you used AI to solve the problem). This hopefully leads to there being a requirement that shows that if you are mentally competent enough, then you can watch porn. Pretty much no 10-year-old knows what that is; a 13-year-old can solve it though. Hopefully, this leads to a mental capacity standard being imposed before porn is done.
->Since the smartest person would be most capable of determining ability to consent, it follows that smartest person gets to decide. Now you guys just have to fight over who is the smartest and how is intelligence measured.
It would be the people in power that decide who is smart enough to give consent and who isn't. The smartest person in the world may be a doctor at a really prestigious hospital (who has no political power). They shouldn't be making the call for who can consent to sex, but they definitely should be included in terms of the group of people that can consent to sex.
Just like I think if you aren't a murderer, rapist, or similar, you shouldn't be executed because you should have the right to not get killed. Does that mean you get to be president? No?!
But there should be a test that is used to determine how smart someone is and therefore if they are mentally competent enough to have sex and that test needs to be made. I just couldn't make the intelligence test as POTUS; I would have to delegate it to a psychologist and if congress and I approve of the test, it becomes the standard.
->The smartest person can dictate who can consent and who cant. Do you agree with this?
It depends on if the world's smartest person has political power. I would assume whoever is POTUS has above average intelligence, but he's probably not the smartest person in the world because there are 8 billion people on this planet.
But if the POTUS is too strict for who is mentally competent enough to consent to sex, it leads to him being voted out by people who want him to be more lenient; if he's too lenient, he gets viewed as a groomer by society.
->Well, thats what it is. Thats why its called an urge. Because it hurts when you dont do it. And sexual urges are some of the strongest urges. The nature wants you to reproduce, so it gives you pain to motivate you.
For a 10-year-old tobacco addict, his urge to do tobacco is almost certainly stronger than his urge to do sex. It's probably not a good idea to let an average 10 year old indulge in addictive pleasures.
-> If you can determine intelligence, there is the smartest person who can then dictate everything.
Whoever the smartest person in the world is can consent to sex; easily. And the smartest person in the world is an adult.
-> Well, children can have sexual urges, and sexual urges are a form of pain.
I wouldn't consider an urge to be necessarily a pain. Like, lets say I have the urge to do pushups (which I often do). Does this mean I'm in pain if I have the urge to do pushups and can't? I would consider that being fidgety; but not in pain. But some urges are pain (like if I have to go to the bathroom and can't).
I would say the urge to have sex is more like pushups than going to the bathroom. I'm just using my masturbation experience as a reference.
->Are you trying to communicate that statutory rape laws are to be abolished because minors can consent to sexual activity to adults with adults as adults do?
Best Korea IS in fact advocating that position. It's an unpopular position, but even if you disagree with a belief and 99% of the world agrees with you, you have to treat your debate position and your opponents as if they are 50/50 positions.
I don't know what you expected when you wanted to debate sex with minors. Maybe an easy win?
If Best.Korea ends up making all the arguments and the debate is done when I'm on this site, I will have no reservations with voting for Best Korea.
But my Wifi on this site is sparky, so I might not be able to vote.
I don't vote for people that don't make arguments unless their opponent also made no arguments (which Korea certainly did).
-> I would say that taking a standard of survival of society and personal survival is more worthy than an arbitrary standard.
I could agree with that, even though I haven't thought it through. However, it's not like everybody needs to be having sex in order for people and society to survive.
->As long as the standard is arbitrary, its no different or better than any other standard.
So would you then get rid of arbitrary time requirements to compete in special Track and Field events? If the answer is yes, you have 4 options for track and field events. They are:
1. Don't have them (bad idea)
2. Let anyone join them (even if it takes you 15 minutes to run a 1600 m).
3. Have an alternate requirement not based on time (if it's top X racers, then the racers can all agree to not try as hard in the event because even though their average odds of winning are all the same, they can keep that probability while putting less pain on themselves and maybe the fastest person in the meet runs a 1600 m in 5 minutes rather than an expected 4:20-4:30). Racers should be doing their best.
4. Something I haven't thought of that you might have.
->Taking the standard of reducing pain is also a standard that is more than arbitrary.
I can see that, but it's not like any children are in pain from being virgins. I would also imagine (especially for underdeveloped minds) that sex is really addicting for them, leading to worse declines in the long term. That's why there are age restrictions on alcohol consumption (I think you should have to move out, have it for medical use, IOR have parental consent to be allowed to use any drug). IOR=Inclusive OR.
->If we say that children cant consent, then that just means other people get to dictate children's lives. Parents often take the role of commanding children's lives.
I mean, there are times when it can be abused, but if parents didn't tell kids what to do and what not to do, you would have a lot more drug-addicted kids (and I think sex is like a drug). Sometimes you don't have to touch an oven when it's on to know it hurts. Parents can prevent the pain of kids by telling them, "Don't touch the oven, you will burn".
->Further, if lack of consent makes action wrong, then it makes wrong even those actions that are beneficial. So if children cant consent, then all actions done to children are wrong. If you say that if action is beneficial, then it doesnt require consent, then people can force adults to do things which benefit those adults, even if adults dont want it.
Certain adults (like really dumb ones) are forced to live with their parents, where their parents take care of them for the benefit of the mentally ill adult. People usually move out when they are ready. Some move out at 18; some 21; some older.
->Pregnancy is beneficial for society, but it doesn't follow that someone can force others to get pregnant.
There is a distinction between beneficial for society vs beneficial for the individual. Forcing someone to become pregnant isn't good for the individual because they shouldn't be raped. But lets say a rape victim gets pregnant, gives birth (willingly) and sets the kid up for adoption. That's not even good for society because that kid is on average going to be more of a burden on society than what they will produce relative to the general population. Now, if a rape victim wants to give birth, she should be allowed to do so. But raping women is bad for the individual woman AND society.
It's possible to be good for the individual and bad for society and vice versa, but raping women (and having sex with the mentally underdeveloped) is bad for both the individuals involved and society. The mentally underdeveloped is now a sex addict. Like in Forrest Gump, Jenny had sex with her dad enough times when a child, and it really fucked up her adult life because she turned into a sex addict.
->Further, if intelligence is a standard for making consent valid, then the smartest person on Earth can just say: "I am smarter than everyone else. Only my consent is valid.", and you would not be able to object because intelligence would be a standard for consent.
Claiming you are smart doesn't make you smart. A 5 year old can say they are the smartest person to ever live, but if they can't do my calculus HW, they aren't smart; they are cocky and naive.
There are a lot of arbitrary points in our society (an example is in order to qualify according to https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.534b68e446c46aaacbf4e384ccacd0d1?rik=DOvESxdbM1%2br9w&riu=http%3a%2f%2fdecaturtrackandfield.weebly.com%2fuploads%2f5%2f9%2f2%2f8%2f59286795%2ftrack-standards-2017_orig.png&ehk=YIdpCD3Ag6myTBvrGUfzxbwY2Ok8lsXFJHykffjTCn0%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0, you have to be able to run 100 m in 11.9 seconds or faster). Why not 12 seconds? Or 11.8?
With few exceptions, I don't like age being the arbitrary point because young people aren't a monolith; some 15 year olds are more mentally compitent than some 18 year olds. But other things (like intelligence) you need an arbitrary point in there to have a standard.
->Also, since decision making comes with reasoning about higher intelligence, it would follow that if someone is smarter than a 20 year old, he gets to dictate 20 year old's life.
I disagree. I think if you fall below a certain level of intelligence, it wouldn't be random people that are smarter than you making decisions for you, but your parents would be making decisions for you (if you are very stupid). I am smarter than someone who is retarted; that doesn't mean I get to make decisions for them. The hypothetical retard's parents would make decisions for that retard, because the parents are assumed to love him more than I would as a stranger.
->If action with lack of consent is okay if there is some benefit to the person, then you can force adults to do anything as long as it benefits them in some way. You can force adults to eat vegetables even if they dont want to.
I would say it shouldn't be based on age in terms of if they should be allowed to not do something beneficial, but intelligence I think should matter. If it's a 30 year old adult that is just very stupid (like the following person:
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5c6e43bf6de276197e371bb81e4a3ccd32cdb0da/c=225-0-941-538&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2015/04/27/NWGroup/KING/635657645193734670-laura-gholston2.jpg), then I don't think they are mentally competent enough to make a lot of their own decisions.
->The main problem with "intelligence/mental maturity" argument is that if we followed it, age of consent would be 30 or more.
I disagree because you can require a certain level of intelligence the vast majority of 20-year-olds have that the vast majority of 13-year-olds do not. There is a positive correlation between intelligence and age (excluding dementia).
Emojis aren't arguments. If you think there will be a forfeit, state like a very basic pro religion argument like, "religion lets people go to heaven and get eternal joy".
No matter how common your position is, you have to defend it if you debate about it.
Pretty much every American believes the earth is spherical, but if you start a debate where you take the con position of, "The earth is flat" and a flat earther comes along, you can't laugh them off; you have to defend your position as if both your position and theirs are 50/50 positions.
->
A. 1. Children can consent Or 2. Children can't consent
B. 1. Lack of consent means that activity is wrong Or 2. Lack of consent doesn't mean that activity is wrong
C. 1. Every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong Or 2. It is false that every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong
A: It depends. I think some children can consent and others can't. You need to be able to prove you can consent for sex I think using a test something like https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14JWZh43OcZ-5MdeOhrEa_fPe3AP6-24_w6IvqN9R7bs/edit#gid=0 (although it is incomplete, but I think the questions should be something like this). Many things (like whether or not a child wants to watch TV) they can do with parental consent.
B: 1, unless it's done for the objective long-term benefit of the child (like getting your child vaccinated). I don't think sex is a long-term benefit, it's an addiction.
C: 1, unless it's done for the objective long-term benefit of the child (like getting your child vaccinated). I don't think sex is a long-term benefit, it's an addiction.
If you want to do a debate with people on veganism, can you make it in English please? Most Darters don't know Portuguese or whatever language that is I think. Although I agree with you on veganism (and Biden shouldn't be in office; he sniffs too many kids).
I think the ideal body count of every man and woman who isn't married is 0. Don't have sex unless your married. I don't think this should be law, but it's a recommendation.
Addiction is powerful, but if you want porn banned, that would mean you would have not only broken your addiction to it, but you want to force that on others. If a smoker wants tobacco banned, I don’t care how addicted they are, they are a hypocrite until they practice what they preach or change their speech because there are other people addicted to tobacco that don’t want it banned that would be effected against their will by a hypocrite smoker wanting tobacco banned.
Now if you wanted porn banned just for those that never watched it so they don’t become addicted, that’s different if you’re addicted to porn. But how are you going to sort out who is addicted vs who isn’t.
My position on porn is it should be legal for everyone. I watched porn when I was a minor and if porn was banned when I was a minor, I wouldn’t have liked it. Most guys are like that too; they start watching porn when they are young.
Heritage is a biased source; use more reliable sources.
Crime:
https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/ states the undocumented are less likely to commit victim producing crimes.
Welfare:
I support an open border policy and the undocumented should get kicked off of government aid programs like welfare and food stamps. If you want to come here, be productive.
I want as many people as we can get here because according to my calculations, it would be wonders for the stock market. Quadrupling the US population would roughly quadruple the US stock market, making my stock $130,000 more valuable.
I’m pro life, but if you want abortion banned, how would you punish it? People would get abortions illegally if they were illegal, so you would need a punishment for abortion. Pro lifers say, “Go after the abortionist”, but if this happens, no abortionist would want to do abortions, meaning females are going to have to do their own abortions, so whatever penalty you would give to the abortionist you would also have to give to a female that gets an abortion.
I have positive thoughts about veganism. I don’t believe it should be mandated, but I would like for a law to exist where all companies that make meat are required to go from 100% meat to 99.5% meat, .5% plant protein. And then increase the plant percentage by .5% per year so in 200 years, we aren’t killing animals for food anymore. I’ve asked 3 people their thought on this idea, and they all like it, so I think it can take off.
When homosexuals were killed, it was a product of the time. When homosexuality was legalized, the times changed. When conquering other countries is the norm, it’s a product of the time. When conquering other countries doesn’t happen anymore, then the times have changed. But Israel has owned its land for a long time now. A one state solution for Israel will produce the same effect as a one state solution for Palestine.
The difference between thieves robbing and countries invading is every country to this day is to an extent built on stolen land. All the countries where Rome invaded got independence and stole the land from the Romans. The same is true for China. The same is true for America and the African countries. In a world where everyone is a thief, theft is legal. In a world where stealing land is the norm, stealing land is legal. The UN tried to put a stop to it since stealing land usually results in death. But it’s always happened, and it probably will continue to happen unless the world becomes one nation and then there are no more wars over land because everyone would live in the same country. But we are going to have to very homogenized at that point and the world is too different to be the same country unfortunately.
If you’re in agreement with me, then why do you want Israel to get completely returned to Palestine? Me personally, I’m an American so I don’t care what happens to foreign countries. If I were Jewish or Muslim, I would have a bias. But I’m neither. A one state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict will produce the same result whether that one state is Israel or Palestine. The only difference would be the flag and the name of the country. It’s not like calling the area Palestine is going to result in the land being less Jewish or calling the land Israel will result in people being less Muslim.
“ Imagine if someone took half of your house, why would you be ok with that, how would yo be ok with that, ofcourse you would try to take back the rest of your house. So why should we expect the Palestinians to be ok with that? It's the exact same logic.”
I’m just courious as to how far this argument goes. The Arabs invaded the Berber house a long time ago. Should all the Arabs in Morocco go back to Saudi Arabia. Should all the non native Americans living in America get sent back to their home country?
Borders are very fluid over the course of thousands of years. It’s not considered theft the same way as if a bunch of thieves started robbing each other.
I agree. I would go even so far as to support open borders for exclusively blue counties and the standard status quo process for exclusively red counties. If blue counties don't want to deport undocumented immigrants, they can have them. All 1.2 billion of them (the number of people that would come into America if America was the first country to open up it's borders).
Life in jail isn’t enough, but the death penalty doesn’t help the victims.
That’s why I propose the Stanton penalty for murderers and rapists; this consists of 3 things:
1) Life in jail.
2)Hard labor fixing the roads of the greatest country the simulation overlords ever created so America can have the best infrastructure in the world. Rape victims get $200,000 in restitution that the hard labor generates and the families of murder victims get $250,000.
3) Surgical castration, as a deterrent.
If there is a false conviction, the accused gets freed and paid for their trauma. But if they are guilty, then they absolutely deserve the toughest punishment short of death.
Nobody is advocating for FORCING the poor to sell their organs. But it should be a right. The poor know what is better for them than the government. Their body, their choice.
Gays and Bisexual men are more likely to get HIV from their promiscuous sex. This would be akin to saying that "On average, one is better off not being promiscuous" which is accurate.
Transgenders often have to pay for a surgery that's expensive. But this is akin to saying, "On average, one is better off not needing glasses" because glasses are also an expense.
I want a country where anti-communist America loving undocumented immigrants are allowed to defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic machine guns while sipping on a cold beer with some hot 18-year-old supermodels with big tits and ass in the background and a kickass pickup truck that has a bumper sticker that reads, "Stanton 2020, Make America Debt Free" that they don't have to pay property tax on.
->Coerce speech how?
By censoring words they don't like.
->I don't see the problem with this.
Because your an SJW.
->Someone asking to not be called words that have been used to oppress and degrade them for centuries doesn't mean they have thin skin; people have the right to not want to be called derogatory terms and to think you're a bad person if you continue to do so/don't believe in that right.
If someone uses a word to degrade you, you need to grow a thick skin. I know that's hard for Canadians to understand, but America is a much more tough country. We don't want the government speech policing us. It's why the KKK haven't been censored yet. It's also why the opposite of the KKK (minorities) are more attracted to America than they are to Canada.
America believes in small government; Canada believes in speech codes.
->Claiming to formerly be a member of the LGBTQ+ community doesn't give you validity points here.
Why not? People have made jokes about me being bi but I don't get offended by them because I'm not an ancom. It's just woke straight liberals and woke alphabet morons from silicon valley using alphabet people as props to coerce speech and it's so annoying.
If someone uses the term "faggot", I don't consider this to be bad and you'd figure it would effect me, but it doesn't, and it shouldn't. Grow a thick skin. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
I used to be bi (I told people that I was bi when I was) and if someone called me a faggot then, I wouldn't be offended because I have a thick skin. Thin skins lead to the 1st amendment being eroded.
I have no problem with slurs like the n-words, fa****, fuck, shit, or the derogatory term for Jewish people. People need to grow thick skins. The people that get outraged at the N word are often corporate dems and radical ancoms like theweakredge.
-> Its not possible to stop certain things. 50% of 13 year olds in USA watch porn.
I've heard that watching porn is very different from having sex; different chemicals are released in your brain when you have sex than when you watch porn and masturbate. I think a requirement to be able to watch porn is there needs to be an algebra problem you need to be able to solve like, 3x+20=29, solve for x (and there needs to be a way for the system to not let you in if you answer "X=3" if you used AI to solve the problem). This hopefully leads to there being a requirement that shows that if you are mentally competent enough, then you can watch porn. Pretty much no 10-year-old knows what that is; a 13-year-old can solve it though. Hopefully, this leads to a mental capacity standard being imposed before porn is done.
->Since the smartest person would be most capable of determining ability to consent, it follows that smartest person gets to decide. Now you guys just have to fight over who is the smartest and how is intelligence measured.
It would be the people in power that decide who is smart enough to give consent and who isn't. The smartest person in the world may be a doctor at a really prestigious hospital (who has no political power). They shouldn't be making the call for who can consent to sex, but they definitely should be included in terms of the group of people that can consent to sex.
Just like I think if you aren't a murderer, rapist, or similar, you shouldn't be executed because you should have the right to not get killed. Does that mean you get to be president? No?!
But there should be a test that is used to determine how smart someone is and therefore if they are mentally competent enough to have sex and that test needs to be made. I just couldn't make the intelligence test as POTUS; I would have to delegate it to a psychologist and if congress and I approve of the test, it becomes the standard.
Pete Buttigeig: A Masculine left wing gay guy.
The people that tell gays to be more masculine often love Chirstain Walker.
Look these people up if you don't know who they are on YouTube.
->The smartest person can dictate who can consent and who cant. Do you agree with this?
It depends on if the world's smartest person has political power. I would assume whoever is POTUS has above average intelligence, but he's probably not the smartest person in the world because there are 8 billion people on this planet.
But if the POTUS is too strict for who is mentally competent enough to consent to sex, it leads to him being voted out by people who want him to be more lenient; if he's too lenient, he gets viewed as a groomer by society.
->Well, thats what it is. Thats why its called an urge. Because it hurts when you dont do it. And sexual urges are some of the strongest urges. The nature wants you to reproduce, so it gives you pain to motivate you.
For a 10-year-old tobacco addict, his urge to do tobacco is almost certainly stronger than his urge to do sex. It's probably not a good idea to let an average 10 year old indulge in addictive pleasures.
-> If you can determine intelligence, there is the smartest person who can then dictate everything.
Whoever the smartest person in the world is can consent to sex; easily. And the smartest person in the world is an adult.
-> Well, children can have sexual urges, and sexual urges are a form of pain.
I wouldn't consider an urge to be necessarily a pain. Like, lets say I have the urge to do pushups (which I often do). Does this mean I'm in pain if I have the urge to do pushups and can't? I would consider that being fidgety; but not in pain. But some urges are pain (like if I have to go to the bathroom and can't).
I would say the urge to have sex is more like pushups than going to the bathroom. I'm just using my masturbation experience as a reference.
Men should be allowed to vote against abortion legalization because of the first amendment to the US constitution.
You would have to repeal the first amendment (or significantly modify the first amendment) in order to achieve this.
Lets just say I love free speech!
->Are you trying to communicate that statutory rape laws are to be abolished because minors can consent to sexual activity to adults with adults as adults do?
Best Korea IS in fact advocating that position. It's an unpopular position, but even if you disagree with a belief and 99% of the world agrees with you, you have to treat your debate position and your opponents as if they are 50/50 positions.
I don't know what you expected when you wanted to debate sex with minors. Maybe an easy win?
If Best.Korea ends up making all the arguments and the debate is done when I'm on this site, I will have no reservations with voting for Best Korea.
But my Wifi on this site is sparky, so I might not be able to vote.
I don't vote for people that don't make arguments unless their opponent also made no arguments (which Korea certainly did).
-> I would say that taking a standard of survival of society and personal survival is more worthy than an arbitrary standard.
I could agree with that, even though I haven't thought it through. However, it's not like everybody needs to be having sex in order for people and society to survive.
->As long as the standard is arbitrary, its no different or better than any other standard.
So would you then get rid of arbitrary time requirements to compete in special Track and Field events? If the answer is yes, you have 4 options for track and field events. They are:
1. Don't have them (bad idea)
2. Let anyone join them (even if it takes you 15 minutes to run a 1600 m).
3. Have an alternate requirement not based on time (if it's top X racers, then the racers can all agree to not try as hard in the event because even though their average odds of winning are all the same, they can keep that probability while putting less pain on themselves and maybe the fastest person in the meet runs a 1600 m in 5 minutes rather than an expected 4:20-4:30). Racers should be doing their best.
4. Something I haven't thought of that you might have.
->Taking the standard of reducing pain is also a standard that is more than arbitrary.
I can see that, but it's not like any children are in pain from being virgins. I would also imagine (especially for underdeveloped minds) that sex is really addicting for them, leading to worse declines in the long term. That's why there are age restrictions on alcohol consumption (I think you should have to move out, have it for medical use, IOR have parental consent to be allowed to use any drug). IOR=Inclusive OR.
->If we say that children cant consent, then that just means other people get to dictate children's lives. Parents often take the role of commanding children's lives.
I mean, there are times when it can be abused, but if parents didn't tell kids what to do and what not to do, you would have a lot more drug-addicted kids (and I think sex is like a drug). Sometimes you don't have to touch an oven when it's on to know it hurts. Parents can prevent the pain of kids by telling them, "Don't touch the oven, you will burn".
->Further, if lack of consent makes action wrong, then it makes wrong even those actions that are beneficial. So if children cant consent, then all actions done to children are wrong. If you say that if action is beneficial, then it doesnt require consent, then people can force adults to do things which benefit those adults, even if adults dont want it.
Certain adults (like really dumb ones) are forced to live with their parents, where their parents take care of them for the benefit of the mentally ill adult. People usually move out when they are ready. Some move out at 18; some 21; some older.
->Pregnancy is beneficial for society, but it doesn't follow that someone can force others to get pregnant.
There is a distinction between beneficial for society vs beneficial for the individual. Forcing someone to become pregnant isn't good for the individual because they shouldn't be raped. But lets say a rape victim gets pregnant, gives birth (willingly) and sets the kid up for adoption. That's not even good for society because that kid is on average going to be more of a burden on society than what they will produce relative to the general population. Now, if a rape victim wants to give birth, she should be allowed to do so. But raping women is bad for the individual woman AND society.
It's possible to be good for the individual and bad for society and vice versa, but raping women (and having sex with the mentally underdeveloped) is bad for both the individuals involved and society. The mentally underdeveloped is now a sex addict. Like in Forrest Gump, Jenny had sex with her dad enough times when a child, and it really fucked up her adult life because she turned into a sex addict.
->Further, if intelligence is a standard for making consent valid, then the smartest person on Earth can just say: "I am smarter than everyone else. Only my consent is valid.", and you would not be able to object because intelligence would be a standard for consent.
Claiming you are smart doesn't make you smart. A 5 year old can say they are the smartest person to ever live, but if they can't do my calculus HW, they aren't smart; they are cocky and naive.
-> But that would be entirely arbitrary point.
There are a lot of arbitrary points in our society (an example is in order to qualify according to https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.534b68e446c46aaacbf4e384ccacd0d1?rik=DOvESxdbM1%2br9w&riu=http%3a%2f%2fdecaturtrackandfield.weebly.com%2fuploads%2f5%2f9%2f2%2f8%2f59286795%2ftrack-standards-2017_orig.png&ehk=YIdpCD3Ag6myTBvrGUfzxbwY2Ok8lsXFJHykffjTCn0%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0, you have to be able to run 100 m in 11.9 seconds or faster). Why not 12 seconds? Or 11.8?
With few exceptions, I don't like age being the arbitrary point because young people aren't a monolith; some 15 year olds are more mentally compitent than some 18 year olds. But other things (like intelligence) you need an arbitrary point in there to have a standard.
->Also, since decision making comes with reasoning about higher intelligence, it would follow that if someone is smarter than a 20 year old, he gets to dictate 20 year old's life.
I disagree. I think if you fall below a certain level of intelligence, it wouldn't be random people that are smarter than you making decisions for you, but your parents would be making decisions for you (if you are very stupid). I am smarter than someone who is retarted; that doesn't mean I get to make decisions for them. The hypothetical retard's parents would make decisions for that retard, because the parents are assumed to love him more than I would as a stranger.
->If action with lack of consent is okay if there is some benefit to the person, then you can force adults to do anything as long as it benefits them in some way. You can force adults to eat vegetables even if they dont want to.
I would say it shouldn't be based on age in terms of if they should be allowed to not do something beneficial, but intelligence I think should matter. If it's a 30 year old adult that is just very stupid (like the following person:
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5c6e43bf6de276197e371bb81e4a3ccd32cdb0da/c=225-0-941-538&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2015/04/27/NWGroup/KING/635657645193734670-laura-gholston2.jpg), then I don't think they are mentally competent enough to make a lot of their own decisions.
->The main problem with "intelligence/mental maturity" argument is that if we followed it, age of consent would be 30 or more.
I disagree because you can require a certain level of intelligence the vast majority of 20-year-olds have that the vast majority of 13-year-olds do not. There is a positive correlation between intelligence and age (excluding dementia).
Emojis aren't arguments. If you think there will be a forfeit, state like a very basic pro religion argument like, "religion lets people go to heaven and get eternal joy".
If you respond, I might get it. My Wifi isn't the best and my wifi gets turned off (but just for this site). Today seems to be the exception.
No matter how common your position is, you have to defend it if you debate about it.
Pretty much every American believes the earth is spherical, but if you start a debate where you take the con position of, "The earth is flat" and a flat earther comes along, you can't laugh them off; you have to defend your position as if both your position and theirs are 50/50 positions.
->
A. 1. Children can consent Or 2. Children can't consent
B. 1. Lack of consent means that activity is wrong Or 2. Lack of consent doesn't mean that activity is wrong
C. 1. Every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong Or 2. It is false that every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong
A: It depends. I think some children can consent and others can't. You need to be able to prove you can consent for sex I think using a test something like https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14JWZh43OcZ-5MdeOhrEa_fPe3AP6-24_w6IvqN9R7bs/edit#gid=0 (although it is incomplete, but I think the questions should be something like this). Many things (like whether or not a child wants to watch TV) they can do with parental consent.
B: 1, unless it's done for the objective long-term benefit of the child (like getting your child vaccinated). I don't think sex is a long-term benefit, it's an addiction.
C: 1, unless it's done for the objective long-term benefit of the child (like getting your child vaccinated). I don't think sex is a long-term benefit, it's an addiction.
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1L0qndW91Y6Nnq_peOvlK6e0SOAlkZ5wtiL2-3m4g9s0/edit.
I figured you guys might want to see this.
If you want to do a debate with people on veganism, can you make it in English please? Most Darters don't know Portuguese or whatever language that is I think. Although I agree with you on veganism (and Biden shouldn't be in office; he sniffs too many kids).
I'm too biased. But I agree with you on this issue.
I think the ideal body count of every man and woman who isn't married is 0. Don't have sex unless your married. I don't think this should be law, but it's a recommendation.
Addiction is powerful, but if you want porn banned, that would mean you would have not only broken your addiction to it, but you want to force that on others. If a smoker wants tobacco banned, I don’t care how addicted they are, they are a hypocrite until they practice what they preach or change their speech because there are other people addicted to tobacco that don’t want it banned that would be effected against their will by a hypocrite smoker wanting tobacco banned.
Now if you wanted porn banned just for those that never watched it so they don’t become addicted, that’s different if you’re addicted to porn. But how are you going to sort out who is addicted vs who isn’t.
My position on porn is it should be legal for everyone. I watched porn when I was a minor and if porn was banned when I was a minor, I wouldn’t have liked it. Most guys are like that too; they start watching porn when they are young.
Make the debate unrated and I'm more likely to accept.
If you watched porn within the last month, you’re a hypocrite.
Wrong and illegal are different. I think premarital sex without a vasectomy is wrong. I don’t believe it should be illegal though.
If you defend homicide, it’s like defending rape; you’ve lost if that’s what you state.
Heritage is a biased source; use more reliable sources.
Crime:
https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/ states the undocumented are less likely to commit victim producing crimes.
Welfare:
I support an open border policy and the undocumented should get kicked off of government aid programs like welfare and food stamps. If you want to come here, be productive.
I want as many people as we can get here because according to my calculations, it would be wonders for the stock market. Quadrupling the US population would roughly quadruple the US stock market, making my stock $130,000 more valuable.
I’m pro life, but if you want abortion banned, how would you punish it? People would get abortions illegally if they were illegal, so you would need a punishment for abortion. Pro lifers say, “Go after the abortionist”, but if this happens, no abortionist would want to do abortions, meaning females are going to have to do their own abortions, so whatever penalty you would give to the abortionist you would also have to give to a female that gets an abortion.
This is funny af.
“ You should care though, it means I have something you will only get by paying someone.”
You got roasted. I could get a girlfriend, but I’m not interested.
I have positive thoughts about veganism. I don’t believe it should be mandated, but I would like for a law to exist where all companies that make meat are required to go from 100% meat to 99.5% meat, .5% plant protein. And then increase the plant percentage by .5% per year so in 200 years, we aren’t killing animals for food anymore. I’ve asked 3 people their thought on this idea, and they all like it, so I think it can take off.
When homosexuals were killed, it was a product of the time. When homosexuality was legalized, the times changed. When conquering other countries is the norm, it’s a product of the time. When conquering other countries doesn’t happen anymore, then the times have changed. But Israel has owned its land for a long time now. A one state solution for Israel will produce the same effect as a one state solution for Palestine.
The difference between thieves robbing and countries invading is every country to this day is to an extent built on stolen land. All the countries where Rome invaded got independence and stole the land from the Romans. The same is true for China. The same is true for America and the African countries. In a world where everyone is a thief, theft is legal. In a world where stealing land is the norm, stealing land is legal. The UN tried to put a stop to it since stealing land usually results in death. But it’s always happened, and it probably will continue to happen unless the world becomes one nation and then there are no more wars over land because everyone would live in the same country. But we are going to have to very homogenized at that point and the world is too different to be the same country unfortunately.
If you’re in agreement with me, then why do you want Israel to get completely returned to Palestine? Me personally, I’m an American so I don’t care what happens to foreign countries. If I were Jewish or Muslim, I would have a bias. But I’m neither. A one state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict will produce the same result whether that one state is Israel or Palestine. The only difference would be the flag and the name of the country. It’s not like calling the area Palestine is going to result in the land being less Jewish or calling the land Israel will result in people being less Muslim.
“ Imagine if someone took half of your house, why would you be ok with that, how would yo be ok with that, ofcourse you would try to take back the rest of your house. So why should we expect the Palestinians to be ok with that? It's the exact same logic.”
I’m just courious as to how far this argument goes. The Arabs invaded the Berber house a long time ago. Should all the Arabs in Morocco go back to Saudi Arabia. Should all the non native Americans living in America get sent back to their home country?
Borders are very fluid over the course of thousands of years. It’s not considered theft the same way as if a bunch of thieves started robbing each other.
I agree. I would go even so far as to support open borders for exclusively blue counties and the standard status quo process for exclusively red counties. If blue counties don't want to deport undocumented immigrants, they can have them. All 1.2 billion of them (the number of people that would come into America if America was the first country to open up it's borders).
Are you vegan or vegetarian?
Life in jail isn’t enough, but the death penalty doesn’t help the victims.
That’s why I propose the Stanton penalty for murderers and rapists; this consists of 3 things:
1) Life in jail.
2)Hard labor fixing the roads of the greatest country the simulation overlords ever created so America can have the best infrastructure in the world. Rape victims get $200,000 in restitution that the hard labor generates and the families of murder victims get $250,000.
3) Surgical castration, as a deterrent.
If there is a false conviction, the accused gets freed and paid for their trauma. But if they are guilty, then they absolutely deserve the toughest punishment short of death.
Nobody is advocating for FORCING the poor to sell their organs. But it should be a right. The poor know what is better for them than the government. Their body, their choice.
Are you vegetarian or vegan?
You've done plenty of Twitch streams without a mask, you hypocrite.
Are you transgender? Most cisgender people wouldn't post this as a debate.
Gays and Bisexual men are more likely to get HIV from their promiscuous sex. This would be akin to saying that "On average, one is better off not being promiscuous" which is accurate.
Transgenders often have to pay for a surgery that's expensive. But this is akin to saying, "On average, one is better off not needing glasses" because glasses are also an expense.
I want a country where anti-communist America loving undocumented immigrants are allowed to defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic machine guns while sipping on a cold beer with some hot 18-year-old supermodels with big tits and ass in the background and a kickass pickup truck that has a bumper sticker that reads, "Stanton 2020, Make America Debt Free" that they don't have to pay property tax on.
#'Murica Fuck yeah!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQRiO1ihcQA
I agree.
I agree.
If you don’t have a plan for the school system to change, don’t complain about it.
->Coerce speech how?
By censoring words they don't like.
->I don't see the problem with this.
Because your an SJW.
->Someone asking to not be called words that have been used to oppress and degrade them for centuries doesn't mean they have thin skin; people have the right to not want to be called derogatory terms and to think you're a bad person if you continue to do so/don't believe in that right.
If someone uses a word to degrade you, you need to grow a thick skin. I know that's hard for Canadians to understand, but America is a much more tough country. We don't want the government speech policing us. It's why the KKK haven't been censored yet. It's also why the opposite of the KKK (minorities) are more attracted to America than they are to Canada.
America believes in small government; Canada believes in speech codes.
->99% of what you hear has been said before. In turn, 99% of that is shaped by influences around the speaker
Was this said before?
->Claiming to formerly be a member of the LGBTQ+ community doesn't give you validity points here.
Why not? People have made jokes about me being bi but I don't get offended by them because I'm not an ancom. It's just woke straight liberals and woke alphabet morons from silicon valley using alphabet people as props to coerce speech and it's so annoying.
If someone uses the term "faggot", I don't consider this to be bad and you'd figure it would effect me, but it doesn't, and it shouldn't. Grow a thick skin. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
I used to be bi (I told people that I was bi when I was) and if someone called me a faggot then, I wouldn't be offended because I have a thick skin. Thin skins lead to the 1st amendment being eroded.
I have no problem with slurs like the n-words, fa****, fuck, shit, or the derogatory term for Jewish people. People need to grow thick skins. The people that get outraged at the N word are often corporate dems and radical ancoms like theweakredge.
Every single person who thinks the school system is flawed should have a plan as to how they would change it.