I don't think most trans athletes are on hormones for 5 years when they compete. I also don't think people claiming to be trans should be on hormones when they are too young because they might regret their decision and some things (like genital mutilation) are irreversible. I think castration of trans women is needed to get rid of their testosterone advantage and this is irreversable.
I live on the east coast. Travelling to Missouri takes roughly 2 days worth of travel by car. Trans track meets can take place on the weekends so the competitors can leave Friday, spend Saturday and early Sunday travelling, compete Sunday, spend Monday coming back and they resume activities on Tuesday or Wednesday.
Maybe. I was #1 on my old account for about 30 days. I just don't have the energy for these formal debates anymore. I prefer forum where there are no goalposts to stick to for multiple rounds and forum is much less structured, so if I feel the need to move the goalposts, I'm free to do so.
I got 2 questions for you:
1) How do you do 99 debates and win 98 of them?
2) Are you trans? Your bio says your gender is "Other"?
"Even at present failure rates, the advantages of autonomous vehicles far outweigh the disadvantages. I've set the minimum required rating for acceptance to one above my rating: 1516"
The public schools have to abide by the rules of the stadium owners. Pro sports can decide for themselves whether or not to allow trans women to compete with cis women in sports. Maybe the transgenders can compete in leagues separate from male sports or female sports or something.
I support the right to a self driving car on the grounds that it is free choice, it is easier for driving, and it prevents 27000 or 90% of American accidents per year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot states that Bigfoot is Canadian and American folklore. Santa is also folklore. If something is folklore, it’s fake.
"Surely unwanted pain and finances are not good reasons to allow murder. A teenage son can give these two things yet surely you do not support murder?"
The teenage son provides less pain overall. For one, their pain isn't constant, it is merely an occasional demand every now and then. Second, the expense they require is significantly less than an unborn baby.
"Consider this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMp0WLLrFng . It highlights that donating is a good thing, but you should still be able to live an enjoyable life without feeling guilt. After all, I have not done anything to the children."
I'm referring to donating excess income. If I'm not forced to donate my excess income to 3rd worlders (or to anybody) even if it saves dozens of lives, then a pregnant female shouldn't be forced to sacrifice her excess income, her time, and her comfort to save 1 life.
"We are discussing abortion not starvation, and these two issues are not to be conflated."
If abortion leads to less death by starvation, then the issues kindof are conflated.
" It would be like if I went to a anti-gun rights protest and started yelling "how dare you protest against gun rights when there are children dying from malaria. You should dedicate your resources to the children instead of stomping around""
I think if your anti gun because guns kill people(I'm not anti gun, but that's a story for another time), you should be proportionate with your passion as this world is not ideal and being passionate about one thing because it kills people while not being passionate about something that kills an even bigger sum of people makes no sense. I try to be proportionate with my passion. This is why I barely care about the death penalty (because it effects very few people to a very small degree as the murderer is going to face something harsh whether it is death of life in jail) while I am an even bigger advocate against the US debt (since being $28 trillion in debt is something that effects every American to a significant degree).
"This would be me saying "my teen son is a headache, guess I'll go and kill him now""
A headache is a very small amount of pain compared to 9 months of pregnency because they last for much less time (and I imagine the intensity is less as well). Consider the following scenario. Lets say you committed a murder in a country with the death penalty and they give you 2 options: Firing squad or you get to live a day longer, but they will burn you at the stake for your murder. Most people would pick the former because it's less pain. They lose a day of life, but they have less pain to endure with firing squad as they would from being burned at the stake. It's better to endure a little amount of pain to save a life, but it's also better to have a little less life if it will greatly reduce pain. An unwanted pregnency is a battle between a lot of pain vs a life. The precedent has been set with other issues. Losing money is painful, but you aren't forced to lose money to save someone else's life. If your not forced to lose a dollar a day to save someone's life, why should someone be forced to endure 9 months of pain (which is worth more than a dollar a day) to save someone's life?
"Moreover if you are ecmonomiclly unable to have a child, this is not a reason for you kill the fetus. Carrying a baby involves little cost"
Birthing a kid is expensive. https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/considering-baby/financing-family/what-to-expect-hospital-birth-costs/ states that the AVERAGE cost is $4.5K. If you think it's worth $4.5K to save a life, then you might want to consider donating that much money to 3rd world people, because you can save more than 1 life with $4.5K over there.
" if you are really unable to have a child, then put it up for adoption."
If the foster system could bring more children into their care, they would have adopted some children from poor countries and then sold the kids to consenting and competent parents, since adoption is a business. Currently, the foster system assumes that some unwanted pregnencies will be birthed and set up for adoption, so they don't rescue as many 3rd worlders as they could. They would rescue more if every unwanted pregnency was aborted, so it's the trolley problem. On one track is an unborn baby. On the other is a 3rd world kid. Aborting the baby will cause them to die a painless death. Birthing the kid will cause that kid to get set up for adoption, and as a result, the starving 3rd worlder ends up dying of starvation since they weren't taken care of by the foster industry instead. Someone will die no matter what, so I prefer the kid that dies to be the one that can't feel pain (and also causes less maternal pain).
" In fact, if you saw on the news a physically able mother sitting at home, exercising their right as a free being who doesn't need to work while letting their child starve and depriving them of an education, you would likely express anger towards them."
I'd want that kid set up for adoption, because you can't painlessly kill them, and the foster system will have more spots if the unwanted pregnencies were aborted. In this situation, the trolley problem on one track is the mother's kid. On the other track is a 3rd world kid. Here, if someone is going to die no matter what, I have no preference.
"A pregnant woman has a responsibility to the baby that they created. The mother owes a duty of care to the baby that she creates."
If someone is forced to take care of their biological children, this means that adoption would be prohibited, as adoption is parents ditching their parental responsibilities technically. I don't think adoption should be banned as this leads to inevitable abuse and poverty within the family unit as well as deprives certain infertile families from adopting.
"First off, people who (let children starve to death) should be locked away forever, except in unusual circumstances. Why shouldn't they? Killing children under the radar is definitely wrong."
https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty/hunger-and-obesity/how-many-people-die-from-hunger-each-year/story states that 3.1 million children die a year of starvation. Assuming 1 kid starves per parent, This means that 6.2 million parents would face life imprisonment every year. Assuming they live for 50 years (so we have 50 years worth of parents to jail), and considering that there are only 3 billion parents in the world, that would mean cumulatively, around 10% of worldwide parents would face life imprisonment because they let their kid starve since they were unwilling to feed their kids. I don't think you should be forced to take care of your biological kid because that leads to inevitable abuse within the family as well as inevitable poverty, so it results in more people starving to death.
"Secondly, if abortion were to be legalised, the net number of abortion would statistically be dropped, which would be a win."
The abortion rate would receive a one time drop. Contraception is a better way to reduce abortions since that provides continuous droppings in the abortion rate. Sadly, the pope won't promote contraception.
"Third, you are conflating abortion and the secondary effects of abortion. This would be like saying "we should make rape legal because otherwise, rapists will feel sad""
If a rapist feels sad because he can't get sex, I'm okay with that. I am less okay with someone starving to death painfully because their parents (who couldn't afford to take care of them and couldn't set them up for adoption because of a full foster system) didn't abort them while they couldn't feel pain.
"I believe that in all ordinary cases (which are the majority), IF a women knows that a fetus is a human being AND they choose go forward with the procedure, the should chucked in prison"
This would mean that 16% of females would face imprisonment for abortion. For reference, only about 1% of the population is in jail in the US, and America has the world's highest incarceration rate. If every woman who had an abortion faced life imprisonment for abortion, it would single handedly increase our prison population 8 fold (since females are half the population).
" By figuratively speaking, I mean I have heard people call for the death penalty for undocumented immigrants who return after being deported."
I haven't been to the south, so I wouldn't know if this is accurate or out of context. If they were advocating the death penalty to undocumented immigrants THAT COMMIT MURDER, then that's merely supporting the death penalty for murder. Regardless of one's opinion on the death penalty, I think most people think it's okay to advocate the death penalty for murderers. But if you call for killing 11 million undocumented immigrants, you should be called out on it. If someone advocates the death penalty for undocumented immigrants (or if someone advocates the death penalty for Jews), the ideal thing to do wouldn't be to ban their speech, but to counter it with why you don't think undocumented immigrants or Jews deserve the death penalty.
There was this guy with a southern accent that came to my state that did advocate for, "Shooting the Mexicans" on the basis that they were taking his job. I would counter that with the claim that
"in addition to being a worker, every immigrant is also a customer. Workers take jobs, but customers create jobs at a proportional rate. If America's population quadrupled, the demand for jobs would quadruple, but the supply would also quadruple. This is why nobody advocates for banning 20 year olds from working on the basis that they, "take the jobs" of older people. The resident in a country creates their own supply for jobs in addition to being a worker that requires one"
Counterspeech is the best way to deal with extreme ideologies. Banning ideologies is not how America ought to function.
"The gay rights movement began in the 1920s. The immigration controversy began in the 1960s. 8 years is I think an excessively conservative estimate."
If your dates are accurate, I'd believe your numbers over mine. 8 years was a guess because I thought Biden would legalize undocumented immigration similar to how Obama legalized gay marriage. But "immigration controversy" has always been a thing in the US. The Irish used to be discriminated against. Then that died down. Same with the Chinese, the Italians, the Jews, the Mexicans, and now with undocumented immigrants. The anti open borders crowd resembles the communist crowd in that neither side learns from history.
"But of course if I killed my child because I was in emotional pain, I would be shipped off to prison."
You sure about that? In many countries where abortion is heavily restricted, parents who don't want their kids due to the emotional stress of raising an unwanted kid abandon the kids, therefore subjecting them to a death of starvation. They don't face prison since they do it under the radar.
"I don't believe that all women should get chucked into prison for life, though the abortionist should definitely get locked up."
Would you believe that some women who get abortions should be locked up in jail for life, if they knew they were killing a human being and they didn't feel like birthing the kid out of a combination of economic reasons and the unwanted physical and emotional pain with raising a kid?
"Again, I still believe that decent human beings have the empathy too, when seeing footage of abortion, withdraw from the procedure, especially when the top reason for having an abortion is because "it will dramatically change my lifestyle"."
The reason for getting an abortions are listed here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3243347/. I think an unborn baby deserves as much protection from non consenting individuals as starving 3rd worlders; meaning if no one is willing to take care of them, they are going to die, and who cares; it's not my problem. Given that most pro lifers expect a pregnant female to sacrifice whatever is necessary to save her unborn child but they are unwilling to sacrifice a comparable amount of resources and labor to save even more 3rd world children(since $50/day can sponsor 50 3rd world children, yet most pro lifers are unwilling to pay that), I'd say it is better for an unborn baby to die a painless death than it is for a female to undergo unwanted pain and costs to bring an unwanted kid into the world.
"Undoubtedly, a portion of women who are getting abortions do not know what they are participating in because they are being misled by abortion institutes fluffy lies about "discarding a clump of cells"."
I imagine a lot of women who get abortions know a fetus is a human being and they don't really care; similar to how a starving 3rd worlder is a human being and most people don't really care that they die; otherwise they would give money to such causes that save their lives.
Even if a pro lifer momentarily says, "I care about ALL lives and starving 3rd worlders should be saved."(Even though most pro lifers then decide to not dedicate their lives and fortunes to saving 3rd worlders even though they expect a pregnant female to sacrifice their fortunes (if necessary) to save their unborn kid), if all the funds that pro lifers are willing to dedicate to saving unborn babies got instead dedicated to saving 3rd worlders from starvation, you'd have some babies dying from abortion, but you would have even more 3rd worlders saved from starvation, so the pro life charity could be way more efficient with its funds.
"All in all, if you participate in the abortion, fully knowing what you are doing, then you should face some penalty, unless in circumstantial situations."
Is "some penalty" a euphemism for life imprisonment? I mean, that's the penalty for murder. If abortion is to be classified as murder, that would mean that anyone who has one would get life imprisonment.
I don't mean to sound condescending or anything like that, but this is just my thought process as to why I'm pro choice.
"Do you think that the abortion rates would be so high if they saw footage of dismembered fetus's rolling around in puddles of guts?"
I think women who get abortions look up if an abortion kills an unborn baby. I think women who get abortions do their research and they find that it does kill a human being. I don't think they care since they are in a lot of pain that they would be willing to sacrifice a fetal life to end their unwanted pregnency pain.
"I would argue, however, that I am arguing that it should be murder."
If abortion was legally classified as murder, that would make abortion a class A felony, and anyone who either performs an abortion or hires someone to perform one for them (so an abortion doctor or a woman who hires an abortion doctor to perform an abortion) would get tried as someone who committed murder and would get life imprisonment for the procedure in the United States for an abortion. At least many pro lifers I met have advocated for life imprisonment for women who get abortions, so at least they are being consistent.
"If my case is successful, then it would be reasonable to label abortion as murder so I, as the advocate of this, can reasonably refer to abortion as murder."
It would only be reasonable to label abortion as murder if it was illegal. Otherwise, assuming your pro life, abortion should be referred to as an unjustified killing for accuracy's sake.
“ That's somewhat different than abandoning the throne. And their power has been gradually reduced over centuries. They didn't devolve into a political figurehead all at once.”
True, but the monarchs nonetheless consensually gave up power.
“ People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.”
In the US, people complain about poverty, but the odds of the Jews being scapegoated for their poverty are slim. Undocumented immigrants might be on the chopping block, but I think people (even devout Trump supporters) have their limits on how harsh they should be towards undocumented immigrants. Very few Trump supporters would for instance advocate burning them at the stake because they “broke the law”. If every law breaker was burned at the stake, America would cease to be the liberty republican the founders intended. If any lawbreaker was burned at the stake, it would violate the 8th amendment. Undocumented immigrants are more likely to be treated better by the government than worse in the future. I imagine undocumented rights are roughly 8 years behind gay rights in the US.
“ People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.”
The Bible would be a competitive choice with Mein Kamf. I don’t know what he picked.
If you don’t want to respond out of a need to focus on a debate, that’s understandable.
So it’s basically a track meet(I don’t know if you get that reference); the top 6 Mein kamf quotes vs the top 6 quotes of another book? Because I imagine neither you nor your opponent will use random quotes.
“ Mein Kampf contains more lies, calls to violence, blatant falsehoods, and incoherency than any other book ever to have been penned by mankind.”
Me being a numbers guy, I would count the number of lies, calls to violence, blatant falsehoods, and incoherency in the book versus another book. But I don’t think this debate has enough characters for that.
“ That is not true for the eastern half of the globe. Are you only referring to the western half? There have been literal Holocaust-denying presidents in the Middle East.”
I was thinking in the US. But if leaders are elected to countries that deny the Halocaust, you can’t ban all their supporters. Moreover, these leaders haven’t genocide Jews. They merely oppose the state of Israel’s existence.
“ I don't understand how you can say even if Nazis "rise again" they can't commit genocide. What would stop them?”
Because parties change ideologies. It would be like saying in 1880 that it should be illegal to be a democrat because the democrats used to support slavery. When the democrats in 1880 got elected, they didn’t bring back slavery because they knew if they tried, they would lose elections. Anyone running under the Nazi platform has to have views more moderate than in WWII to get elected.
“ That was not the case 100 years ago. Why would it be different today?”
Germany was extremely impoverished due to the treaty of Versailles, so they would elect anyone to solve their problems, including Hitler. Now, extreme poverty is extremely rare in the US, so it won’t cause the Nazis to get elected, even if their ideology becomes more moderate.
“ You can't make a king step down by asking nicely, you know? ”
I think it has happened fairly frequently. I’m not a history expert, but the British monarch gave up their power voluntarily I think.
“ The USA advocated violence in separating from Great Britain, but nobody is complaining about that.”
The violence from the revolutionary war is over. If we let people commit partisan violence, then this would allow people like radical pro lifers to burn down planned parenthood places and it would allow radical pro choicers to burn down pro life places. We can’t have people killing each other over ideological differences. This would break up the US.
“ You have inspired me to start a new debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3031-mein-kampf-is-the-most-evil-and-incoherent-book-to-have-ever-been-written”
I haven’t read Mein Kamf and I haven’t read excerpts from it, so I wouldn’t know. But I think your opponent is going to think the book is evil, but that something like the communist manifesto is worse. Regardless, I might vote on it.
Women who get abortions do their research on if a fetus is a human being, so I believe that they think a fetus is a human being. If (hypothetically) you don’t believe blacks are human, it’s your right to believe it. But if you whip black people because you think it’s fun and you don’t think they are human, the law recognizes blacks as people, so you would go to jail.
“ as the whole point of the debate is to discuss the ethics of abortion and perhaps come to the conclusion that the law is incorrect.”
If you think abortion is unjustified, you should refer to abortion as an unjustified killing. Referring to abortion as murder is inaccurate. But referring to abortion as an unjustified killing is subjective. Pro lifers would agree. Pro choices would disagree.
“ Are you implying nobody is scapegoating Jews today?”
I think the proportion of people scapegoating Jews today are very small. Such people have virtually no chance of starting a new Halocaust. Denying the Halocaust is like denying colonialism(which killed more people than the Halocaust). You’d be wrong if you said colonialism never happened, but it’s your right to say it, either as a joke or if your serious.
“ I was asking, are you willing to be killed by Nazis for not supporting their ideology, since based on your arguments you would have supported their speech which allowed them to rise into power in the first place.”
I’m not willing to be killed by the Nazis for not supporting their ideology, but I don’t think Nazism is going to rise again, or if it does, it can’t genocide whole groups of people as part of their ideology.
Some would say Trump is a Nazi based on his treatment towards undocumented immigrants. I don’t support what Trump supports, but he has the right to say it. It is political suicide to censors popular group like Trump supporters and pointless to censor a small group like Nazis. Letting Nazis speak probably will turn more people off to them in the long run, similarly to if you think communism is about equality, your more likely to support it than if you read Karl Marx’s writings and see the violence it advocates for. If people interested in Nazism read Mein Kamf, and they see how brutal it is, they often get turned off from it.
Your first premise is wrong. Intentionally killing a murderer as punishment for murder is not murder since it is legal to do. Intentionally killing an unborn baby is not murder since it is legal. If abortion was classified as murder, then the 28 million females that got at least 1 abortion in their life would be murderers and therefore, have to be jailed for life or executed like any other murderer. Is this what you want?
Transwomen have many different biological advantages relative to cis women that make them competing in sports an unfair advantage. They have more testosterone. They have denser bones. Transgenders can compete in athletic events, but they shouldn't be counted as biological girls. There should be men's sports statistics, female sports statistics, and transmen and transwomen should be counted separately. Allowing biological advantages to be counted when they are so extreme as denser bone structures is like having a cheetah compete against Usain bolt, and claiming the match is fair. The cheetah will win because cheetahs are just better at sprinting than our fastest humans. Males, especially at competitive levels tend to be better at sprinting than females. Letting people with male bodies compete against female bodies is like letting a cheetah compete against Usain bolt.
I want to invite Backwarsden here and have him go against Brother D Thomas. I want one of them to get worn out. It's comic relief for anyone who is not either of them.
I don't think most trans athletes are on hormones for 5 years when they compete. I also don't think people claiming to be trans should be on hormones when they are too young because they might regret their decision and some things (like genital mutilation) are irreversible. I think castration of trans women is needed to get rid of their testosterone advantage and this is irreversable.
How much time should trans females go through hormone therapy? I don’t know too much about this.
Looking back, that was a mistake I made. My bad.
I agree but am tempted to take this debate thinking you won't respond and I can merely make a claim giving me the win.
I don't know too much about Frankincense.
I live on the east coast. Travelling to Missouri takes roughly 2 days worth of travel by car. Trans track meets can take place on the weekends so the competitors can leave Friday, spend Saturday and early Sunday travelling, compete Sunday, spend Monday coming back and they resume activities on Tuesday or Wednesday.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/16-transhumanism shows better arguments from type1.
Maybe. I was #1 on my old account for about 30 days. I just don't have the energy for these formal debates anymore. I prefer forum where there are no goalposts to stick to for multiple rounds and forum is much less structured, so if I feel the need to move the goalposts, I'm free to do so.
I got 2 questions for you:
1) How do you do 99 debates and win 98 of them?
2) Are you trans? Your bio says your gender is "Other"?
"Even at present failure rates, the advantages of autonomous vehicles far outweigh the disadvantages. I've set the minimum required rating for acceptance to one above my rating: 1516"
Man how wrong this statement would be now.
Think Type 1 is at least funny? I mean his R3 is pretty funny.
I like self driving cars.
In the debate, you were talking about how much you don't like the N word, yet your pro in this debate. I don't think that makes much sense.
Israel is a waste of taxpayer money. America first.
No, but Kansas City meets both of the following criteria for why I advocate sending all transgender athletes there for a track meet. The criteria are:
1) It is a relatively big city
2) It is in the approximate center of the US
If it were up to me, I would send all the US transgender athletes to one stadium in Kansas city and have them compete there.
I don't have the energy to debate formally anymore. I just prefer forums and messaging. On debates, people try to win. I prefer to try to learn.
The public schools have to abide by the rules of the stadium owners. Pro sports can decide for themselves whether or not to allow trans women to compete with cis women in sports. Maybe the transgenders can compete in leagues separate from male sports or female sports or something.
I don't think Israel did 9/11.
I think on small issues like this, get the government out of the equation and let individual stadiums decide how they will race people.
I support the right to a self driving car on the grounds that it is free choice, it is easier for driving, and it prevents 27000 or 90% of American accidents per year.
I would argue that Social security is more important on the grounds that it costs more than the military.
"Well, maybe Bigfoot ate the homework." Lol, but this is the internet, so I don't know how that happened.
I think aliens have the ability to invade earth, but I don’t think they would want to. The concept of a nation would seem archaic to them.
I guess it's subjective.
It was 15 minutes. Can you show me the relevant portions?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot states that Bigfoot is Canadian and American folklore. Santa is also folklore. If something is folklore, it’s fake.
I don’t think Vietnam has apes either. Moreover, Bigfoot is a North American concept.
Then Bigfoot wouldn’t be in North America. Bigfoot would be with the apes in Africa.
I slightly disagree, but I don't have enough data, knowledge, or energy to back my position up, so I'll let someone else take this debate.
Sorry if this is spam(I don't want to get reported for spam), but I have a lot to say.
"Surely unwanted pain and finances are not good reasons to allow murder. A teenage son can give these two things yet surely you do not support murder?"
The teenage son provides less pain overall. For one, their pain isn't constant, it is merely an occasional demand every now and then. Second, the expense they require is significantly less than an unborn baby.
"Consider this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMp0WLLrFng . It highlights that donating is a good thing, but you should still be able to live an enjoyable life without feeling guilt. After all, I have not done anything to the children."
I'm referring to donating excess income. If I'm not forced to donate my excess income to 3rd worlders (or to anybody) even if it saves dozens of lives, then a pregnant female shouldn't be forced to sacrifice her excess income, her time, and her comfort to save 1 life.
"We are discussing abortion not starvation, and these two issues are not to be conflated."
If abortion leads to less death by starvation, then the issues kindof are conflated.
" It would be like if I went to a anti-gun rights protest and started yelling "how dare you protest against gun rights when there are children dying from malaria. You should dedicate your resources to the children instead of stomping around""
I think if your anti gun because guns kill people(I'm not anti gun, but that's a story for another time), you should be proportionate with your passion as this world is not ideal and being passionate about one thing because it kills people while not being passionate about something that kills an even bigger sum of people makes no sense. I try to be proportionate with my passion. This is why I barely care about the death penalty (because it effects very few people to a very small degree as the murderer is going to face something harsh whether it is death of life in jail) while I am an even bigger advocate against the US debt (since being $28 trillion in debt is something that effects every American to a significant degree).
Thoughts?
"This would be me saying "my teen son is a headache, guess I'll go and kill him now""
A headache is a very small amount of pain compared to 9 months of pregnency because they last for much less time (and I imagine the intensity is less as well). Consider the following scenario. Lets say you committed a murder in a country with the death penalty and they give you 2 options: Firing squad or you get to live a day longer, but they will burn you at the stake for your murder. Most people would pick the former because it's less pain. They lose a day of life, but they have less pain to endure with firing squad as they would from being burned at the stake. It's better to endure a little amount of pain to save a life, but it's also better to have a little less life if it will greatly reduce pain. An unwanted pregnency is a battle between a lot of pain vs a life. The precedent has been set with other issues. Losing money is painful, but you aren't forced to lose money to save someone else's life. If your not forced to lose a dollar a day to save someone's life, why should someone be forced to endure 9 months of pain (which is worth more than a dollar a day) to save someone's life?
"Moreover if you are ecmonomiclly unable to have a child, this is not a reason for you kill the fetus. Carrying a baby involves little cost"
Birthing a kid is expensive. https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/considering-baby/financing-family/what-to-expect-hospital-birth-costs/ states that the AVERAGE cost is $4.5K. If you think it's worth $4.5K to save a life, then you might want to consider donating that much money to 3rd world people, because you can save more than 1 life with $4.5K over there.
" if you are really unable to have a child, then put it up for adoption."
If the foster system could bring more children into their care, they would have adopted some children from poor countries and then sold the kids to consenting and competent parents, since adoption is a business. Currently, the foster system assumes that some unwanted pregnencies will be birthed and set up for adoption, so they don't rescue as many 3rd worlders as they could. They would rescue more if every unwanted pregnency was aborted, so it's the trolley problem. On one track is an unborn baby. On the other is a 3rd world kid. Aborting the baby will cause them to die a painless death. Birthing the kid will cause that kid to get set up for adoption, and as a result, the starving 3rd worlder ends up dying of starvation since they weren't taken care of by the foster industry instead. Someone will die no matter what, so I prefer the kid that dies to be the one that can't feel pain (and also causes less maternal pain).
" In fact, if you saw on the news a physically able mother sitting at home, exercising their right as a free being who doesn't need to work while letting their child starve and depriving them of an education, you would likely express anger towards them."
I'd want that kid set up for adoption, because you can't painlessly kill them, and the foster system will have more spots if the unwanted pregnencies were aborted. In this situation, the trolley problem on one track is the mother's kid. On the other track is a 3rd world kid. Here, if someone is going to die no matter what, I have no preference.
"A pregnant woman has a responsibility to the baby that they created. The mother owes a duty of care to the baby that she creates."
If someone is forced to take care of their biological children, this means that adoption would be prohibited, as adoption is parents ditching their parental responsibilities technically. I don't think adoption should be banned as this leads to inevitable abuse and poverty within the family unit as well as deprives certain infertile families from adopting.
"First off, people who (let children starve to death) should be locked away forever, except in unusual circumstances. Why shouldn't they? Killing children under the radar is definitely wrong."
https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty/hunger-and-obesity/how-many-people-die-from-hunger-each-year/story states that 3.1 million children die a year of starvation. Assuming 1 kid starves per parent, This means that 6.2 million parents would face life imprisonment every year. Assuming they live for 50 years (so we have 50 years worth of parents to jail), and considering that there are only 3 billion parents in the world, that would mean cumulatively, around 10% of worldwide parents would face life imprisonment because they let their kid starve since they were unwilling to feed their kids. I don't think you should be forced to take care of your biological kid because that leads to inevitable abuse within the family as well as inevitable poverty, so it results in more people starving to death.
"Secondly, if abortion were to be legalised, the net number of abortion would statistically be dropped, which would be a win."
The abortion rate would receive a one time drop. Contraception is a better way to reduce abortions since that provides continuous droppings in the abortion rate. Sadly, the pope won't promote contraception.
"Third, you are conflating abortion and the secondary effects of abortion. This would be like saying "we should make rape legal because otherwise, rapists will feel sad""
If a rapist feels sad because he can't get sex, I'm okay with that. I am less okay with someone starving to death painfully because their parents (who couldn't afford to take care of them and couldn't set them up for adoption because of a full foster system) didn't abort them while they couldn't feel pain.
"I believe that in all ordinary cases (which are the majority), IF a women knows that a fetus is a human being AND they choose go forward with the procedure, the should chucked in prison"
This would mean that 16% of females would face imprisonment for abortion. For reference, only about 1% of the population is in jail in the US, and America has the world's highest incarceration rate. If every woman who had an abortion faced life imprisonment for abortion, it would single handedly increase our prison population 8 fold (since females are half the population).
" By figuratively speaking, I mean I have heard people call for the death penalty for undocumented immigrants who return after being deported."
I haven't been to the south, so I wouldn't know if this is accurate or out of context. If they were advocating the death penalty to undocumented immigrants THAT COMMIT MURDER, then that's merely supporting the death penalty for murder. Regardless of one's opinion on the death penalty, I think most people think it's okay to advocate the death penalty for murderers. But if you call for killing 11 million undocumented immigrants, you should be called out on it. If someone advocates the death penalty for undocumented immigrants (or if someone advocates the death penalty for Jews), the ideal thing to do wouldn't be to ban their speech, but to counter it with why you don't think undocumented immigrants or Jews deserve the death penalty.
There was this guy with a southern accent that came to my state that did advocate for, "Shooting the Mexicans" on the basis that they were taking his job. I would counter that with the claim that
"in addition to being a worker, every immigrant is also a customer. Workers take jobs, but customers create jobs at a proportional rate. If America's population quadrupled, the demand for jobs would quadruple, but the supply would also quadruple. This is why nobody advocates for banning 20 year olds from working on the basis that they, "take the jobs" of older people. The resident in a country creates their own supply for jobs in addition to being a worker that requires one"
Counterspeech is the best way to deal with extreme ideologies. Banning ideologies is not how America ought to function.
"The gay rights movement began in the 1920s. The immigration controversy began in the 1960s. 8 years is I think an excessively conservative estimate."
If your dates are accurate, I'd believe your numbers over mine. 8 years was a guess because I thought Biden would legalize undocumented immigration similar to how Obama legalized gay marriage. But "immigration controversy" has always been a thing in the US. The Irish used to be discriminated against. Then that died down. Same with the Chinese, the Italians, the Jews, the Mexicans, and now with undocumented immigrants. The anti open borders crowd resembles the communist crowd in that neither side learns from history.
Oromagi should have accepted this.
"But of course if I killed my child because I was in emotional pain, I would be shipped off to prison."
You sure about that? In many countries where abortion is heavily restricted, parents who don't want their kids due to the emotional stress of raising an unwanted kid abandon the kids, therefore subjecting them to a death of starvation. They don't face prison since they do it under the radar.
"I don't believe that all women should get chucked into prison for life, though the abortionist should definitely get locked up."
Would you believe that some women who get abortions should be locked up in jail for life, if they knew they were killing a human being and they didn't feel like birthing the kid out of a combination of economic reasons and the unwanted physical and emotional pain with raising a kid?
"Again, I still believe that decent human beings have the empathy too, when seeing footage of abortion, withdraw from the procedure, especially when the top reason for having an abortion is because "it will dramatically change my lifestyle"."
The reason for getting an abortions are listed here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3243347/. I think an unborn baby deserves as much protection from non consenting individuals as starving 3rd worlders; meaning if no one is willing to take care of them, they are going to die, and who cares; it's not my problem. Given that most pro lifers expect a pregnant female to sacrifice whatever is necessary to save her unborn child but they are unwilling to sacrifice a comparable amount of resources and labor to save even more 3rd world children(since $50/day can sponsor 50 3rd world children, yet most pro lifers are unwilling to pay that), I'd say it is better for an unborn baby to die a painless death than it is for a female to undergo unwanted pain and costs to bring an unwanted kid into the world.
"Undoubtedly, a portion of women who are getting abortions do not know what they are participating in because they are being misled by abortion institutes fluffy lies about "discarding a clump of cells"."
I imagine a lot of women who get abortions know a fetus is a human being and they don't really care; similar to how a starving 3rd worlder is a human being and most people don't really care that they die; otherwise they would give money to such causes that save their lives.
Even if a pro lifer momentarily says, "I care about ALL lives and starving 3rd worlders should be saved."(Even though most pro lifers then decide to not dedicate their lives and fortunes to saving 3rd worlders even though they expect a pregnant female to sacrifice their fortunes (if necessary) to save their unborn kid), if all the funds that pro lifers are willing to dedicate to saving unborn babies got instead dedicated to saving 3rd worlders from starvation, you'd have some babies dying from abortion, but you would have even more 3rd worlders saved from starvation, so the pro life charity could be way more efficient with its funds.
"All in all, if you participate in the abortion, fully knowing what you are doing, then you should face some penalty, unless in circumstantial situations."
Is "some penalty" a euphemism for life imprisonment? I mean, that's the penalty for murder. If abortion is to be classified as murder, that would mean that anyone who has one would get life imprisonment.
I don't mean to sound condescending or anything like that, but this is just my thought process as to why I'm pro choice.
I think Brother D Thomas would know the difference. You can tell the difference between a moderate atheist and Backwarsden.
"Do you think that the abortion rates would be so high if they saw footage of dismembered fetus's rolling around in puddles of guts?"
I think women who get abortions look up if an abortion kills an unborn baby. I think women who get abortions do their research and they find that it does kill a human being. I don't think they care since they are in a lot of pain that they would be willing to sacrifice a fetal life to end their unwanted pregnency pain.
"I would argue, however, that I am arguing that it should be murder."
If abortion was legally classified as murder, that would make abortion a class A felony, and anyone who either performs an abortion or hires someone to perform one for them (so an abortion doctor or a woman who hires an abortion doctor to perform an abortion) would get tried as someone who committed murder and would get life imprisonment for the procedure in the United States for an abortion. At least many pro lifers I met have advocated for life imprisonment for women who get abortions, so at least they are being consistent.
"If my case is successful, then it would be reasonable to label abortion as murder so I, as the advocate of this, can reasonably refer to abortion as murder."
It would only be reasonable to label abortion as murder if it was illegal. Otherwise, assuming your pro life, abortion should be referred to as an unjustified killing for accuracy's sake.
“ That's somewhat different than abandoning the throne. And their power has been gradually reduced over centuries. They didn't devolve into a political figurehead all at once.”
True, but the monarchs nonetheless consensually gave up power.
“ People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.”
In the US, people complain about poverty, but the odds of the Jews being scapegoated for their poverty are slim. Undocumented immigrants might be on the chopping block, but I think people (even devout Trump supporters) have their limits on how harsh they should be towards undocumented immigrants. Very few Trump supporters would for instance advocate burning them at the stake because they “broke the law”. If every law breaker was burned at the stake, America would cease to be the liberty republican the founders intended. If any lawbreaker was burned at the stake, it would violate the 8th amendment. Undocumented immigrants are more likely to be treated better by the government than worse in the future. I imagine undocumented rights are roughly 8 years behind gay rights in the US.
“ People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.”
The Bible would be a competitive choice with Mein Kamf. I don’t know what he picked.
If you don’t want to respond out of a need to focus on a debate, that’s understandable.
So it’s basically a track meet(I don’t know if you get that reference); the top 6 Mein kamf quotes vs the top 6 quotes of another book? Because I imagine neither you nor your opponent will use random quotes.
“ Mein Kampf contains more lies, calls to violence, blatant falsehoods, and incoherency than any other book ever to have been penned by mankind.”
Me being a numbers guy, I would count the number of lies, calls to violence, blatant falsehoods, and incoherency in the book versus another book. But I don’t think this debate has enough characters for that.
“ That is not true for the eastern half of the globe. Are you only referring to the western half? There have been literal Holocaust-denying presidents in the Middle East.”
I was thinking in the US. But if leaders are elected to countries that deny the Halocaust, you can’t ban all their supporters. Moreover, these leaders haven’t genocide Jews. They merely oppose the state of Israel’s existence.
“ I don't understand how you can say even if Nazis "rise again" they can't commit genocide. What would stop them?”
Because parties change ideologies. It would be like saying in 1880 that it should be illegal to be a democrat because the democrats used to support slavery. When the democrats in 1880 got elected, they didn’t bring back slavery because they knew if they tried, they would lose elections. Anyone running under the Nazi platform has to have views more moderate than in WWII to get elected.
“ That was not the case 100 years ago. Why would it be different today?”
Germany was extremely impoverished due to the treaty of Versailles, so they would elect anyone to solve their problems, including Hitler. Now, extreme poverty is extremely rare in the US, so it won’t cause the Nazis to get elected, even if their ideology becomes more moderate.
“ You can't make a king step down by asking nicely, you know? ”
I think it has happened fairly frequently. I’m not a history expert, but the British monarch gave up their power voluntarily I think.
“ The USA advocated violence in separating from Great Britain, but nobody is complaining about that.”
The violence from the revolutionary war is over. If we let people commit partisan violence, then this would allow people like radical pro lifers to burn down planned parenthood places and it would allow radical pro choicers to burn down pro life places. We can’t have people killing each other over ideological differences. This would break up the US.
“ You have inspired me to start a new debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3031-mein-kampf-is-the-most-evil-and-incoherent-book-to-have-ever-been-written”
I haven’t read Mein Kamf and I haven’t read excerpts from it, so I wouldn’t know. But I think your opponent is going to think the book is evil, but that something like the communist manifesto is worse. Regardless, I might vote on it.
Women who get abortions do their research on if a fetus is a human being, so I believe that they think a fetus is a human being. If (hypothetically) you don’t believe blacks are human, it’s your right to believe it. But if you whip black people because you think it’s fun and you don’t think they are human, the law recognizes blacks as people, so you would go to jail.
“ as the whole point of the debate is to discuss the ethics of abortion and perhaps come to the conclusion that the law is incorrect.”
If you think abortion is unjustified, you should refer to abortion as an unjustified killing. Referring to abortion as murder is inaccurate. But referring to abortion as an unjustified killing is subjective. Pro lifers would agree. Pro choices would disagree.
“ Are you implying nobody is scapegoating Jews today?”
I think the proportion of people scapegoating Jews today are very small. Such people have virtually no chance of starting a new Halocaust. Denying the Halocaust is like denying colonialism(which killed more people than the Halocaust). You’d be wrong if you said colonialism never happened, but it’s your right to say it, either as a joke or if your serious.
“ I was asking, are you willing to be killed by Nazis for not supporting their ideology, since based on your arguments you would have supported their speech which allowed them to rise into power in the first place.”
I’m not willing to be killed by the Nazis for not supporting their ideology, but I don’t think Nazism is going to rise again, or if it does, it can’t genocide whole groups of people as part of their ideology.
Some would say Trump is a Nazi based on his treatment towards undocumented immigrants. I don’t support what Trump supports, but he has the right to say it. It is political suicide to censors popular group like Trump supporters and pointless to censor a small group like Nazis. Letting Nazis speak probably will turn more people off to them in the long run, similarly to if you think communism is about equality, your more likely to support it than if you read Karl Marx’s writings and see the violence it advocates for. If people interested in Nazism read Mein Kamf, and they see how brutal it is, they often get turned off from it.
Your first premise is wrong. Intentionally killing a murderer as punishment for murder is not murder since it is legal to do. Intentionally killing an unborn baby is not murder since it is legal. If abortion was classified as murder, then the 28 million females that got at least 1 abortion in their life would be murderers and therefore, have to be jailed for life or executed like any other murderer. Is this what you want?
I don’t see what is wrong with giving con arguments. What’s the point of comments then, since every comment has a chance of pro or con using it.
Transwomen have many different biological advantages relative to cis women that make them competing in sports an unfair advantage. They have more testosterone. They have denser bones. Transgenders can compete in athletic events, but they shouldn't be counted as biological girls. There should be men's sports statistics, female sports statistics, and transmen and transwomen should be counted separately. Allowing biological advantages to be counted when they are so extreme as denser bone structures is like having a cheetah compete against Usain bolt, and claiming the match is fair. The cheetah will win because cheetahs are just better at sprinting than our fastest humans. Males, especially at competitive levels tend to be better at sprinting than females. Letting people with male bodies compete against female bodies is like letting a cheetah compete against Usain bolt.
Invite Backwarsden to this website if you want. I want to see him go head to head with Brother D Thomas.
Do you have a DDO account?
I want to invite Backwarsden here and have him go against Brother D Thomas. I want one of them to get worn out. It's comic relief for anyone who is not either of them.