Because your using a single website to define such things, in a way that can very easily point to saying, "Well TECHNICALLY it iS according to this one website" and not by the spirit of the idea. Im sure Oro has a plan, but this just seems very manipulative at best.
hmm, a potential angle, but not a good one. Here, "the" is qualifying man and woman, to be more clear, it is denoting that the thing which is made for men is woman. And the "the" in front of man is simply qualifying the group of people for which woman is supposed to be made for.
To be clear to those loving out of quote stuff - this is me interpreting the resolution, i do not agree with that women are made for men. This should be obvious, but it apparently isn't.
Not really concerned with Pro getting a look at my interpretation.
You also didn't properly read that, my argument regarding genetics was a rebuttal - the constructive used that as one example of how we do not choose our sexuality, had we gone on, i would have elaborated on the sociological evidence which only gives more and more credence to me.
You apparently did not actually read my argument, identify means to RECOGNIZE a truth about oneself, in other words - if you were a doctor it would have to do with recognizing the fact that you are a doctor by profession. Please don't straw-man, its dishonest.
The uncertainty principle eh? I thought someone would have debunked that by now, its really not all that hard, I hope your using it purely to construct contentions and not because you actually don't see the flaws in it logically.
Just like our understanding of reality is "subjective" because we cannot be certain. We can be certain to a degree that makes me more confident in our reality existing than soliphisim, but not enough to dismiss the possibility, its a practical axiom that we accept to be 100% certain. Further, morals are on a basis of a human understanding, without it, we have no basis, or more accurately, praxis, for morality.
To be more clear: we have no actual evidence of human's importance on an universal scale, we matter because we ARE humans, its subjective at its basis. However, accepting the axiom that a certain group have moral value, or a certain aspect matters: like humanity or sentience (the latter for me) we can make objective rules on that basis's worth. The part that you have to listen to is because you ARE a human, any basis you could try to make for any moral work relies on the same basis, therefore you follow it. This is a very short, and a bit incorrect explanation, unfortunately I am busy with classes so here you go.
Political disagreement? The fuck? You just tried to compare slavery to general discrimination?? You know that people are still alive whose grandparents were enslaved right?? You do know that there are people whose PARENTS were fucking enslaved? You do realize that the virtual serfdom that existed in the south afterwards was a lot like slavery economically speaking? No other discriminated group has gone through as much, economically speaking - SLAVERY STILL AFFECTS PEOPLE TODAY. And no - I literally never told you shut up, I said I'd be happy if you never talked about this, cuz' you have no idea what you're talking bout, its like things just don't connect in your head!
Also, just stop with the "oh no, the tolerant people don't tolerate racists." Of course we don't, that would be fucking stupid. We tolerate the people who were denied human and civil rights, not the fuck ups who took those rights from them. Also - no - we did the same thing for all the Japanese Americans because of the internment camps, we were just fine after that.
"Slavery in the past would harm blacks today as much as marital rape laws in the 1960s (when it was legal to rape your spouse) would harm females today. Many groups in the US faced historical oppression. The Irish, Chinese, and Italians faced racism when they came to the US. But they didn't play the victim card, they made something good of themselves and they ceased to be victims. Blacks in the US right now earn a salary comparable to White Canadians. Black people are doing just fine in the US."
False.... while women were oppressed true, same as Irish, Chinese, and to a much lesser extent Italians - black people were discriminated against MUCH worse. What the actual fuck dude? They were held as literal human property! They didn't HAVE RIGHTS!! So no, literally no other oppressed group could compare, of course other groups are oppressed, and we still talk about them! We still talk about women ought to be having more respect in society, and feminist critique is on a rise, LGBT people are on the rise after being repressed for generations; however, none of those groups (as a whole, because obviously there are black women) have suffered as much as black people have collectively, because on top of the whole slavery thing, they had to deal with laws that were as oppressive against them as any other marginalized group -except worst. I would be happy if you literally NEVER spoke on the subject again, jesus christ that was so fucking racist dude. I can't, I'm anger rambling at this point. Go find something to read, please!
I'd have to disagree, as someone who tangoed with Fauxlaw, he is a MUCH better debater than Athias - I think my point is made well enough, Athias liked to bring up brand new points on the second to last round - so yeah - even with that I still think he didn't do well.
Also I'm ashamed Intelligence - that paper about the NDE had... 21 subjects - with evidence like - the person claimed to have an out of body experience and saw a crumpled car.... oh no shit sherlock - a crumpled car! She must be able to see! (Sarcasm friend)
"Former Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser fabricated and falsified data and made false statements about experimental methods in six federally funded studies, according to a report released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Hauser, who resigned from his Harvard faculty position in 2011 after an internal investigation found him responsible for research misconduct, wrote in a statement that although he has "fundamental differences" with some of the new report's findings, "I acknowledge that I made mistakes." He did not admit deliberate misconduct, however, and implied that his mistake was that he "tried to do too much" and "let important details get away from my control"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-us-investigation-concludes
Dude, the dude behind the theory was literally fired cuz' he wrote a fraud of a paper, by the university... ya know, of psychology - so yes - they do that - they have literal journals of peer-reviewed papers - do you actually research?
Interesting how you made the same claim in our debate and I've yet to see you actually rebuke my argument against it. You're bad at keepin' your promises.
Thank you for the compliment! I hope I could accurately represent trans-identity, being cis, I try to do as much research and interview prior, but there are definitely cases where I've missed things.
If I have the time to write it - however- as I wrote in my "I'm taking a hiatus" forum, I really don't have the time very often. I definitely don't concede.
And for us to have that discussion, you would have to have a baseline of civility with your fellow peoples, you do not have that. And that's coming from ME of all people? What, do you find people disagreeing with you evidence enough for your dismissal of those people? My god you are a laugh.
So.... do you have any substantiation or just ad hominems? Ya know, I read up on you, your history and such, I suppose I should expect the ad hominems huh?
I generally agree - though I do agree with the moderators removing it - you need to cover both side's key point at the very least. Yours do that really well, and Username just needs to point out what Pro said, and explain why Con is right.
Um... no - we have a shared burden of proof - you must prove that you are right, and that I am wrong. That's explicit in the BoP of the resolution. There is no "have and eat your cake" there is a BoP that must be fulfilled.
Specifically? Your sophistry points, it kinda buys into your own hype, remember how I pointed out that RAA, same thing here. You need to lay your own framework better, as it stands, you aren't the best of formatting your objections nor tying them in.
Perhaps you should try to start out something as subjective as this with a framework, it would be very helpful in establishing and actually substantiating your resolution.
I don't believe that you ruling was very well read- you missed half of my points- and all of my naunce.
It seems to me you scanned it more than anything.
Transwomen go through sexism... arguably more than cis-women - furthermore - again -it is an unempirical claim to say that "trans-women steal trophies", please refer to the evidence I've posted in my round to that claim, and in the Gender Dysphoria forum
Your anecdotes and outliers literally mean nothing to me - I have already proven empirically that this is not usually the case. You can go on and on about it, but ultimately it only reveals your bias.
RMM
Umm... this: "If you seriously want a debate with me on an in-deptg topic don't add asinine rukes and traps character limits." I gave you that opportunity you didn't take it, don't make excuses when you've literally been given everything you wanted and still refused to engage. Plus, its the principle of the matter.
Literally just "there's good guys on both sides" about a homophobe, I knew i wasn't wrong about you Mr. Eyeroller
this is fucked - legitmately makes me sick. jesus.
Because your using a single website to define such things, in a way that can very easily point to saying, "Well TECHNICALLY it iS according to this one website" and not by the spirit of the idea. Im sure Oro has a plan, but this just seems very manipulative at best.
lmao, this totalllly doesn't seem seized to bullshit out of a loss whenever the evidence doesn't support pro's position.
Oops, completely forgot about this lmfao
hmm, a potential angle, but not a good one. Here, "the" is qualifying man and woman, to be more clear, it is denoting that the thing which is made for men is woman. And the "the" in front of man is simply qualifying the group of people for which woman is supposed to be made for.
To be clear to those loving out of quote stuff - this is me interpreting the resolution, i do not agree with that women are made for men. This should be obvious, but it apparently isn't.
Not really concerned with Pro getting a look at my interpretation.
There is a level of biological as well as sociological determinism yes, i don't see how thats a flaw in my argument.
Hmm, perhaps I'll do this as a little debate-vaycay - haven't been here in a while
You also didn't properly read that, my argument regarding genetics was a rebuttal - the constructive used that as one example of how we do not choose our sexuality, had we gone on, i would have elaborated on the sociological evidence which only gives more and more credence to me.
You apparently did not actually read my argument, identify means to RECOGNIZE a truth about oneself, in other words - if you were a doctor it would have to do with recognizing the fact that you are a doctor by profession. Please don't straw-man, its dishonest.
The uncertainty principle eh? I thought someone would have debunked that by now, its really not all that hard, I hope your using it purely to construct contentions and not because you actually don't see the flaws in it logically.
Just like our understanding of reality is "subjective" because we cannot be certain. We can be certain to a degree that makes me more confident in our reality existing than soliphisim, but not enough to dismiss the possibility, its a practical axiom that we accept to be 100% certain. Further, morals are on a basis of a human understanding, without it, we have no basis, or more accurately, praxis, for morality.
To be more clear: we have no actual evidence of human's importance on an universal scale, we matter because we ARE humans, its subjective at its basis. However, accepting the axiom that a certain group have moral value, or a certain aspect matters: like humanity or sentience (the latter for me) we can make objective rules on that basis's worth. The part that you have to listen to is because you ARE a human, any basis you could try to make for any moral work relies on the same basis, therefore you follow it. This is a very short, and a bit incorrect explanation, unfortunately I am busy with classes so here you go.
Certainly interesting, I'd disagree, I think morals are subjective as can be. Doesn't mean that they ought not be followed though.
Political disagreement? The fuck? You just tried to compare slavery to general discrimination?? You know that people are still alive whose grandparents were enslaved right?? You do know that there are people whose PARENTS were fucking enslaved? You do realize that the virtual serfdom that existed in the south afterwards was a lot like slavery economically speaking? No other discriminated group has gone through as much, economically speaking - SLAVERY STILL AFFECTS PEOPLE TODAY. And no - I literally never told you shut up, I said I'd be happy if you never talked about this, cuz' you have no idea what you're talking bout, its like things just don't connect in your head!
Also, just stop with the "oh no, the tolerant people don't tolerate racists." Of course we don't, that would be fucking stupid. We tolerate the people who were denied human and civil rights, not the fuck ups who took those rights from them. Also - no - we did the same thing for all the Japanese Americans because of the internment camps, we were just fine after that.
"Slavery in the past would harm blacks today as much as marital rape laws in the 1960s (when it was legal to rape your spouse) would harm females today. Many groups in the US faced historical oppression. The Irish, Chinese, and Italians faced racism when they came to the US. But they didn't play the victim card, they made something good of themselves and they ceased to be victims. Blacks in the US right now earn a salary comparable to White Canadians. Black people are doing just fine in the US."
False.... while women were oppressed true, same as Irish, Chinese, and to a much lesser extent Italians - black people were discriminated against MUCH worse. What the actual fuck dude? They were held as literal human property! They didn't HAVE RIGHTS!! So no, literally no other oppressed group could compare, of course other groups are oppressed, and we still talk about them! We still talk about women ought to be having more respect in society, and feminist critique is on a rise, LGBT people are on the rise after being repressed for generations; however, none of those groups (as a whole, because obviously there are black women) have suffered as much as black people have collectively, because on top of the whole slavery thing, they had to deal with laws that were as oppressive against them as any other marginalized group -except worst. I would be happy if you literally NEVER spoke on the subject again, jesus christ that was so fucking racist dude. I can't, I'm anger rambling at this point. Go find something to read, please!
I'd have to disagree, as someone who tangoed with Fauxlaw, he is a MUCH better debater than Athias - I think my point is made well enough, Athias liked to bring up brand new points on the second to last round - so yeah - even with that I still think he didn't do well.
Also I'm ashamed Intelligence - that paper about the NDE had... 21 subjects - with evidence like - the person claimed to have an out of body experience and saw a crumpled car.... oh no shit sherlock - a crumpled car! She must be able to see! (Sarcasm friend)
"Former Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser fabricated and falsified data and made false statements about experimental methods in six federally funded studies, according to a report released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Hauser, who resigned from his Harvard faculty position in 2011 after an internal investigation found him responsible for research misconduct, wrote in a statement that although he has "fundamental differences" with some of the new report's findings, "I acknowledge that I made mistakes." He did not admit deliberate misconduct, however, and implied that his mistake was that he "tried to do too much" and "let important details get away from my control"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-us-investigation-concludes
Dude, the dude behind the theory was literally fired cuz' he wrote a fraud of a paper, by the university... ya know, of psychology - so yes - they do that - they have literal journals of peer-reviewed papers - do you actually research?
Interesting how you made the same claim in our debate and I've yet to see you actually rebuke my argument against it. You're bad at keepin' your promises.
High praise, thanks, I just try to do my best- though admittedly, I have barely any time nowadays cuz' of summer semester college classes.
Ya know, this is a tad sad RMM, this is entirely your debate that I agreed to debate with you - and you still gave up - another one in a long trend.
Thank you for the compliment! I hope I could accurately represent trans-identity, being cis, I try to do as much research and interview prior, but there are definitely cases where I've missed things.
If I have the time to write it - however- as I wrote in my "I'm taking a hiatus" forum, I really don't have the time very often. I definitely don't concede.
Nope - won't do that
Looking forward to the kritik about utilitarianism, lmao
And for us to have that discussion, you would have to have a baseline of civility with your fellow peoples, you do not have that. And that's coming from ME of all people? What, do you find people disagreeing with you evidence enough for your dismissal of those people? My god you are a laugh.
So.... do you have any substantiation or just ad hominems? Ya know, I read up on you, your history and such, I suppose I should expect the ad hominems huh?
yes, we should totally take your assertion seriously because you said so. Thank you for your grand conjecture.
RMM
Typically I only listen to stuff like poprock, alternate, and indie music - I'll give it all a listen though, lol
My bad, I meant fourtrouble, I was rushing that out, lol
I generally agree - though I do agree with the moderators removing it - you need to cover both side's key point at the very least. Yours do that really well, and Username just needs to point out what Pro said, and explain why Con is right.
Um... no - we have a shared burden of proof - you must prove that you are right, and that I am wrong. That's explicit in the BoP of the resolution. There is no "have and eat your cake" there is a BoP that must be fulfilled.
Specifically? Your sophistry points, it kinda buys into your own hype, remember how I pointed out that RAA, same thing here. You need to lay your own framework better, as it stands, you aren't the best of formatting your objections nor tying them in.
Wow - your arguments are even looser... I think you may be losing your touch Athias, your arguments in the forum were stronger than this.
Perhaps you should try to start out something as subjective as this with a framework, it would be very helpful in establishing and actually substantiating your resolution.
Oh friend, no - oh friend the mistake - I will be using sources, lol
There are certain facts that ought to be established, lol
I have... ideas(?) about this - but I've never actually debated about currency itself.
I would agree with Undefeatable
So... did I change your mind? You didn't seem to have much of a defence.
I don't believe that you ruling was very well read- you missed half of my points- and all of my naunce.
It seems to me you scanned it more than anything.
Yeah I'm with MC, I have no idea what're talking about rn.
I don't intend to lose. Regardless of who I'm debating.
Interesting comparing this vote with the one on my debate - the dramatic irony is thus such a hypocritical thing to let breathe.
RMM
Transwomen go through sexism... arguably more than cis-women - furthermore - again -it is an unempirical claim to say that "trans-women steal trophies", please refer to the evidence I've posted in my round to that claim, and in the Gender Dysphoria forum
-RMM
Wrong to all - trans-women, typically, do not rob anything from cis-women - you're just empirically wrong there bud.
RMM
Your anecdotes and outliers literally mean nothing to me - I have already proven empirically that this is not usually the case. You can go on and on about it, but ultimately it only reveals your bias.
RMM
The purpose of said clip?
What the hell are "budgies"?
RMM
Umm... this: "If you seriously want a debate with me on an in-deptg topic don't add asinine rukes and traps character limits." I gave you that opportunity you didn't take it, don't make excuses when you've literally been given everything you wanted and still refused to engage. Plus, its the principle of the matter.
Incorrect, I have not answered the questions in a way that satisfies you - I did indeed answer every question levied at me in the first round.