Theweakeredge

And you think the government will create more problems than the citizens? If we don't hand over some control of the economy to the government then the only thing they care about is profit, they don't care who gets to work, the workers, or anything like that. It would mean that if a business felt like being discriminate it wouldn't matter. Ever heard of Jim Crow laws? The argument you are using was also used to enforce segregation. I believe that the population will create much more problems than the government will.

My argument is that the government ought to have some control over what threats or what people can say to harm others, there is a very obvious hurdle that words would have to overcome to achieve that status. Cyberbullying is literally against the law... so... again, this is already a thing.

https://cyberbullying.org/bullying-laws

News flash: The constitution already does that, hence why you can't make terroristic threats in an airport.

Umm... the systems that people want to uphold are systematically flawed, the system we have used to uphold slavery, and then we abolished that - the same things apply here - of course, racism will always exist, but we can mitigate systematic racism.

I figured, that's why I reported the vote

Look another anti-theist, how interesting

Funny thing is, whenever I first made the argument I completely forgot to use the "is it right to force an impregnated person to support a fetus, because it isn't right to force someone to give someone else blood" thing, though I did touch on it in my responsibility principle.

also these definitions are suspicious, to say the least, and the resolution is confusing. "The mind is obsolete" and you're pro... so are you the one arguing that there is no mind? Because that's what that position correlates to

"I" exist as an expression of biological components reaching a threshold of a "mind".

if you make the debating time a week you got yourself a debate

I'll try to get a vote in here, I'm kind of curious how this debate went now.

I see you being satirical over there, the context was clear - space as in out of the atmosphere, and second of all - no - you would have to demonstrate that either of those scenarios would be the majority of fights, and you never put in that work, second, you never put in any work for why they wouldn't fight in the fight itself, or why either animal would say... stop fighting, and then the other might win, if you had done that that would have been a genuine argument, otherwise its just you floating, hoping for a win on some new voter who buys stuff like your cheap arguments. I never addressed your "arguments" because you dropped every single point I brought up in round 1.

Not to mention your entire point is nonsensical, the resolution itself is saying "In the circumstance that they fight," etc etc, even a kritik doesn't work because of the resolution is only saying that "if" they fight, what is the average result of the fight, for example, if the resolution said, "Humans will die within 5 minutes of being naked, in space," You couldn't argue, "Well, you see, people don't go to space." Because that isn't topical to the resolution. Do you see the problem?

Your argument wasn't topical that's a priori issue.

Is this resolution, "Google ought to stop tracking people.." etc? I'm asking if this an ethical/moral dilema.

I ran out of time to do this debate between everything else, sorry for the cut off round, but it generally describes my argument.

I'll get to it, I wanted to let my mind kind of refresh that way I wasn't voting biasedly against kant

Indeed, but the claim to affirm the resolution wasn't that white people held prejudice was it? It was "White Americans are domestic terrorists" which is false in the sense that most White Americans aren't. Notice how you didn't try to rebuke my overall claim, just try to hand wave it away.

Dude I am as liberal as they come, in fact, I'm progressive, but this is racist - what're your claiming. You blatantly try to assert that all white americans are domestic terrorists, when that clearly isn't the case, is there a case to be made that the people who stormed the capitol were terrorists, absolutely. Does that implicate all white people? No. Could you argue that a lot of white people might support it? I mean you could, but you'd be wrong. This is clearly an effort to generalize it, and this is the exact type of thing that has the left fighting against itself.

Those are bunch of fanfiction sites... let me say it again "FAN" (not credible) "FICTION" (literally something be fake, made up) These are not good sources

I'll vote based on who reached their goal post. That is it.

Is this a joke? Like I'm seriously asking, did I miss something?

I am, and I'm a little frustrated that you never responded to the core part of my argument regarding the Possibility Fallacy, or even my bit about semi-conservative DNA replication, which was a core rebuttal, and I SOURCED PERSONHOOD FROM LEXICO. What? How are you still insisting that personhood doesn't exist?

That would be brilliant, lmao

I'll give it a look

I mean, I agree, but for the resolution, you should be more specific, for example: TBHT: President Donald J. Trump was a bad president, except "bad" is such an abstract, you would probably have to be a bit more grounded for a better debate and not a look into pedantics

Explain why, did you read my vote? I explained explicitly why I didn't think that

this has aged well

Firstly I would recommend reading the entire debate before trying your hand at offering, second I would recommend not giving advice at all - as its unfair to the other side. I'm grateful, but I refuse to use such a pedantic argument whenever there are much strong arguments to use, not to mention I don't need to prove all abortion, just the majority of it moral.

As I said, I'm pretty much as unbiased as I can - in fact I agree with Con's side, not Pro's side, I think that Pro is wrong here, but I don't believe that you have quite enough rebuttal here. Also.... definitely not, if you read my vote, you know exactly why I think that what Pro did was perfectly fine, in fact, its you I believe with the shifty definitions.

I mean, that is the debate, lol

You disagree with the dictionary definition of a term?

I've been there for sure, this will be an interesting one to debate, definitely going to be throwing some classic "Undefeatable" research at this one.

That's blatantly false

You disagree that I clearly listed a source and told you that I had?

You said I hadn't sourced it.... it was in my list of definitions in my first round.

Don't get me wrong, it hasn't deterred a response, and I am pruning it to make sure my claims are sourced, and making sure I didn't miss anything, but still - its just a little frustrating whenever something that has been clarified in the debate and the comments, such as my source for the definition of personhood, comes into one of your contentions as a negative spot against me.

You know, the pure level of misrepresentation throughout your round has got me a little frustrated, not gonna lie.

Eh? A lot of my debates are at 30,000, the only downside is that when you have longer debates it takes longer to get them voted on

I think I'll give it a watch, and vote, I'll probably be taking way too many notes for a live debate, lol

Taking from the voters guide, as long as the vote is in favor of the party that didn't forfeit the rest of the vote doesn't technically matter

I mean - same

Uh huh, yeah, I definitely disagree, but I'm already in a couple debates I want to at least finish one before I accept anything else.

I think Blamonkey is trying to make a statement now, lol

truth is defined as what is true, so yeah, of course the truth exists, it exists necessarily, hence this being a truism. That's literally in the name, "tru"-ism. Something which is true into itself. Now, I guess Con could attack the entire logic existing, it depends, logic is very abstract in it's whole "existence" thing, so I guess you could argue that the same way you could argue that math doesn't technically exist, its just a way that humans interpret the universe, but thats a weak argument at best. It seems pretty "truistic" to me

The comment sections in debates just aren't the best place for that sort of conversation, the forums are specifically made for it

If you have something like this, it would probably be better to bring it to the forums

No, we all recogonize that guy and have bad memories with the dude.

Any thing like this resolution.... "truth exists" is a truism... why?

I won't give arguments to Con, but I really don't even think that "omnibenevolent" god of christianity is really attacked by the argument very effectively, I think its an excellent start for getting people to start doubting the rhetoric of the bible, but besides that, ehhh....