I think what you're referring to is tribalism. Ethnonationalism is a very specific political system and not necessarily ingrained in our psyche. Trump is a nationalist at best, a more apt term would be a neoconservative, but the last thing one could refer to him as is an ethnonationalist when he directly appeals to minorities as a voting strategy.
Perhaps some countries have similar demographics to an ethnonationalist nation. They aren't directed upon that basis or created with that sole intention, Japan for instance is just incredibly strict on immigration and anything beyond tourism resulting in little ethnic diversity. Zionism and Israel, however, are expressly ethnonationalist in both their intent and their actions.
I had written up a logical argument using tautologies and corollaries which avoids unnecessary axioms then I realized I don't like putting in effort so I just decided to take the easier route instead.
I can answer you to the best of my abilities, but I would prefer you vote before I take you on in a comment section debate. I don't want anyone viewing this debate to conflate these comments with the debate itself.
Apologies for taking 20 hours to respond, but better late than never I suppose. My proof that it's bad for education is the statistical benefit on single-sex education cited on the acer website among others.
I try to avoid infinite regress to my best abilities. Every claim I have made is justified by empirical evidence of one form or another.
I never waived it off, it's just self-evident that when you introduce a separate factor the dynamic changes. Female-to-male interaction is beneficial in many circumstances (I would be a fool to deny that). It's just not beneficial in the circumstance of a young learners school environment.
I've demonstrated it indirectly with several sources already (I can provide more), when I showed academic achievement increases for boys drastically along with female motivation to pursue STEM or previously stereotypically non-female activities.
Read source 1, page 2 (listed in round 3). Or the entire thing, that's up to you.
For a 'demonstration of why it works': When a boy is paired with a girl the entire social dynamic changes, this change is self-evident and shouldn't require further explanation. There also comes into play the factor of Developmental Psychology; as it turns out, boys and girls behave in different manners (boys aren't generally as proficient verbally, for example), so it's easier to tailor the lesson around these differences and avoid/reduce harmful stereotypes.
Overall, I think what's more important is whether it does work better. Furthermore, if that is the case, does it harm the boys or the girls and in what way?
"This debate specifically" refers to this specific debate, meaning this opponent and this debate, not the topic. Clearly, I value discussion on the topic, if I didn't I would never have created the debate.
EDIT: I was also referring to my own justification (in the debate/on the topic), not his. Quite a misunderstanding/miscommunication there.
The response to your argument
I've demonstrated the merits of my case, at least adequately relative to my opponent. If you feel otherwise about the topic you can challenge me to a debate, because as always, I am open to a challenge.
I'm not convinced cutting off their penises would prevent distraction or be beneficial in any regard. There is also the obvious ethical/moral implications involved. Overall it's not analogous, as I'm not proposing anything which violates their autonomy (as you would put it).
I only need to prove single-sex education is better than the proposed alternatives (what was that Winston Churchill quote again).
Single-sex education isn't referring specifically to sex-education; even if it was, I don't think this is incredibly valid. Having females in a sex-ed class wouldn't change the curriculum/understanding of the curriculum. If anything, I'd imagine it would be quite distracting for the boys.
Round 3 is probably the best you're going to get out of this debate specifically, so I would look at that round for better justification.
It isn't a matter of necessity, it's a matter of benefit vs detriment. It's clear that coeducation isn't as effective as single-sex education in nearly every regard. The only real objection I've heard to this stance is that it 'causes gender stereotyping' or 'doesn't prepare them for the real world.'
Of course, both these claims aren't justifiable from an empirical or logical perspective.
Right, so this brushes against the crux of my argument. It is the same as killing a human, just not an 'intelligent,' or 'sentient' human. I even went as far as to clarify and present this in several ways during every round. The 5th round was for clarification so I'll extract some applicable quotes which described my position and the arguments I presented.
Quote: "What do you think value itself is? Your intelligence argument is based upon the same potentiality as my own, the only difference is I'm applying it directly and consistently."
Quote: "The question of value is a question of potential and purpose. You seemed to have confined potential to intelligence and sentience while completely avoiding the more important question."
Quote: "Actually the fetus is alive and constitutes life, just not necessarily 'sentient' life as you've put it. Women are biologically preconditioned to ascribe emotional value to the child -- logically justified or not, that is the case."
I appreciate the vote. One minor stipulation though, I never said the potentiality argument specifically rendered it murder.
Edit for clarification: Killing is different from murdering, I wasn't arguing that the fetus was a complete human being, only that it constituted sufficient human life.
Honestly, I haven't read the entire debate. But I will say that from my viewpoint it's a question of how much stigma is bad and to the extent it's necessary. A socially-cohesive society will always intricate forms of stigma; it's necessary and the concept itself isn't inherently good and bad.
(e.g., stigma against mental-illness bad to an extent; stigma against polygamy good to an extent).
I will post my argument in a few hours or tomorrow, depending on my schedule. I ask that you focus more on the actual debate topic than biblical pretext.
"Proactive population control (eventually it will be a problem)?"
- I don't think population control is as much a benefit as you think it is. Assuming it was possible to limit population growth with legalized abortion (it isn't), it wouldn't be applicable to the more general population (think Eugenics). Manipulating culture and societal stigma/norms would be a much more effective method than abortion for general population control.
"Negation of negative environmental development (kids growing up in an environment proliferated with drugs, poverty, foster care, etc)."
- I never really understood this argument to be completely honest. It seems to me that the areas with high abortion rates also possess the highest crime rates. If life (in any from, really), is viewed as valueless or disposable I'd imagine the surrounding society would reflect that.
https://www.huxley.net/ - author was named Aldous Huxely, Brave New World is a fictional dystopian novel. Very interesting read, I assume, since I haven't read it.
Edit: Holy shit I'm tired, I'm going to sleep after I respond to Killshot.
" So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated?" - I answered the question directly when I stated I'd rather see the rapist punished than the baby. I also said this is close to a 1% statistic prevalence, and we were arguing legalizing abortion in general before 5 months. I also stated that it's a simple misconception that the welfare of the baby and the mother interfere with eachother.
It seems you didn't put any effort into actually analyzing the debate. I'm thankful for the vote, but please at least read both of the arguments before you write it.
I'm on a different time schedule from most people so it becomes quite hard to respond to things in time. I realize your vote has been removed for whatever reason, but here are my thoughts on the vote itself.
"Cons youtube sources was bias on the subject," - right below it is the source study, the video was meant to be a more accessible format. I stated that explicitly several times in the comments and debate. The study is a thorough analysis that you are welcome to try and refute.
"are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?" - I answered the question directly when I stated I'd rather see the rapist punished then the baby. I also said this is close to a 1% statistic prevalence, and we were arguing legalizing abortion in general before 5 months.
"are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?" - I responded to this as well, when I said those things DO have value, just significantly less relative to a human fetus. I also isolated ants (which he mentioned, and you elected to disclude), to create an analogy.
"what was even funnier was seeing con in the comment section trying to squirm away from the question lol" - It's not a matter of squirming away. I have already responded to his arguments in kind, and getting into a spat in the comments EXCLUSIVELY benefits him. Why do you think he's so determined to ask things that have already been answered during the debate?
It seems he, and you, are intent on straw-manning both my arguments and the conclusion.
Talking with you further isn't going to be productive, as you haven't set the bar for acceptable proof or justification. You will repeatedly move the bar and then refer to what I give you as a red herring afterwards. You are infatuated with your own arguments, and I can only hope you gain the capacity for introspection one day.
I could reiterate the many answers I provided in the debate, and some of the ones in the comments. It wouldn't matter though since you're deadset on calling whatever justification or proof I provide a red herring. There is no point in continuing this, and I'm not even sure you understand what constitutes a sequitur argument is at this point.
This is an interesting topic, thought not directly related to abortion. Feel free to challenge me to a debate on this topic, as we both probably stand to learn something about it.
Edit: I should probably stop arguing with the people who voted for me.
I disagree with your disagreement, something being criminalized doesn't necessitate a 'punishment.' I never said we should execute or jail addicts/dealers (like in our current system).
It's also certainly not a victimless act when you consider a distribution market is created to meet the demand. By making such a thing completely legal it wouldn't harm the more educated, but the disadvantaged and depressed before we can reach them through social means.
Both are necessary, this is the fundamental mistake Reagan made in his "war on drugs." Drugs are certainly bad, but it's hardly justifiable criminalizing the drug itself without equal effort to influence culture away from them.
Edit: Social enforcement and legal enforcement are equally valuable, and in a cohesive society they should support eachother.
--- DO NOT TAKE THIS COMMENT INTO CONSIDERATION IN ANY VOTES ---
Obviously this was not a serious debate, my real views are directly contrary to this.
You might wish to rephrase the below.
"I disagree, you say 'he can do anything he wants to' so again, can he create a stone that he does not lift? If he wanted to, could he?"
I think what you're referring to is tribalism. Ethnonationalism is a very specific political system and not necessarily ingrained in our psyche. Trump is a nationalist at best, a more apt term would be a neoconservative, but the last thing one could refer to him as is an ethnonationalist when he directly appeals to minorities as a voting strategy.
Perhaps some countries have similar demographics to an ethnonationalist nation. They aren't directed upon that basis or created with that sole intention, Japan for instance is just incredibly strict on immigration and anything beyond tourism resulting in little ethnic diversity. Zionism and Israel, however, are expressly ethnonationalist in both their intent and their actions.
Israel: The last bastion of Ethno-Nationalism, and a result of modern imperialism.
If he had avoided throwing in "who licks donkey buttholes," and assuming Virtuoso supports Zion, I would've agreed with him.
I had written up a logical argument using tautologies and corollaries which avoids unnecessary axioms then I realized I don't like putting in effort so I just decided to take the easier route instead.
Do you have any more specific concerns?
Typo in my counter-argument, I meant to say "it's likely this will be banned in any other modern society."
I don't know much about Jesus, but I believe firmly Obama is the antichrist.
Sure, if that's how you choose to view it.
I made several typos, under the Feasibility section I meant to write "babies," not "children."
I will post my argument later tonight or tomorrow, depending upon my schedule. I hope this doesn't inconvenience you.
What?
I can address you directly, just not in the comments. I've learned that it isn't beneficial to argue in the comments of my debate.
It's not you that I'm concerned about.
I can answer you to the best of my abilities, but I would prefer you vote before I take you on in a comment section debate. I don't want anyone viewing this debate to conflate these comments with the debate itself.
Apologies for taking 20 hours to respond, but better late than never I suppose. My proof that it's bad for education is the statistical benefit on single-sex education cited on the acer website among others.
I try to avoid infinite regress to my best abilities. Every claim I have made is justified by empirical evidence of one form or another.
I never waived it off, it's just self-evident that when you introduce a separate factor the dynamic changes. Female-to-male interaction is beneficial in many circumstances (I would be a fool to deny that). It's just not beneficial in the circumstance of a young learners school environment.
I've demonstrated it indirectly with several sources already (I can provide more), when I showed academic achievement increases for boys drastically along with female motivation to pursue STEM or previously stereotypically non-female activities.
Read source 1, page 2 (listed in round 3). Or the entire thing, that's up to you.
For a 'demonstration of why it works': When a boy is paired with a girl the entire social dynamic changes, this change is self-evident and shouldn't require further explanation. There also comes into play the factor of Developmental Psychology; as it turns out, boys and girls behave in different manners (boys aren't generally as proficient verbally, for example), so it's easier to tailor the lesson around these differences and avoid/reduce harmful stereotypes.
Overall, I think what's more important is whether it does work better. Furthermore, if that is the case, does it harm the boys or the girls and in what way?
"This debate specifically" refers to this specific debate, meaning this opponent and this debate, not the topic. Clearly, I value discussion on the topic, if I didn't I would never have created the debate.
EDIT: I was also referring to my own justification (in the debate/on the topic), not his. Quite a misunderstanding/miscommunication there.
The response to your argument
I've demonstrated the merits of my case, at least adequately relative to my opponent. If you feel otherwise about the topic you can challenge me to a debate, because as always, I am open to a challenge.
I'm not convinced cutting off their penises would prevent distraction or be beneficial in any regard. There is also the obvious ethical/moral implications involved. Overall it's not analogous, as I'm not proposing anything which violates their autonomy (as you would put it).
I only need to prove single-sex education is better than the proposed alternatives (what was that Winston Churchill quote again).
Single-sex education isn't referring specifically to sex-education; even if it was, I don't think this is incredibly valid. Having females in a sex-ed class wouldn't change the curriculum/understanding of the curriculum. If anything, I'd imagine it would be quite distracting for the boys.
Round 3 is probably the best you're going to get out of this debate specifically, so I would look at that round for better justification.
It isn't a matter of necessity, it's a matter of benefit vs detriment. It's clear that coeducation isn't as effective as single-sex education in nearly every regard. The only real objection I've heard to this stance is that it 'causes gender stereotyping' or 'doesn't prepare them for the real world.'
Of course, both these claims aren't justifiable from an empirical or logical perspective.
It seemed to me that it wasn't just an elephant, but perhaps I'm mistaken about that.
Are you still interested in this?
Who reported a vote? Lmao, this debate was clearly screwed up by a mistake made by myself.
It told me I had 10 hours to submit an argument, not sure I understand why it forfeited this but okay.
If you would prefer, I could recreate the debate with 10k character limit. I think that would be a fair compromise in terms of length.
Not really, intimacy isn't a direct concern of mine.
My computer broke and I forgot my password to this website, I am incredibly sorry and if you would prefer we could remake this debate.
Right, so this brushes against the crux of my argument. It is the same as killing a human, just not an 'intelligent,' or 'sentient' human. I even went as far as to clarify and present this in several ways during every round. The 5th round was for clarification so I'll extract some applicable quotes which described my position and the arguments I presented.
Quote: "What do you think value itself is? Your intelligence argument is based upon the same potentiality as my own, the only difference is I'm applying it directly and consistently."
Quote: "The question of value is a question of potential and purpose. You seemed to have confined potential to intelligence and sentience while completely avoiding the more important question."
Quote: "Actually the fetus is alive and constitutes life, just not necessarily 'sentient' life as you've put it. Women are biologically preconditioned to ascribe emotional value to the child -- logically justified or not, that is the case."
I appreciate the vote. One minor stipulation though, I never said the potentiality argument specifically rendered it murder.
Edit for clarification: Killing is different from murdering, I wasn't arguing that the fetus was a complete human being, only that it constituted sufficient human life.
I apologize, I wrote the first round in an external text editor. It corrected one of my words to "absolve," rather than "resolve".
You're welcome to have that perspective, even if it's objectively wrong.
I never said it was the only reason it was bad. I never even said it was a reason for it being bad.
Honestly, I haven't read the entire debate. But I will say that from my viewpoint it's a question of how much stigma is bad and to the extent it's necessary. A socially-cohesive society will always intricate forms of stigma; it's necessary and the concept itself isn't inherently good and bad.
(e.g., stigma against mental-illness bad to an extent; stigma against polygamy good to an extent).
I will post my argument in a few hours or tomorrow, depending on my schedule. I ask that you focus more on the actual debate topic than biblical pretext.
Cross-examination of both my opening arguments and my conclusory arguments is welcome.
Wow, I forgot I accepted this debate to be honest. Good thing I remembered like an hour before the timer.
In a brief response to your points:
"Proactive population control (eventually it will be a problem)?"
- I don't think population control is as much a benefit as you think it is. Assuming it was possible to limit population growth with legalized abortion (it isn't), it wouldn't be applicable to the more general population (think Eugenics). Manipulating culture and societal stigma/norms would be a much more effective method than abortion for general population control.
"Negation of negative environmental development (kids growing up in an environment proliferated with drugs, poverty, foster care, etc)."
- I never really understood this argument to be completely honest. It seems to me that the areas with high abortion rates also possess the highest crime rates. If life (in any from, really), is viewed as valueless or disposable I'd imagine the surrounding society would reflect that.
https://www.huxley.net/ - author was named Aldous Huxely, Brave New World is a fictional dystopian novel. Very interesting read, I assume, since I haven't read it.
Edit: Holy shit I'm tired, I'm going to sleep after I respond to Killshot.
Have you ever read "brave new world"? It's quite interesting.
On another note: I wrote all my sources and formatted my response around APA-style citations then realized that wasn't required.
Thanks for the comment, I'll respond in kind once I finish my research paper and my rebuttal to Ralph (I have a lot on my plate currently).
If you have anything else to ask of me post it and tag me, I will respond thoroughly by the end of the day.
" So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated?" - I answered the question directly when I stated I'd rather see the rapist punished than the baby. I also said this is close to a 1% statistic prevalence, and we were arguing legalizing abortion in general before 5 months. I also stated that it's a simple misconception that the welfare of the baby and the mother interfere with eachother.
It seems you didn't put any effort into actually analyzing the debate. I'm thankful for the vote, but please at least read both of the arguments before you write it.
I'm on a different time schedule from most people so it becomes quite hard to respond to things in time. I realize your vote has been removed for whatever reason, but here are my thoughts on the vote itself.
"Cons youtube sources was bias on the subject," - right below it is the source study, the video was meant to be a more accessible format. I stated that explicitly several times in the comments and debate. The study is a thorough analysis that you are welcome to try and refute.
"are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?" - I answered the question directly when I stated I'd rather see the rapist punished then the baby. I also said this is close to a 1% statistic prevalence, and we were arguing legalizing abortion in general before 5 months.
"are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?" - I responded to this as well, when I said those things DO have value, just significantly less relative to a human fetus. I also isolated ants (which he mentioned, and you elected to disclude), to create an analogy.
"what was even funnier was seeing con in the comment section trying to squirm away from the question lol" - It's not a matter of squirming away. I have already responded to his arguments in kind, and getting into a spat in the comments EXCLUSIVELY benefits him. Why do you think he's so determined to ask things that have already been answered during the debate?
It seems he, and you, are intent on straw-manning both my arguments and the conclusion.
Talking with you further isn't going to be productive, as you haven't set the bar for acceptable proof or justification. You will repeatedly move the bar and then refer to what I give you as a red herring afterwards. You are infatuated with your own arguments, and I can only hope you gain the capacity for introspection one day.
Good luck in voting.
I could reiterate the many answers I provided in the debate, and some of the ones in the comments. It wouldn't matter though since you're deadset on calling whatever justification or proof I provide a red herring. There is no point in continuing this, and I'm not even sure you understand what constitutes a sequitur argument is at this point.
Can you clarify some things for me?
Are you arguing all Christians are delusional or some are?
Are you wanting to argue that Christianity itself is a delusion? (If so, change the title.)
This is an interesting topic, thought not directly related to abortion. Feel free to challenge me to a debate on this topic, as we both probably stand to learn something about it.
Edit: I should probably stop arguing with the people who voted for me.
I disagree with your disagreement, something being criminalized doesn't necessitate a 'punishment.' I never said we should execute or jail addicts/dealers (like in our current system).
It's also certainly not a victimless act when you consider a distribution market is created to meet the demand. By making such a thing completely legal it wouldn't harm the more educated, but the disadvantaged and depressed before we can reach them through social means.
Both are necessary, this is the fundamental mistake Reagan made in his "war on drugs." Drugs are certainly bad, but it's hardly justifiable criminalizing the drug itself without equal effort to influence culture away from them.
Edit: Social enforcement and legal enforcement are equally valuable, and in a cohesive society they should support eachother.