''You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.''
No, he is just spreading hate before the site goes down bcs i called him gay in the forum once. You should have seen his post tho... He is a smart guy!
well i can't know your skin color but i can certainly know you are stupid.
Ethnicity: white
A proud white
Reason for pride: Color white
You beat me I surrender.
But hey, don't forget to vote for your fellow stupid patriot okay! Proud idiots!
I wish i had another argument just to show this dumbass that he is indeed a dumbass. The topic is about whether there is any reason to be proud and he comes up with this:
"Pro’s case depends entirely on the claim that one can only be proud of what one chooses, achieves, or works for. But this is never defended"
Of course dumbass. One can be proud, but there is no REASON to be. What an absolute idiot. takes the easy side and still acts dumb.
One can be proud for being a dumbass like yourself mate. But there is no reason to. And you are the example of this. I can't believe i even considered you, sorry!
It only takes one dishonest nitpicking statement to bring down the whole argument. And con makes a lot. But if you look past them you can also see his standing arguments. Which is why i gave a tie. Since con takes the hard position in this debate he/she must be payed the respect of further analysis. However he did not provide any sources at all and even tried to disregard those provided by pro. Honesty is indeed important in any debate. Nitpicking only shows lack of competence.
Yes that was indeed a lapsus due to the pace of the conflict. Your accusations are just dishonest. Just because i do not quote your entire 5 minute read argument does not mean you can just refute what it clearly states. At least stick to you words.
"Given this, it's also recognisable that there is no obligation to bring what could be a person into existence (otherwise we would be obligated into impregnating people all day)."
And further:
"Given I deny you can harm non persons, the direct vs indirect harm distinction is meaningless. Furthermore, since I deny that the fetus is a person, I deny that it has any obligations let alone a special one."
And of course i could go further.
"the direct vs indirect harm distinction is meaningless"- dismissive as i said.
" it's also recognisable that there is no obligation"- how is that an argument for "not immoral"?
I do not intend to go through the debate again.
Last time responding to this absolute crybaby:
Quotes: nothing made up. You did state:
“Until sentience develops, there is no subject of harm.”
And you said:
“Even with uncertainty, we do not require people to sustain others’ lives at serious cost.”
Both are in your text, word for word. That is not fabrication.
Jumbled summary?
You wrote tens of thousands of characters repeating largely the same premise - no sentience, no rights - and did not dismantle the uncertainty principle or the FLO argument beyond declarative denials. Summarizing this accurately does not invalidate the vote.
If you believe a vote will be “thrown out” simply because you contest the judgment, you are misunderstanding how moderation works. The site shall not annul votes because you dislike their conclusions.
Nothing made up. Did you even read it. I stay to my position.
I took time to read at your debate so at least read my reasoning.
Would consider analysing your contest again but to be honest it's not even close.
"The issue arises only when someone who is clearly unable to adjudicate a debate tries their hand at it and fumbles."
Assertion does not mean you are right or logical. This sums up your debate skills.
Are you are an appealer to average biased readers? This is what i derive from your comments and arguments.
Your reaction here is more emotional than logical, and ironically you are proving quite well why the vote stood as it did.
Your arguments were often ‘overworded’ (just for the sake of making a long argument) and totally failed to displace pro’s core premises.
-“Voter ignored my moral framework.”
You spent thousands of words to denying fetal personhood and discussing moral consideration thresholds.
But, popular debater, volume does not equal logic or effectiveness. The moral framework you proposed amounted to this combination:
-The fetus lacks sentience (hence no moral standing), and
-The absence of positive obligations to sustain life.
Which i recognized and weighed. I explicitly cited your position that:
-“Until sentience develops, there is no subject of harm.”
Your framework, however, never neutralized Pro’s uncertainty argument. Specifically, that even the risk of personhood imposes significant restricting moral weight. So no, I didn’t ignore it. I evaluated it and found it less persuasive. (Logically) (Not to my personal opinion on the topic).
-“I never argued bodily autonomy.”
You repeatedly implied there is no obligation to sustain another life, which is a bodily autonomy defense by definition. For example:
-“Even with uncertainty, we do not require people to sustain others’ lives at serious cost.”
That is a bodily autonomy justification. Whether you dislike it personally is irrelevant. It was central to your attempt to offer something more comfortable to the average reader than the uncertainty principle. If you think it’s a different framework, perhaps clarify that next time coherently, but it reads as bodily autonomy to any unbiased reader.
-“My rebuttal to FLO was not dismissive.”
Your rebuttal to FLO Indirectly asserts that potential futures don’t generate rights. Here’s what you actually said:
-“A potential person is not an actual person.”
This is indeed a biased claim to such an important and considerable principle, but it did not engage with the core philosophical content that preventing a future itself grounds moral wrongness. Just declaring it insufficient is a dismissive approach unless you show why potential futures lack moral weight even under uncertainty. You did not, good sir!
Finally, your claim that my RFD contained “nothing substance related” is a lie.
It was structured to explain why Pro’s arguments: uncertainty, special obligations, FLO.
were more interesting and respectable under a shared burden of proof. That is the definition of substance.
If you wish to contest votes, it would be better to do the reasoning calmly rather than with disappointment to your loss, and accusing reasonable voters.
Ps: Barney, this is the most intellectual i have been in this platform. Perhaps consider that your friends do not always win debates. I would hate to think that there is biased moderation here.
The only one agitated here is you. For losing a vote. That is a baby behaviour. Considering your popularity among the community, it is a moderation matter to be adressed. My vote explanation incoming.
"Rage bait votes use to be believable"
The grammar in this sentence is exactly the reason why your opponent won legibility.
"Don't use open voting for something like this, you will always get the idiots"
What is the point of having a voting system if an idiot calls everyone who does not vote on his favour an idiot?
Keep to your place and learn some grammar idiots.
"Why not?"-
Why yes? Why take pride in something you did not achieve yourself. And in this topic i am explicitly talking about pride in ethnicity. Just because watt invented the steam engine does mot mean the english must feel proud of being the same ethnicity as him. They just were born there and all they did was sit down debating in debateart (for example). Western societies cannot say we are proud to be...because look what we have achieved. No. There were some guys in the past who built all this. You were just born here. If you achieve something yourself then you have all the right to be proud.
of course we value our group more. that is an evolutionary trait.
But loving your family and feeling proud to have been born there are very different.
There is no reason to be proud just because you were favoured by chance and were not born in the sub-saharan africa fighting with malaria.
But there are plenty of reasons to love your family, even if it is an instinct.
I am sure many people feel like you.
But there is no reason to. That is the topic.
You can be proud for catching a delicious wild seabass(yummy) because you worked for it.
You did not work for your blonde hair. Your ancestors might have been great, but are you?
Why take pride from their greatness?
" I 'do think there are other reasons why pride in genetics can be valuable."
I do not think there are any. They just drive us towards more division and exclusion.
I am sure your mother and brother are very good people. But i am also sure that they are two of the very few out there.
"While you 'do argue many actions such as nationalism not to be very Christian, 'I think Pro makes a fair rebuttal, with their definitions of what it means to be a Christian."
Yes, what it means to be christian. Even though it doesn't cover the whole reality of the religion. I will accept it as a rebutal. But does it adress the topic?
Would jesus recognize- "what it means to be christian" -as his?
Considering the contrast between the gospel (which i adress) and "the christian" he wouldn't. Of that i am sure.
And again, not the good christian. On general. That's why i say christianity as a religion. Otherwise i would have just said: "Are there any really good christians that jesus would have appreciated?".
He should have read the short description.
--"I view it more as 'assertion, by you that Christianity is the Mega Churches,
And 'assertion, by him that Christianity is the people."
I did not only talk about the churches. I talked about people.
No need for statistics on this matter.
Do you think all the trump supporters who claim to be followers of jesus really are such?
This is the point of the debate. I talk about every aspect.
I am sorry but the opponent does not make any arguments here. Not anything related to the topic anyway.
Which section from the gospels align with today's christianity?
Nothing that is clear.
Assuming one has read the gospel.
But even if you have not.
Just the figure of jesus itself. Compassionate love, empathy, forgiveness. Do these align with modern christianity?
I make the argument that they do not.
My opponent only says -"i don't know but i hope they do"!
Take it eaz faggot.
Don't forget to make strong remarks about women! LOL!!!!!!!! Faggot!
''You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.''
No, he is just spreading hate before the site goes down bcs i called him gay in the forum once. You should have seen his post tho... He is a smart guy!
21pilots please be careful with the teeth faggot.
High rates of literacy.
You're on it!
Stop reporting my vote pussy
Ur on it too hard.
It's a shame they still produce these things like novice. They should come out with a new model.
Targeted as in i like savant or agree with his position here or what?
I guess so.
I'm not reading all that.
If my opponent could vote he would vote for me. I know he's crying.
Why fight voters tho? Me and my dumb opponent both know i won this.
Ps: You got schooled by me a couple days back in the forum tho.
Forum better?
Just an RFD and you're good to go.
What a world we live in!
Cum skin idiot is proud as can be.
Pale white asian polish femboy is ashamed.
That is unfair!
Yes well, that's the color white. But you must know since you are white and proud right?
You are a proud cumskin.
Look at you! Good job!
well i can't know your skin color but i can certainly know you are stupid.
Ethnicity: white
A proud white
Reason for pride: Color white
You beat me I surrender.
But hey, don't forget to vote for your fellow stupid patriot okay! Proud idiots!
I wish i had another argument just to show this dumbass that he is indeed a dumbass. The topic is about whether there is any reason to be proud and he comes up with this:
"Pro’s case depends entirely on the claim that one can only be proud of what one chooses, achieves, or works for. But this is never defended"
Of course dumbass. One can be proud, but there is no REASON to be. What an absolute idiot. takes the easy side and still acts dumb.
One can be proud for being a dumbass like yourself mate. But there is no reason to. And you are the example of this. I can't believe i even considered you, sorry!
Its good
It only takes one dishonest nitpicking statement to bring down the whole argument. And con makes a lot. But if you look past them you can also see his standing arguments. Which is why i gave a tie. Since con takes the hard position in this debate he/she must be payed the respect of further analysis. However he did not provide any sources at all and even tried to disregard those provided by pro. Honesty is indeed important in any debate. Nitpicking only shows lack of competence.
The most likely location is your imagination
Crybabies
and where the fuck do i say that. read the topic. i'm not even liberal nor american.
But you just lost to a 1500
sorry! couldn't willingly sit this out and allow pro to lose.
@everyone
Since you want to support your very dear friend then show it by vote and not by whinning
What concern is this to you idiot? Keep to your place idiot.
Yes that was indeed a lapsus due to the pace of the conflict. Your accusations are just dishonest. Just because i do not quote your entire 5 minute read argument does not mean you can just refute what it clearly states. At least stick to you words.
That is a paraphrasing of:
"Given this, it's also recognisable that there is no obligation to bring what could be a person into existence (otherwise we would be obligated into impregnating people all day)."
And further:
"Given I deny you can harm non persons, the direct vs indirect harm distinction is meaningless. Furthermore, since I deny that the fetus is a person, I deny that it has any obligations let alone a special one."
And of course i could go further.
"the direct vs indirect harm distinction is meaningless"- dismissive as i said.
" it's also recognisable that there is no obligation"- how is that an argument for "not immoral"?
I do not intend to go through the debate again.
Last time responding to this absolute crybaby:
Quotes: nothing made up. You did state:
“Until sentience develops, there is no subject of harm.”
And you said:
“Even with uncertainty, we do not require people to sustain others’ lives at serious cost.”
Both are in your text, word for word. That is not fabrication.
Jumbled summary?
You wrote tens of thousands of characters repeating largely the same premise - no sentience, no rights - and did not dismantle the uncertainty principle or the FLO argument beyond declarative denials. Summarizing this accurately does not invalidate the vote.
If you believe a vote will be “thrown out” simply because you contest the judgment, you are misunderstanding how moderation works. The site shall not annul votes because you dislike their conclusions.
Nothing made up. Did you even read it. I stay to my position.
I took time to read at your debate so at least read my reasoning.
Would consider analysing your contest again but to be honest it's not even close.
Would've liked to see that aspinal fight tho.
"The issue arises only when someone who is clearly unable to adjudicate a debate tries their hand at it and fumbles."
Assertion does not mean you are right or logical. This sums up your debate skills.
Are you are an appealer to average biased readers? This is what i derive from your comments and arguments.
Your reaction here is more emotional than logical, and ironically you are proving quite well why the vote stood as it did.
Your arguments were often ‘overworded’ (just for the sake of making a long argument) and totally failed to displace pro’s core premises.
-“Voter ignored my moral framework.”
You spent thousands of words to denying fetal personhood and discussing moral consideration thresholds.
But, popular debater, volume does not equal logic or effectiveness. The moral framework you proposed amounted to this combination:
-The fetus lacks sentience (hence no moral standing), and
-The absence of positive obligations to sustain life.
Which i recognized and weighed. I explicitly cited your position that:
-“Until sentience develops, there is no subject of harm.”
Your framework, however, never neutralized Pro’s uncertainty argument. Specifically, that even the risk of personhood imposes significant restricting moral weight. So no, I didn’t ignore it. I evaluated it and found it less persuasive. (Logically) (Not to my personal opinion on the topic).
-“I never argued bodily autonomy.”
You repeatedly implied there is no obligation to sustain another life, which is a bodily autonomy defense by definition. For example:
-“Even with uncertainty, we do not require people to sustain others’ lives at serious cost.”
That is a bodily autonomy justification. Whether you dislike it personally is irrelevant. It was central to your attempt to offer something more comfortable to the average reader than the uncertainty principle. If you think it’s a different framework, perhaps clarify that next time coherently, but it reads as bodily autonomy to any unbiased reader.
-“My rebuttal to FLO was not dismissive.”
Your rebuttal to FLO Indirectly asserts that potential futures don’t generate rights. Here’s what you actually said:
-“A potential person is not an actual person.”
This is indeed a biased claim to such an important and considerable principle, but it did not engage with the core philosophical content that preventing a future itself grounds moral wrongness. Just declaring it insufficient is a dismissive approach unless you show why potential futures lack moral weight even under uncertainty. You did not, good sir!
Finally, your claim that my RFD contained “nothing substance related” is a lie.
It was structured to explain why Pro’s arguments: uncertainty, special obligations, FLO.
were more interesting and respectable under a shared burden of proof. That is the definition of substance.
If you wish to contest votes, it would be better to do the reasoning calmly rather than with disappointment to your loss, and accusing reasonable voters.
Ps: Barney, this is the most intellectual i have been in this platform. Perhaps consider that your friends do not always win debates. I would hate to think that there is biased moderation here.
The only one agitated here is you. For losing a vote. That is a baby behaviour. Considering your popularity among the community, it is a moderation matter to be adressed. My vote explanation incoming.
I will in a moment
You're right. My mistake.
I can understand your frustration since it is the second time this guy beats you.
I am sure you will get better.
another guy got banned for saying that it didn't. i don't think you will get an opponent.
Do i even care?
You weren't even close idioty i was just trying to be nice and subjective.
"Rage bait votes use to be believable"
The grammar in this sentence is exactly the reason why your opponent won legibility.
"Don't use open voting for something like this, you will always get the idiots"
What is the point of having a voting system if an idiot calls everyone who does not vote on his favour an idiot?
Keep to your place and learn some grammar idiots.
"Why not?"-
Why yes? Why take pride in something you did not achieve yourself. And in this topic i am explicitly talking about pride in ethnicity. Just because watt invented the steam engine does mot mean the english must feel proud of being the same ethnicity as him. They just were born there and all they did was sit down debating in debateart (for example). Western societies cannot say we are proud to be...because look what we have achieved. No. There were some guys in the past who built all this. You were just born here. If you achieve something yourself then you have all the right to be proud.
of course we value our group more. that is an evolutionary trait.
But loving your family and feeling proud to have been born there are very different.
There is no reason to be proud just because you were favoured by chance and were not born in the sub-saharan africa fighting with malaria.
But there are plenty of reasons to love your family, even if it is an instinct.
I am sure many people feel like you.
But there is no reason to. That is the topic.
You can be proud for catching a delicious wild seabass(yummy) because you worked for it.
You did not work for your blonde hair. Your ancestors might have been great, but are you?
Why take pride from their greatness?
" I 'do think there are other reasons why pride in genetics can be valuable."
I do not think there are any. They just drive us towards more division and exclusion.
Finally!!!!!
I am sure your mother and brother are very good people. But i am also sure that they are two of the very few out there.
"While you 'do argue many actions such as nationalism not to be very Christian, 'I think Pro makes a fair rebuttal, with their definitions of what it means to be a Christian."
Yes, what it means to be christian. Even though it doesn't cover the whole reality of the religion. I will accept it as a rebutal. But does it adress the topic?
Would jesus recognize- "what it means to be christian" -as his?
Considering the contrast between the gospel (which i adress) and "the christian" he wouldn't. Of that i am sure.
And again, not the good christian. On general. That's why i say christianity as a religion. Otherwise i would have just said: "Are there any really good christians that jesus would have appreciated?".
He should have read the short description.
--"I view it more as 'assertion, by you that Christianity is the Mega Churches,
And 'assertion, by him that Christianity is the people."
I did not only talk about the churches. I talked about people.
No need for statistics on this matter.
Do you think all the trump supporters who claim to be followers of jesus really are such?
This is the point of the debate. I talk about every aspect.
I am sorry but the opponent does not make any arguments here. Not anything related to the topic anyway.
Which section from the gospels align with today's christianity?
Nothing that is clear.
Assuming one has read the gospel.
But even if you have not.
Just the figure of jesus itself. Compassionate love, empathy, forgiveness. Do these align with modern christianity?
I make the argument that they do not.
My opponent only says -"i don't know but i hope they do"!
Sure girly!