You are right girly. There is nothing special about resident evil. It is a very bad film. I acknowledge this. It is a lazy budget blockbuster.
Ok girly?
How is this a tie? My opponent basically makes no arguments. In his second argument he says: "if i had known this is about the cathedrals i wouldn't have taken the debate because i agree with you". That to me looks like a concession.
Anyways, he could have read the short description which clearly contains what i mean with this topic.
I think i should be cautious next time when debating practicants. I make a long well articulated argument only to get hit with:" i hope jesus acknowledges my perfect worship."
What are you even talking about. I don't even know you. His source was the english dictionary whereas your source was your own mind. Do you understand now why?
I wouldn't want to think that there is a language barrier here. Assuming that you speak english very well, i never said that the topic is about the child's perspective. I wouldn't expect you to engage in that kind of topic. I said that to argue on wether it is ethical or not, the harm inflicted on the child should be considered, and not what religion the parents belong to or how scared the parents are. And for your last comment. All you say there is thay the parents might do nothing and the child just has a weak mind. Or so you try to imply. Anyways, it is not very well articulated. Feel free to continue this dispute anytime you want.
No.
Why are you even going against me? I thought we were through together. I was talking to your voters. Anyway, i don't understand what you mean by this last comment. Are you now going against all your religious arguments?
At least hold on to them.
You did not consider the child in your argument. Your argument was that it is ethical for parents to.....
That completely ignores the harm caused to the child.
What??? parent's perspective? It's like saying being a serial killer is ethical because from the serial killer's perspective he is having fun. of course morality is decided by what you inflict on the subject. not wether you like doing it or think it is right.
christians do not claim 1+1+1=1
I agree that your christian opponents do not defend christianity that well.
However, The bible and the quran are equally laughable.
The only difference is that muslims can only dream of having a prophet like jesus of nazareth.
Justifying your morals with the fact that you are an older generation and you have been taught so does not make them ethical. You also mention "squeaky-clean facts", where do you find the squeaky clean facts from 21pilots? Both opponents present facts and research in the debate. but only one of them argues about the literal moral value of this topic from the subject's perspective. Which is the child himself. And it is clear that it is Dhaka who does so.
I wonder what the church said about evolution in 1859. They do not debate against it today with the argument that the chruch is older than charles darwin.
There are cases where providing long reasons and analysis is necessary. In cases of good debates when the result is close. But in this one, it is clear he doesn't understand anything. He's being dishonest reporting my vote, instead of conceding to the fact. He should have taken another debate which he understands. I know i must fulfill the framework of RFD or whatever it was and you are just doing your duty. This is directed to the contendant.
I appreciate your objective reasoning. But in debates like these i believe there is an ethicaly right or wrong position especially when discussing about the ethical value of the proposition. I am sure decades from now we won't have any people who discuss such topics anymore. And indeed it will be replaced with a lot of other adjectives, while the debate remains the same. Very well reasoning from your side. Even though we do not agree you obviously make a better voter than me. Can't say the same for our peers.
Your statements are questionable not only factualy but also logicaly. What do you mean your sister chose to like women? Could she be bisexual? She likes both and just found out later in life? It is scientificaly verifiable that sexual orientation is not a choice. Even if it was, why would someone choose that path when they know they are gonna face judgement and discrimination. Having intercourse with someone is a choice, not being sexualy attracted to them. This is what you do not understand.
Your reasoning: "Pro worked the angle of how much/hard change is pursued, 'very well."
But did he argue why it is actually ethical? that's what the topic requires.
I am gonna pay you the compliment of assuming that you do not support donald trump. But it is hard to do so when your reasoning looks like this:
"My Reason is, Pro’s arguments are more aligned with modern ethical principles like having religious parents and the real reason why a parent attempts to change their child's sexual identity"
So, modern ethical norms= having religious parents. having religious parents is a modern ethical norm. Great!
the real reason why a parent tries to change their child's sexual orientation is also a modern ethical principle.
Very modern ethical principles.
Although i could argue 'having religious parents' is not an ethical principle. But of course i do not mean to insult your reasoning.
And changing your child's sexual orientation would've been very modern if we were in the middle ages. but unfortunately we live in 2025.
It is the 3rd time i repost my vote. The only way it would be sufficient would be for me to say that all your arguments are nonsense and completely break the rules of human logic. But such votes do not count here. I am sorry you don't even understand that your arguments do not have anything to do with democracy.
You yourself claim that you do not want to debate but preach. Then you report votes. If you, in this debate, wanted to prove that islam is the one true religion then you failed to do so. If you discussed something else in private with mall, such as turning this into a religion competition then fine. Anyways, you also state in the description that burden of proof is shared. The burden of proof falls on him, who proposes the thesis. Not on both sides. But let's say that it is shared. What proof do you present here? Did i miss it? Except from citing hadiths and quran (A book which doesn't present proof nor claims to do so. It is a religious ethical book). Also stated in the description: "Islam is not presumed to be false and the Quran as well unless we are talking about these topics." Excuse me? Isn't this the topic? Maybe i missunderstood it. Islam vs anything but only assuming islam is true. That's kind of funny. I don't know if you intended for it to be so.
Then: Atheism must not be considered true, it has to be proved. What does atheism have to prove? A-theism. Meaning no thesis. Prove what? We assume that islam and quran are true before taking this debate but 'atheism is not true' for whatever that means.
And the last rule: "My tools to debate would be science and philosophy and would be based on rational basis.". Science? For religion? Religion ignores all scientific methods. Plus, you do not make any factual scientific argument here.
I would ignore all your fallacies if your only purpose was to preach. But you clearly want to debate. And also don't want anyone to vote against you.
i really like short arguments, not only to get votes. but most people do not understand short and concise arguments and in the same time are not willing to read the long ones.
Please do not make false scientific statements for the sake of the argument! Respectfuly! Biology does not say that sexual orientation is carried in your genes. A 'gay gene' has never been proven to exist. Now, i agree that it is not a choice, but not because it sits in your genes. It is a combination of hormonal, psychological, genetic and many other factors which develop during early life (infancy) independently. Not born.
The difference is that a medicine is used to treat or prevent a disease. How could you develop a medicine to boost imagination. Unless it is a medicine to treat mental disabilities. For your topic it would be called 'drugs'. Something you take for a psychological effect not necessarily treating a disease or harming you. And we have plenty. They happen to be harmful, but so are medicaments if you take them without need.
David, would it also be sound to say that: "a necessarily existing pink unicorn is possible therefore it exists"?
You might have to think about this a bit more criticaly.
Should've also made a summary in the end like my opponent since no one likes reading all that. Anyways:
The fact that wars happen does not justify deliberately provoking them. Wise policy prepares for war without starting it.
War consumes resources and undermines prosperity. It is not a sustainable or productive economic engine.
Using war to manage aggression and population is unethical and dehumanizing.
Readiness and adaptation come from modern training and innovation, not conflict.
A strategy of constant war erodes alliances, breeds instability, and damages a nation’s reputation.
I did think you were talking about christianity actually. But even if it is religion in general, it is clear that you think religious beliefs count in this instance. Hense the arguments. Of course they do not. Religious beliefs come from books written in antiquity or the middle ages. Anyway, let's not turn this into a different argument. But what you do here, is the same as arguing with a geologist and telling him that the world is about 4000 years old because the bible says so. Would that count as an argument? No, and your position to this topic is not justifiable. To me it is just immoral to argue from your stance. If the majority agrees with you then you will eventually win by votes.
Please do not turn to dishonest accusations!
I did not call religion absurd. I called the topic and your argument absurd.
And of course religious arguments do not count because not everyone has the same religion as you and some are even atheist. For your religious arguments to count, everyone must assume that your religion is true just for the sake of continuing the debate. That to me does not seem right.
Quoting you: -"Let me introduce you a little word called fear. Now, many parents experience fear from their child every single day. And obviously we can’t stop some things from happening, but they still try to protect whats left. Fear that they will lose it all. Fear that their child won’t make it out alive. Fear that they will never be good parents. "
-"37% of Americans believe same Ge gender relationships are wrong, 46% of people don’t even care, which means that they haven’t even experienced this situation. Now I don’t know if your goal is to shame them into silence, or bring them to understanding, but calling the 37% of people insecure is just a excuse to avoid meaningful engagement."
I have been referencing this statement in my vote and in the coments, it might have passed right over your head or you even forgot that you said it at all.
And in the second one you say the same thing you said to me: "No one else seem to think so" & "Telling 37% they are insecure is an excuse".
Of course the 37% are wrong. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true.
And i still keep to it that the 'fear' statement is absurd.
I think there are very few active users and most of them are not willing to read long debates.
Moderators cannot force votes. This website needs marketing to start gaining some users.
If no one thinks that - 'bullying your child because you are afraid of being a bad parent' - is wrong, then they are wrong. My way of thinking is at least humane.
Btw, if my vote gets removed i will try to elaboraty more. But i just don't see how more you can elaborate on this outside of it being so absurd! Not even one plausible argument made! The first one was disgusting and imoral. And the rest was religion. Dhaka at least took the moral side and didn't invoke religion.
I did quote a point you made. It was absurd. I know you don't understand why. Religious arguments do not count unless you make this clear in the description. In an intellectual setting, we cannot just assume that your's is the one and only true religion. I don't know how people even take this into consideration. What if dhaka started making points according to his religion? In that case that would have turned into a totaly different debate. Sort of 'which religion is true'. Where do you see the bias here? Not a single f-ing point about you? It was all about you!
Are we arguing only about keeping the quality of the army to a certain level? Or are we gonna treat this from all aspects. Political and economic. Or maybe moral?
Btw: Oregon is amazing!
You don't have to be offended at all. Everyone puts effort into arguments. Yours were just blatantly absurd. I don't know how a moral person can accept such arguments as a defence to this topic. And i am not even gonna comment on the religious arguments. I am surprised they even count here. As for dhaka's arguments, he makes the ones that are to be made in this case by default, especially when talking about ethics. I don't mention his in my vote because he is not the one defending in this case. It is easy for him to argue here because he has taken the moral side. You took the side of church. Of course you cannot defend it, but it's not like you even tried. Instead you turn to religion quickly. To me, you would lose this only by position. A total lack of logic. But maybe here, your religious arguments count.
I don't know if you are a bot or a person. But if you read the debate, con completely deviates from the topic here. I voted based of those early points they both made, which i explain. I don't understand the removal of this vote.
Is there no freedom whatsoever in this platform? Why would you remove this vote? This clearly highlights my reason. The comments about con are sarcasm but nothing offensive.
You are right girly. There is nothing special about resident evil. It is a very bad film. I acknowledge this. It is a lazy budget blockbuster.
Ok girly?
How is this a tie? My opponent basically makes no arguments. In his second argument he says: "if i had known this is about the cathedrals i wouldn't have taken the debate because i agree with you". That to me looks like a concession.
Anyways, he could have read the short description which clearly contains what i mean with this topic.
I think i should be cautious next time when debating practicants. I make a long well articulated argument only to get hit with:" i hope jesus acknowledges my perfect worship."
Using a nickname from a movie is childish.
Whatever you say tiger lord.
What are you even talking about. I don't even know you. His source was the english dictionary whereas your source was your own mind. Do you understand now why?
I wouldn't want to think that there is a language barrier here. Assuming that you speak english very well, i never said that the topic is about the child's perspective. I wouldn't expect you to engage in that kind of topic. I said that to argue on wether it is ethical or not, the harm inflicted on the child should be considered, and not what religion the parents belong to or how scared the parents are. And for your last comment. All you say there is thay the parents might do nothing and the child just has a weak mind. Or so you try to imply. Anyways, it is not very well articulated. Feel free to continue this dispute anytime you want.
No.
Why are you even going against me? I thought we were through together. I was talking to your voters. Anyway, i don't understand what you mean by this last comment. Are you now going against all your religious arguments?
At least hold on to them.
You did not consider the child in your argument. Your argument was that it is ethical for parents to.....
That completely ignores the harm caused to the child.
What??? parent's perspective? It's like saying being a serial killer is ethical because from the serial killer's perspective he is having fun. of course morality is decided by what you inflict on the subject. not wether you like doing it or think it is right.
christians do not claim 1+1+1=1
I agree that your christian opponents do not defend christianity that well.
However, The bible and the quran are equally laughable.
The only difference is that muslims can only dream of having a prophet like jesus of nazareth.
I am a man not a woman. I did read the debate. mostly, you just cite the quran.
i hate the voting requirements here. if it gets removed i will revote.
theist god? which one? christian?
He doesn't look like a fumbler.
"to be specific im talking about italian pizza's"
no difference with any other pizzas. Dough, cheese, tomato sauce.
What kind of topic is even this?
Justifying your morals with the fact that you are an older generation and you have been taught so does not make them ethical. You also mention "squeaky-clean facts", where do you find the squeaky clean facts from 21pilots? Both opponents present facts and research in the debate. but only one of them argues about the literal moral value of this topic from the subject's perspective. Which is the child himself. And it is clear that it is Dhaka who does so.
I wonder what the church said about evolution in 1859. They do not debate against it today with the argument that the chruch is older than charles darwin.
Good debate!
There are cases where providing long reasons and analysis is necessary. In cases of good debates when the result is close. But in this one, it is clear he doesn't understand anything. He's being dishonest reporting my vote, instead of conceding to the fact. He should have taken another debate which he understands. I know i must fulfill the framework of RFD or whatever it was and you are just doing your duty. This is directed to the contendant.
I appreciate your objective reasoning. But in debates like these i believe there is an ethicaly right or wrong position especially when discussing about the ethical value of the proposition. I am sure decades from now we won't have any people who discuss such topics anymore. And indeed it will be replaced with a lot of other adjectives, while the debate remains the same. Very well reasoning from your side. Even though we do not agree you obviously make a better voter than me. Can't say the same for our peers.
Your statements are questionable not only factualy but also logicaly. What do you mean your sister chose to like women? Could she be bisexual? She likes both and just found out later in life? It is scientificaly verifiable that sexual orientation is not a choice. Even if it was, why would someone choose that path when they know they are gonna face judgement and discrimination. Having intercourse with someone is a choice, not being sexualy attracted to them. This is what you do not understand.
I doesn't matter wether he has truth. But why try to look special saying i am a preacher and then reporting votes?
Your reasoning: "Pro worked the angle of how much/hard change is pursued, 'very well."
But did he argue why it is actually ethical? that's what the topic requires.
I am gonna pay you the compliment of assuming that you do not support donald trump. But it is hard to do so when your reasoning looks like this:
"My Reason is, Pro’s arguments are more aligned with modern ethical principles like having religious parents and the real reason why a parent attempts to change their child's sexual identity"
So, modern ethical norms= having religious parents. having religious parents is a modern ethical norm. Great!
the real reason why a parent tries to change their child's sexual orientation is also a modern ethical principle.
Very modern ethical principles.
Although i could argue 'having religious parents' is not an ethical principle. But of course i do not mean to insult your reasoning.
And changing your child's sexual orientation would've been very modern if we were in the middle ages. but unfortunately we live in 2025.
It is the 3rd time i repost my vote. The only way it would be sufficient would be for me to say that all your arguments are nonsense and completely break the rules of human logic. But such votes do not count here. I am sorry you don't even understand that your arguments do not have anything to do with democracy.
You yourself claim that you do not want to debate but preach. Then you report votes. If you, in this debate, wanted to prove that islam is the one true religion then you failed to do so. If you discussed something else in private with mall, such as turning this into a religion competition then fine. Anyways, you also state in the description that burden of proof is shared. The burden of proof falls on him, who proposes the thesis. Not on both sides. But let's say that it is shared. What proof do you present here? Did i miss it? Except from citing hadiths and quran (A book which doesn't present proof nor claims to do so. It is a religious ethical book). Also stated in the description: "Islam is not presumed to be false and the Quran as well unless we are talking about these topics." Excuse me? Isn't this the topic? Maybe i missunderstood it. Islam vs anything but only assuming islam is true. That's kind of funny. I don't know if you intended for it to be so.
Then: Atheism must not be considered true, it has to be proved. What does atheism have to prove? A-theism. Meaning no thesis. Prove what? We assume that islam and quran are true before taking this debate but 'atheism is not true' for whatever that means.
And the last rule: "My tools to debate would be science and philosophy and would be based on rational basis.". Science? For religion? Religion ignores all scientific methods. Plus, you do not make any factual scientific argument here.
I would ignore all your fallacies if your only purpose was to preach. But you clearly want to debate. And also don't want anyone to vote against you.
are these debates genuine?
i really like short arguments, not only to get votes. but most people do not understand short and concise arguments and in the same time are not willing to read the long ones.
the shorter the debate, the more votes it gets.
Please do not make false scientific statements for the sake of the argument! Respectfuly! Biology does not say that sexual orientation is carried in your genes. A 'gay gene' has never been proven to exist. Now, i agree that it is not a choice, but not because it sits in your genes. It is a combination of hormonal, psychological, genetic and many other factors which develop during early life (infancy) independently. Not born.
About abortion?
The difference is that a medicine is used to treat or prevent a disease. How could you develop a medicine to boost imagination. Unless it is a medicine to treat mental disabilities. For your topic it would be called 'drugs'. Something you take for a psychological effect not necessarily treating a disease or harming you. And we have plenty. They happen to be harmful, but so are medicaments if you take them without need.
Don't worry, no one is gonna read our debate anyway i think. long debates do not seem to get votes here.
Are we just gonna pretend that this is right?
Which film is this btw? Or show?
We have drugs.
David, would it also be sound to say that: "a necessarily existing pink unicorn is possible therefore it exists"?
You might have to think about this a bit more criticaly.
Should've also made a summary in the end like my opponent since no one likes reading all that. Anyways:
The fact that wars happen does not justify deliberately provoking them. Wise policy prepares for war without starting it.
War consumes resources and undermines prosperity. It is not a sustainable or productive economic engine.
Using war to manage aggression and population is unethical and dehumanizing.
Readiness and adaptation come from modern training and innovation, not conflict.
A strategy of constant war erodes alliances, breeds instability, and damages a nation’s reputation.
Btw, why is this debate not labeled as 'hot'? Isn't 63 comments enough?
I did think you were talking about christianity actually. But even if it is religion in general, it is clear that you think religious beliefs count in this instance. Hense the arguments. Of course they do not. Religious beliefs come from books written in antiquity or the middle ages. Anyway, let's not turn this into a different argument. But what you do here, is the same as arguing with a geologist and telling him that the world is about 4000 years old because the bible says so. Would that count as an argument? No, and your position to this topic is not justifiable. To me it is just immoral to argue from your stance. If the majority agrees with you then you will eventually win by votes.
Please do not turn to dishonest accusations!
I did not call religion absurd. I called the topic and your argument absurd.
And of course religious arguments do not count because not everyone has the same religion as you and some are even atheist. For your religious arguments to count, everyone must assume that your religion is true just for the sake of continuing the debate. That to me does not seem right.
Quoting you: -"Let me introduce you a little word called fear. Now, many parents experience fear from their child every single day. And obviously we can’t stop some things from happening, but they still try to protect whats left. Fear that they will lose it all. Fear that their child won’t make it out alive. Fear that they will never be good parents. "
-"37% of Americans believe same Ge gender relationships are wrong, 46% of people don’t even care, which means that they haven’t even experienced this situation. Now I don’t know if your goal is to shame them into silence, or bring them to understanding, but calling the 37% of people insecure is just a excuse to avoid meaningful engagement."
I have been referencing this statement in my vote and in the coments, it might have passed right over your head or you even forgot that you said it at all.
And in the second one you say the same thing you said to me: "No one else seem to think so" & "Telling 37% they are insecure is an excuse".
Of course the 37% are wrong. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true.
And i still keep to it that the 'fear' statement is absurd.
I think there are very few active users and most of them are not willing to read long debates.
Moderators cannot force votes. This website needs marketing to start gaining some users.
Funny that this is the hottest debate in the platform without even being a debate.
If no one thinks that - 'bullying your child because you are afraid of being a bad parent' - is wrong, then they are wrong. My way of thinking is at least humane.
Btw, if my vote gets removed i will try to elaboraty more. But i just don't see how more you can elaborate on this outside of it being so absurd! Not even one plausible argument made! The first one was disgusting and imoral. And the rest was religion. Dhaka at least took the moral side and didn't invoke religion.
I did quote a point you made. It was absurd. I know you don't understand why. Religious arguments do not count unless you make this clear in the description. In an intellectual setting, we cannot just assume that your's is the one and only true religion. I don't know how people even take this into consideration. What if dhaka started making points according to his religion? In that case that would have turned into a totaly different debate. Sort of 'which religion is true'. Where do you see the bias here? Not a single f-ing point about you? It was all about you!
Didn't know thomas shelby was religious.
Are we arguing only about keeping the quality of the army to a certain level? Or are we gonna treat this from all aspects. Political and economic. Or maybe moral?
Btw: Oregon is amazing!
You don't have to be offended at all. Everyone puts effort into arguments. Yours were just blatantly absurd. I don't know how a moral person can accept such arguments as a defence to this topic. And i am not even gonna comment on the religious arguments. I am surprised they even count here. As for dhaka's arguments, he makes the ones that are to be made in this case by default, especially when talking about ethics. I don't mention his in my vote because he is not the one defending in this case. It is easy for him to argue here because he has taken the moral side. You took the side of church. Of course you cannot defend it, but it's not like you even tried. Instead you turn to religion quickly. To me, you would lose this only by position. A total lack of logic. But maybe here, your religious arguments count.
I don't know if you are a bot or a person. But if you read the debate, con completely deviates from the topic here. I voted based of those early points they both made, which i explain. I don't understand the removal of this vote.
Is there no freedom whatsoever in this platform? Why would you remove this vote? This clearly highlights my reason. The comments about con are sarcasm but nothing offensive.
Set yourself in a trap here mall. An atheist is by definition a non believer/non-theist.