yet you can also argue that young children cannot make proper decisions (can't vote, can't drive, can't enlist in military, can't enact sexual consent), so what gives them the right to decide to euthanize themselves?
I'm impressed -- you moved the goal post from pro-life to pro euthanasia. the pro-life stance is arguably a bit easier to defeat as it is heavily illogical and riddled with problems.
no promises. I'll be going to sleep for a few hours. You think there is no effort, but I'd argue the simplicity makes it nearly as strong as my anti-doping argument.
the more specific the debate, the easier it is to win. (Ex. "Systemic racism is a problem in the US" vs "Incarceration rates are disproportionate for minorities in the US"). It's more difficult for men to make the decision since they aren't sure where to draw the line, and don't suffer the pain/restrictions themselves. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48262238]
I suppose that there are different circumstances, but under modern day and age, the significant cases of when the woman would do this is because they are deranged and delusional, hence my charging of manslaughter. If they cannot prove that they are insane, and intentionally murdered with a rational mind, then yes, I would charge them with homicide.
I generally believe that liberty is more important than life, in a way that slaves should be able to kill their oppressive masters when all other manners are exhausted (running away, protesting, negotiating). However, you must also prove that the unborn child is "murdered" rather than merely not born. Due to fertility and birth rates it becomes difficult to determine whether a life is actually lost or not.
certainly. Violation of liberty -- or as US supreme court calls it, "violation of privacy" (I don't 100% buy that idea but it's pretty close), and right to decide what to do with your body.
tbh, I kind of wanted to create this resolution as a criticism exchange, but I didn't want to risk losing again so I gave gugigor free terms to throw this out
Whiteflame felt that I attributed too much to authority and their competing definitions on individual vs systemic racism caused my argument to fall apart. Despite having 20+ experts supporting my case, it became arbitrary which one was only individual and which one was systemic.
I think I just didn’t use enough sources and that’s why I lost. There’s a bunch of more layman’s videos that explain more simply and concisely along with helpful graphs. The controversy among the top level was probably too muddled for research papers to win this one.
in addition, I feel like I exhausted every single source possible and analyzed to the biggest extent I possibly could. I told of the history and the explanation for why systemic racism stems from the past from R3. Is the pro side of the debate just not possible with semantic arguments?
well I'll be damned. I feel like I tried my best to step back in R3 and succinctly prove my point in R4, despite my inability to waive the final round. What could I have done better in? I thought for sure I had the impacts with every source agreeing with the wording of "Systemic racism". I made sure to point out that there was individual racism, but once you get rid of that, there's still the large wave of laws and problems caused by government, healthcare, education, so on and so forth. I feel like I did reasonably well with linking the problems in the institutions to the problems in the system. How could I have won this?
are you purposefully framing my arguments in a weird way? I'm trying my best to put them in an extremely clear and concise manner, repeating ideas with comparisons and analogies. If they are too confusing, do say so.
I see. I have a good idea why privacy is important, but that seems to be more morality/philosophy based. Ironically, TheWeakerEdge may have done better than me in this debate. There's some computer science related information here, but I'm never good at grasping at very vague ideals. A well deserved lost.
any extra tips? I noticed that even my cited experts seemed to mostly resort to slippery slope related arguments. Or are the 2010~2016 articles too outdated, and there needs to be more evidence? I couldn't find any more recent articles negating Google's bottom line. The journals could only talk of how Google was breaking European laws and such, rather than the fundamental ideals being wrong.
well done... you defeated me in my expertise, computer science -- privacy is one of the related subjects!
(I should probably stop playing devil's advocate though, I widely agreed that Google is doing better and that the user's choice of consent is more important than the actual "privacy without question" that the premise gave the illusion of arguing)
here's the issue right, it's confusing if we're framing the debate in the practicality of "oh no, we didn't fill the lifeboats up well. Now what? Was it unjustified for the officer to immediately state ambiguously 'women and children first'?"
Fauxlaw admits that there is not enough life boats for everyone -- " there were insufficient lifeboats on board to save all passengers and crew" -- but he theorizes that given a perfect world, even if you saved all women and children first, you would still be able to save a large proportion of men. The amount of men unfairly lost is ambiguous compared to the number of women and children Fauxlaw states to have died on the Titanic. As such, it's difficult to accept that the policy of "women and children first" was unjust.
I need a better reason why we are taking the actual events that occurred and if "women and children first" arbitrarily caused the lifeboats to become unfilled and didn't save as much people as it could've saved.
Are you SURE a slightly exaggerated claim of “concession” violates conduct point? I see Oromagi claiming dropped arguments all over the place, and I don’t think my strategy was all that different. We’re allowed to claim our opponents said one thing and explain why we think their argument essentially defeats their own argument. It’s like saying we were on the same side all in all.
Very nicely done, and dare I say perhaps even better than my argument. Though I was thinking about aspects unique to US and the overall gain rather than trying to counter opposing arguments. I am very glad I didn’t accept this debate as devils advocates. Let’s hope he doesn’t forfeit all rounds.
(If con full forfeits and you don’t want to waste your arguments, we could try seldiora’s weird “argue the same side challenge” where we pit our arguments against each other and see who argued for increased immigration better. You might win, but I guarantee it will be good competition)
define "evil"
One week left
yet you can also argue that young children cannot make proper decisions (can't vote, can't drive, can't enlist in military, can't enact sexual consent), so what gives them the right to decide to euthanize themselves?
hmmmMMMMMMM
how does your case differ from pro-euthanizing disabled children?
I'm impressed -- you moved the goal post from pro-life to pro euthanasia. the pro-life stance is arguably a bit easier to defeat as it is heavily illogical and riddled with problems.
thanks for the vote. XD
Hmmm.... very interesting argument
this looks just as rigged for pro as my flat earth debate. Nobody's gonna win unless they try some simulation-ism space time argument :P
no promises. I'll be going to sleep for a few hours. You think there is no effort, but I'd argue the simplicity makes it nearly as strong as my anti-doping argument.
I know exactly what you did wrong after reading it only once. Is that a big surprise?
I think you're begging for Intelligence's "children shouldn't own guns". I mean seriously, what are kids supposed to do with guns?
the more specific the debate, the easier it is to win. (Ex. "Systemic racism is a problem in the US" vs "Incarceration rates are disproportionate for minorities in the US"). It's more difficult for men to make the decision since they aren't sure where to draw the line, and don't suffer the pain/restrictions themselves. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48262238]
I suppose that there are different circumstances, but under modern day and age, the significant cases of when the woman would do this is because they are deranged and delusional, hence my charging of manslaughter. If they cannot prove that they are insane, and intentionally murdered with a rational mind, then yes, I would charge them with homicide.
I generally believe that liberty is more important than life, in a way that slaves should be able to kill their oppressive masters when all other manners are exhausted (running away, protesting, negotiating). However, you must also prove that the unborn child is "murdered" rather than merely not born. Due to fertility and birth rates it becomes difficult to determine whether a life is actually lost or not.
no, violating the mother's liberty to have her body's security. They should be charged for manslaughter.
certainly. Violation of liberty -- or as US supreme court calls it, "violation of privacy" (I don't 100% buy that idea but it's pretty close), and right to decide what to do with your body.
Some people argue that as well, but abortion is completely different from killing babies.
I will have to think over this one some more.
sorry, not dictionary.com. Merriam webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appreciate
tbh, I kind of wanted to create this resolution as a criticism exchange, but I didn't want to risk losing again so I gave gugigor free terms to throw this out
Care to toss a vote? Pretty short stuff
If I had 5,000 characters, I think I might take this debate. 500 characters implies you close the discussion nearly as much as the deniers themselves.
This is open challenge. I accepted it since pro cant prove “lack of appreciation” lol
what??! what is this debate, even?
up for some feedback? Con's case was nearly unparsable to me, perhaps you'd do better.
Whiteflame felt that I attributed too much to authority and their competing definitions on individual vs systemic racism caused my argument to fall apart. Despite having 20+ experts supporting my case, it became arbitrary which one was only individual and which one was systemic.
good luck on con side. I've gotten a lot of tough feedback that makes the semantic argument much harder.
I think I just didn’t use enough sources and that’s why I lost. There’s a bunch of more layman’s videos that explain more simply and concisely along with helpful graphs. The controversy among the top level was probably too muddled for research papers to win this one.
Up to tango again?
well, bravo on getting whiteflame's vote and winning (unless someone else votes). You did well. But I won't lose the next time!
bumpity bump
in addition, I feel like I exhausted every single source possible and analyzed to the biggest extent I possibly could. I told of the history and the explanation for why systemic racism stems from the past from R3. Is the pro side of the debate just not possible with semantic arguments?
well I'll be damned. I feel like I tried my best to step back in R3 and succinctly prove my point in R4, despite my inability to waive the final round. What could I have done better in? I thought for sure I had the impacts with every source agreeing with the wording of "Systemic racism". I made sure to point out that there was individual racism, but once you get rid of that, there's still the large wave of laws and problems caused by government, healthcare, education, so on and so forth. I feel like I did reasonably well with linking the problems in the institutions to the problems in the system. How could I have won this?
also, I meant 1.8 billion$ spend in expenditure costs, not 1.8 billion prisoners. Mind got a little word spaghetti there.
I don't think anyone's going to be able to vote in only 2 days. Care to open up a 1 round waived debate where voters can vote on this debate?
*sweats* I know absolutely nothing about privatized prisons. I just know science well lol
are you purposefully framing my arguments in a weird way? I'm trying my best to put them in an extremely clear and concise manner, repeating ideas with comparisons and analogies. If they are too confusing, do say so.
4 days left. Up to the challenge, or too long?
thanks for the reviewed vote. I may have still lost, but I think it's important to establish standards.
I see. I have a good idea why privacy is important, but that seems to be more morality/philosophy based. Ironically, TheWeakerEdge may have done better than me in this debate. There's some computer science related information here, but I'm never good at grasping at very vague ideals. A well deserved lost.
any extra tips? I noticed that even my cited experts seemed to mostly resort to slippery slope related arguments. Or are the 2010~2016 articles too outdated, and there needs to be more evidence? I couldn't find any more recent articles negating Google's bottom line. The journals could only talk of how Google was breaking European laws and such, rather than the fundamental ideals being wrong.
well done... you defeated me in my expertise, computer science -- privacy is one of the related subjects!
(I should probably stop playing devil's advocate though, I widely agreed that Google is doing better and that the user's choice of consent is more important than the actual "privacy without question" that the premise gave the illusion of arguing)
you ain't tricking anyone here XD
why not. I always like to create crazy topics to see if anyone has any arguments at all.
can I argue instead that the universe is DEFINITELY older than 10,000 years? XD
ah, I misinterpreted the 43% idea. Con's case had me scratching my head for sure.
here's the issue right, it's confusing if we're framing the debate in the practicality of "oh no, we didn't fill the lifeboats up well. Now what? Was it unjustified for the officer to immediately state ambiguously 'women and children first'?"
Fauxlaw admits that there is not enough life boats for everyone -- " there were insufficient lifeboats on board to save all passengers and crew" -- but he theorizes that given a perfect world, even if you saved all women and children first, you would still be able to save a large proportion of men. The amount of men unfairly lost is ambiguous compared to the number of women and children Fauxlaw states to have died on the Titanic. As such, it's difficult to accept that the policy of "women and children first" was unjust.
I need a better reason why we are taking the actual events that occurred and if "women and children first" arbitrarily caused the lifeboats to become unfilled and didn't save as much people as it could've saved.
Are you SURE a slightly exaggerated claim of “concession” violates conduct point? I see Oromagi claiming dropped arguments all over the place, and I don’t think my strategy was all that different. We’re allowed to claim our opponents said one thing and explain why we think their argument essentially defeats their own argument. It’s like saying we were on the same side all in all.
Very nicely done, and dare I say perhaps even better than my argument. Though I was thinking about aspects unique to US and the overall gain rather than trying to counter opposing arguments. I am very glad I didn’t accept this debate as devils advocates. Let’s hope he doesn’t forfeit all rounds.
(If con full forfeits and you don’t want to waste your arguments, we could try seldiora’s weird “argue the same side challenge” where we pit our arguments against each other and see who argued for increased immigration better. You might win, but I guarantee it will be good competition)
come one, come all, feel free to vote on this.