I submit that a "characters per argument" of 1,000 in each round is not enough to make typical debate argument, rebuttal, and defense. For example, your round 1 argument, according to my words-with-spaces counter sums your argument at 998 words+spaces. I suggest your future debates allow a count in the range of 5,000 to 10,000. If you propose a difficult and/or controversial subject, maybe more. Doesn't mean you must use so many characters, but more it is prudent.
Really, dear opponent, you had your shot at argument in four rounds, per my designation in challenging the debate, and I believe the debate policy says, "When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into the next stage." That stage is voting. We are in voting stage. Your argument ability has passed, yet you have argued sufficient to have had a fifth round. I believe that is considered vote bombing. Would you like me to have my fifth round? No? The policy prevents it? Domage, mon vieux.
"Rate per million & average were used as an example. jeeeeeze"
An example that does not hold because the two are not related statistical models.
Nevertheless, taking a Pro side, one is expected to present arguments favoring the Pro side, and full dedication to that side. Wavering in debate is weakness. Got to be committed, or the debate isn't.
When you quote from other sources, and properly cite those sources by reference, you are not violating copyright. In fact, you are supporting their copyright by doing so. Who told you otherwise? And what's their source?
"Citing. When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. ... Commonly, a book citation includes the book title, author, publisher, edition and year of publication... When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. You should cite the source for both paraphrased ideas and direct quotes. The citation should include enough information for a reader to be able to locate the original source." https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/copyright-laws-citing-sources-16438.html
What, pray tell, is preventing you from quoting from other sources than from Wiki. You seem adept at quoting from Wiki, why not from other sources?
It is your opponents' duty to do your sourcing job? Absurd. See my argument about seeking fresh water. So, if your source is the gutter, you expect someone else to find a better source for you? Find your own better source, and let that be challenged, if it can be. You click on your better link and quote it. And if that is not sufficient, find a further link from that first generation link. Find the best water you can find yourself. That is your job, and yours, alone. I'm as valid as I can be. If you disagree, see if a moderator will agree with you, or me.
Diarrhea, malnutrition, heart disease are diseases that do not have direct-effect vaccines, that is, that have vaccines developed strictly for the purpose of prevention or treating these diseases. There ares vaccines that have the side effect of amielorating these diseases, but none of them have vaccines developed as an original purpose of combatting them.
Please note in my voting in giving sourcing to Con, that I reference the analogy of seeking fresh water from its best sources, as compared to my quote from Wikipedia about itself. The conclusion of that comparison ought to be a teaching moment for future debate efforts. Wiki is your savior? Low-ball savior, my friend.
And you will lose your bet. Same as you have lost your phantom "yes." Look, in the upper left corner of your monitor, when you are on a given debate wherein you are the protagonist, you, and only you, are saying "yes" to the proposition of the debate if and when you have initiated the debate and haver chose to be the Pro. God in heaven! no wonder you still don't get it that rate per million is NOT an average!
Sorry to disagree, but none of the three historians you mentioned were contemporaries to Christ. The closest to fitting that description was Josephus, who was born in 37 CE, in Jerusalem, within the decade [third of the century] of Christ's crucifixion. The others, Tacitus, was born in 56 CE, and Sueetorius, in 69 CE.
Sorry, forgot to mention: I accept all definitions and debate details. I do not know how to add pictures, so I'll appreciate a primer. I note that we can forfeit one round and, depending on the will of judges, not be penalized, but it appears more than one is automatic forfeiture of the debate. Don't want to risk that; I plan to avoid it completely.
Oh, Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz...
This is such a tempting subject, as I am fluent in New Kingdom hieroglyphs grammar, and as such familiar with the culture, but the former has little to do with architecture, and I am inclined to accept that the dating of these great structures is currently in error. However, my appreciation of the ancient Egyptian civilization is too tempting to refuse, so I'll take this on as a reluctant Con. This will be fun to contradict my own thinking. I'm glad you're allowing a good amount of time for argument; I'll need it! Anything may happen. Thanks, and good luck, my friend.
Agreed, which is why I rankle at such comments by climate alarmists who claim that their science is "in." A science that is, at best, 200 years old. Compare to sciences such as physics, astronomy, geology, which are thousands of years old, and still do not make that claim.
Wow, just in reviewing Con's Round 1 argument, and in Pro's round 2 response, I find 3 glaring issues against Con's argument:
1. Con's list of 12 studies are full of references to "evidence favors," "Exposures suggest," no significant effect,"meta analysis suggests," and "might be attributable to chance." Fully 7 of teh 12 cited sources left allowance for the possibility of relationship. That is hardly conclusive evidence of a lack of relationship.
2. Pro's round 1"Dr. Plotkin" argument, revealing that the good doctor would proceed with DTaP vaccine even lacking empiric evidence is not convincing for Con's argument.
3. Pro's round 1 study of Con's 12 studies demonstates citable instances where all 12 fail to show relevance to the precise vaccine DTaP, let alone to consistent age-group related study. That's enough on which to comment. I will be voting on this dfebate, and cannot yet say how I will vote, but these three examples are telling.
I mean by such notions that have been, historically, but may begin to have cracks with String Theory, for example, treated as fact. Example: the speed of light is the maximum achievable speed. And that black holes are total gravity sinks.
Relative to my last comment here, I want you to know that I thoroughly enjoyed our debate, and beg your forgiveness for the cynic in me. You truly raised some valid points in opposition, and wish you well in your further debates.
Thank you for voting. I appreciate your commentary, even that which is in criticism. You raise valid points. I'm afraid one of my faults is a rather thick streak of cynicism, and I especially prefer the negative side of cynicsm that engages the 18th century French penchant to seek the "bon mot." A clear fault, I recognize and just need to be patient with myself as I work to eliminate it. In the end, though, I'm a very happy guy, cynic or nt.
It is possible that a president could be elected by a smaller sample that 22% of the electorate if a large enough segment of registered voters do not vote.
"The argument only works..." your "if" statement is not true, by the Constitution, and, unless that is changed, remains un true, therefore, not presently a factor.
Faithless electors will always be a concern, but, to date, they have never affected the outcome of an election.
Very good. Let's begin. I will be posting 1st round soon. Let's see, I understand this Sunday, you're implementing Daylight Savings, so I believe you will be seven hours ahead; I'm in US Mountain time zone, currently 16:56 [I've been to about 30 countries in my brief sojourn, but never Great Britain, even though my ancestry goes through Scotland to France. My immediate roots, however, are American. My first immigrant ancestor came from Scotland in 1625, and from France in 1066. I speak fluent French and have logged about three years there.
Thanks for accepting this debate. Please advise before we begin if you're agreeable to the definitions as given. I will wait for your reply, but I have only two days to launch. Good luck!
I note you're new to the site. Welcome aboard. I'm not so experienced on the site, either, but feel free to ask. Navigating around is very easy. This is a great site for debate, and also the forum is stimulating. Have a look at that, too.
1 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
2 Attributed to Edmund Burke
3 According to the OED definition of âgood,â and the corresponding antithesis of âevilâ
4 https://hbr.org/2018/04/7-traits-of-super-productive-people
5 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201308/the-real-meaning-good-and-evil
6 http://www.balanceyoursuccess.com/whats-good-about-goodness/
Rabbit hole all you wish, or don't. My vote, particularly the second, was entirely based on voting protocol from the policy:
"Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." I submit, and, in fact, the second in the list of voting policies deal with my voting result: in a critical features of your argument, [personhood, and consent] you had opinion followed by no sourcing. I awarded where argument included sourcing. You were not awarded points on each of the issues I referenced in voting. Such as not sourcing your opinion that consent means having a body "used," when the matter of a symbiotic relationship, woman and fetus, have no conscious decision of having anything taken or given.
A double miss. Re: human speciality, my argument did not point to cells or DNA. If you will read my argument [goes both ways, bud] I questioned your parenthetic clause, by asking for THAT source.
The nature of either "multiply and replenish the earth," or "There is grandeur in this view of life..." is that pregnancy, whether caused by consent, or not, establishes a symbiotic relationship but neither woman nor fetus can claim right over the other. In fact, the fetus is the ultimate innocent in the whole affair. As you cannot decide whether you accept personhood from conception [you claim both sides of that argument, against it in round 2, and for it in round 4], I say your arguments negate themselves, and Con's consistent argument prevails. You did no show argument supported by sourcing that demonstrates which condition, sex by force or consent, is the greater condition of pregnancy. As long as you are concerned about frequency of abortion before/after Roe and as relevant regarding abortion vs. restrictive laws, you must cite your sources that consent is a viable argument. Your sourcing is all about the numbers of abortion, but not for consent/no consent. You speak to the matter of consent in round 1 under "human rights," but have no sourcing. You address it again in round 45, but again, do not cite sources. As your argument is simply that the woman must always be granted legal right of preference, it is flawed on that basis.
You argue, "I am not unsympathetic to his argument, but the situation is much [too] nuanced to stop there." However, then you argue, "What makes humans special isnât our cells or our DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception)," but you offer no source for that opinion; in particular, the parenthetic clause. Who says that? A credible source? Then cite it. But, you did not. Then you argue, "I have chosen, for the sake of the argument, to imagine the unborn as people," negating your entire argument against your opponent's relative to the person issue. If you also acknowledge that the unborn are people, what's the nuance? That another, the woman, also has nuance? If you admit that is so, I submit your argument is flawed. Thus, my decision. Do not assume I am driven by my personal preference.
As a counter argument by a pro-choice: "In summary, prohibition and restrictive laws do not appear to reduce the frequency of abortion overall, but they do decrease womenâs health in a society by forcing women to reluctantly seek necessary medical treatment (at later stages when more complications can occur) without the oversight provided by government regulation." I do not regard that as a "better" argument. Frequency should not necessarily be a legal point any more than a singular murderer is any less illegal that a serial killer. It is matter of moral degree, perhaps, but not legal. Nor, should one consider a debate "lost" until the voting is finished. Let us not replace one indiscretion with another.
But, I will accept the judgment of another moderator.
In many cases, in order to understand a concept, I invite the elimination of mirrors. What I mean by that is that all of us are our worst enemy in understanding another's perspective, and we tend to consult our own paradigms for verification, like looking in a mirror. Lose the mirror, i.e., lose the paradigm. In this case, I would recommend losing the clock, because it seems to be an impediment. I don't even believe that, beyond our earth perspective, time exists at all. So, lose it if that is a hangup. I use this "tool" whenever challenged in my perception of eternity, because many people hang onto a concept of a Big Bang, then an infinity ahead, only, that's not infinity, at all. There is not beginning, but that's a paradigm many have difficulty accepting. I am not so troubled by the idea. Ergo, does it matter relative to the debate? Yes, I acknowledge that we have moved on in understanding of both Genesis creation and Darwin evolution, but it is my choice of debate parameters. And, yes, I understand that it appears that I am, contrary to losing mirrors, that I am imposing one. It is simply to restrain the debate in the confines of brackets of time. Why? Because there are arguments with the brackets such that either Pro or Con can win the debate. Accept, or don't.
I agree. It is the last, abstainers, who may outnumber Democrat voters for Trump, who are the greatest concern to Democrats, and to Virtuoso
I notice on a subsequent debate proposal, you had already increased the count. đ
I submit that a "characters per argument" of 1,000 in each round is not enough to make typical debate argument, rebuttal, and defense. For example, your round 1 argument, according to my words-with-spaces counter sums your argument at 998 words+spaces. I suggest your future debates allow a count in the range of 5,000 to 10,000. If you propose a difficult and/or controversial subject, maybe more. Doesn't mean you must use so many characters, but more it is prudent.
No victory for either of us, yet. There's still 7+ days for voting Just don't continue vote bombing
Really, dear opponent, you had your shot at argument in four rounds, per my designation in challenging the debate, and I believe the debate policy says, "When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into the next stage." That stage is voting. We are in voting stage. Your argument ability has passed, yet you have argued sufficient to have had a fifth round. I believe that is considered vote bombing. Would you like me to have my fifth round? No? The policy prevents it? Domage, mon vieux.
Thanks to both of you for voting.
Thanks for voting again.
"Rate per million & average were used as an example. jeeeeeze"
An example that does not hold because the two are not related statistical models.
Nevertheless, taking a Pro side, one is expected to present arguments favoring the Pro side, and full dedication to that side. Wavering in debate is weakness. Got to be committed, or the debate isn't.
Thanks for your votes
When you quote from other sources, and properly cite those sources by reference, you are not violating copyright. In fact, you are supporting their copyright by doing so. Who told you otherwise? And what's their source?
"Citing. When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. ... Commonly, a book citation includes the book title, author, publisher, edition and year of publication... When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. You should cite the source for both paraphrased ideas and direct quotes. The citation should include enough information for a reader to be able to locate the original source." https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/copyright-laws-citing-sources-16438.html
What, pray tell, is preventing you from quoting from other sources than from Wiki. You seem adept at quoting from Wiki, why not from other sources?
It is your opponents' duty to do your sourcing job? Absurd. See my argument about seeking fresh water. So, if your source is the gutter, you expect someone else to find a better source for you? Find your own better source, and let that be challenged, if it can be. You click on your better link and quote it. And if that is not sufficient, find a further link from that first generation link. Find the best water you can find yourself. That is your job, and yours, alone. I'm as valid as I can be. If you disagree, see if a moderator will agree with you, or me.
Diarrhea, malnutrition, heart disease are diseases that do not have direct-effect vaccines, that is, that have vaccines developed strictly for the purpose of prevention or treating these diseases. There ares vaccines that have the side effect of amielorating these diseases, but none of them have vaccines developed as an original purpose of combatting them.
Please note in my voting in giving sourcing to Con, that I reference the analogy of seeking fresh water from its best sources, as compared to my quote from Wikipedia about itself. The conclusion of that comparison ought to be a teaching moment for future debate efforts. Wiki is your savior? Low-ball savior, my friend.
And you will lose your bet. Same as you have lost your phantom "yes." Look, in the upper left corner of your monitor, when you are on a given debate wherein you are the protagonist, you, and only you, are saying "yes" to the proposition of the debate if and when you have initiated the debate and haver chose to be the Pro. God in heaven! no wonder you still don't get it that rate per million is NOT an average!
A reminder to my opponent that just 5+ days remain for a round 3 argument, and avoidance of forfeiture, having already forfeited round 2.
Sorry to disagree, but none of the three historians you mentioned were contemporaries to Christ. The closest to fitting that description was Josephus, who was born in 37 CE, in Jerusalem, within the decade [third of the century] of Christ's crucifixion. The others, Tacitus, was born in 56 CE, and Sueetorius, in 69 CE.
Thanks for voting.
Sorry, forgot to mention: I accept all definitions and debate details. I do not know how to add pictures, so I'll appreciate a primer. I note that we can forfeit one round and, depending on the will of judges, not be penalized, but it appears more than one is automatic forfeiture of the debate. Don't want to risk that; I plan to avoid it completely.
Oh, Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz...
This is such a tempting subject, as I am fluent in New Kingdom hieroglyphs grammar, and as such familiar with the culture, but the former has little to do with architecture, and I am inclined to accept that the dating of these great structures is currently in error. However, my appreciation of the ancient Egyptian civilization is too tempting to refuse, so I'll take this on as a reluctant Con. This will be fun to contradict my own thinking. I'm glad you're allowing a good amount of time for argument; I'll need it! Anything may happen. Thanks, and good luck, my friend.
Nor did you break any records citing sources that confirm your "proof."
Agreed, which is why I rankle at such comments by climate alarmists who claim that their science is "in." A science that is, at best, 200 years old. Compare to sciences such as physics, astronomy, geology, which are thousands of years old, and still do not make that claim.
Wow, just in reviewing Con's Round 1 argument, and in Pro's round 2 response, I find 3 glaring issues against Con's argument:
1. Con's list of 12 studies are full of references to "evidence favors," "Exposures suggest," no significant effect,"meta analysis suggests," and "might be attributable to chance." Fully 7 of teh 12 cited sources left allowance for the possibility of relationship. That is hardly conclusive evidence of a lack of relationship.
2. Pro's round 1"Dr. Plotkin" argument, revealing that the good doctor would proceed with DTaP vaccine even lacking empiric evidence is not convincing for Con's argument.
3. Pro's round 1 study of Con's 12 studies demonstates citable instances where all 12 fail to show relevance to the precise vaccine DTaP, let alone to consistent age-group related study. That's enough on which to comment. I will be voting on this dfebate, and cannot yet say how I will vote, but these three examples are telling.
Do you know what [sic] means? See to your own grammar and syntax, my friend.
"Classic."
Indeed. Please be around for voting.
I mean by such notions that have been, historically, but may begin to have cracks with String Theory, for example, treated as fact. Example: the speed of light is the maximum achievable speed. And that black holes are total gravity sinks.
How, then, do you explain science's use of Einstein's "Relativity," which has always had the predicate, "Theory of...?"
Thank you for voting. For the benefit of other voters before voting is finished, I shall make comments regarding your RFDs by private message.
Thanks for your vote
Relative to my last comment here, I want you to know that I thoroughly enjoyed our debate, and beg your forgiveness for the cynic in me. You truly raised some valid points in opposition, and wish you well in your further debates.
Thank you for voting. I appreciate your commentary, even that which is in criticism. You raise valid points. I'm afraid one of my faults is a rather thick streak of cynicism, and I especially prefer the negative side of cynicsm that engages the 18th century French penchant to seek the "bon mot." A clear fault, I recognize and just need to be patient with myself as I work to eliminate it. In the end, though, I'm a very happy guy, cynic or nt.
Thank you for voting
It is possible that a president could be elected by a smaller sample that 22% of the electorate if a large enough segment of registered voters do not vote.
"The argument only works..." your "if" statement is not true, by the Constitution, and, unless that is changed, remains un true, therefore, not presently a factor.
Faithless electors will always be a concern, but, to date, they have never affected the outcome of an election.
Thanks for voting
References for round 4:
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
2 https://www.thoughtco.com/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4582571
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 3: 6
4 Holy Bible, Proverbs 127: 3, 5
5 Campbell, Beverley, Eve and the Choice Made in Eden, Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 2003, page 35
6 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, Chapter 8, page 213
7 Holy Bible, Genesis 3: 20
8 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, Chapter 15, page 445
references for round 3
1 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 2nd â 6th editions, 1860 - 18722
2 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/lilith-lady-flying-in-darkness/
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 26, and https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/13/biologically-speaking-this-is-why-humans-are-born-to-die/#87a4a264a48b
4 Darwin, Charles, Origin of the Species, 1st â 6th editions, 1859 â 1872, Chapter One, page 1.
5 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 28
We need voters on https://www.debateart.com/debates/1810/does-a-good-perfect-man-struggle-with-evil
references for round 2:
1 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 2nd â 6th editions, 1860 - 1872
2 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st â 6th editions, 1859 - 1872
3 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st â 6th editions, 1859 â 1872, Genesis 1: 26
4 http://humanorigins.si.edu/about/broader-social-impacts-committee/science-religion-evolution-and-creationism-primer
5 O.E.D., âInteractiveâ
6 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 3
7 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 26
8 https://www.creators.com/read/kids-talk-about-god/09/14/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-first-commandment-you-shall-have-no-other-gods-before-me
9 Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 16, 171
10 Holy Bible, Exodus 20: 13
11 https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/13/biologically-speaking-this-is-why-humans-are-born-to-die/#87a4a264a48b
12 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/telomeres
13 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842081/
14 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100403/
15 Holy Bible, Genesis 5: 15
16 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/telomeres
Very good. Let's begin. I will be posting 1st round soon. Let's see, I understand this Sunday, you're implementing Daylight Savings, so I believe you will be seven hours ahead; I'm in US Mountain time zone, currently 16:56 [I've been to about 30 countries in my brief sojourn, but never Great Britain, even though my ancestry goes through Scotland to France. My immediate roots, however, are American. My first immigrant ancestor came from Scotland in 1625, and from France in 1066. I speak fluent French and have logged about three years there.
Thanks for accepting this debate. Please advise before we begin if you're agreeable to the definitions as given. I will wait for your reply, but I have only two days to launch. Good luck!
I note you're new to the site. Welcome aboard. I'm not so experienced on the site, either, but feel free to ask. Navigating around is very easy. This is a great site for debate, and also the forum is stimulating. Have a look at that, too.
You're welcome. Will definitely have fun. Perhaps one day, we'll find a compatible debate. I look forward to that. Be well.
References for round 3:
1 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
2 Attributed to Edmund Burke
3 According to the OED definition of âgood,â and the corresponding antithesis of âevilâ
4 https://hbr.org/2018/04/7-traits-of-super-productive-people
5 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201308/the-real-meaning-good-and-evil
6 http://www.balanceyoursuccess.com/whats-good-about-goodness/
Rabbit hole all you wish, or don't. My vote, particularly the second, was entirely based on voting protocol from the policy:
"Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." I submit, and, in fact, the second in the list of voting policies deal with my voting result: in a critical features of your argument, [personhood, and consent] you had opinion followed by no sourcing. I awarded where argument included sourcing. You were not awarded points on each of the issues I referenced in voting. Such as not sourcing your opinion that consent means having a body "used," when the matter of a symbiotic relationship, woman and fetus, have no conscious decision of having anything taken or given.
A double miss. Re: human speciality, my argument did not point to cells or DNA. If you will read my argument [goes both ways, bud] I questioned your parenthetic clause, by asking for THAT source.
The nature of either "multiply and replenish the earth," or "There is grandeur in this view of life..." is that pregnancy, whether caused by consent, or not, establishes a symbiotic relationship but neither woman nor fetus can claim right over the other. In fact, the fetus is the ultimate innocent in the whole affair. As you cannot decide whether you accept personhood from conception [you claim both sides of that argument, against it in round 2, and for it in round 4], I say your arguments negate themselves, and Con's consistent argument prevails. You did no show argument supported by sourcing that demonstrates which condition, sex by force or consent, is the greater condition of pregnancy. As long as you are concerned about frequency of abortion before/after Roe and as relevant regarding abortion vs. restrictive laws, you must cite your sources that consent is a viable argument. Your sourcing is all about the numbers of abortion, but not for consent/no consent. You speak to the matter of consent in round 1 under "human rights," but have no sourcing. You address it again in round 45, but again, do not cite sources. As your argument is simply that the woman must always be granted legal right of preference, it is flawed on that basis.
I'm acquainted with Orson, and we share a common understanding of the subject under debate here.
References in round 2 argument:
1 https://www.boredpanda.com/fennec-fox-vegan-diet-animal-abuse-jumanji-sonia-sae/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
2 Holy Bible, Matthew 5: 48
3 Holy Bible, Matthew 5, 6, 7, inclusive.
4 Holy Bible, Exodus 20: 16
5 Book of Mormon, I Nephi 3: 7
You argue, "I am not unsympathetic to his argument, but the situation is much [too] nuanced to stop there." However, then you argue, "What makes humans special isnât our cells or our DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception)," but you offer no source for that opinion; in particular, the parenthetic clause. Who says that? A credible source? Then cite it. But, you did not. Then you argue, "I have chosen, for the sake of the argument, to imagine the unborn as people," negating your entire argument against your opponent's relative to the person issue. If you also acknowledge that the unborn are people, what's the nuance? That another, the woman, also has nuance? If you admit that is so, I submit your argument is flawed. Thus, my decision. Do not assume I am driven by my personal preference.
As a counter argument by a pro-choice: "In summary, prohibition and restrictive laws do not appear to reduce the frequency of abortion overall, but they do decrease womenâs health in a society by forcing women to reluctantly seek necessary medical treatment (at later stages when more complications can occur) without the oversight provided by government regulation." I do not regard that as a "better" argument. Frequency should not necessarily be a legal point any more than a singular murderer is any less illegal that a serial killer. It is matter of moral degree, perhaps, but not legal. Nor, should one consider a debate "lost" until the voting is finished. Let us not replace one indiscretion with another.
But, I will accept the judgment of another moderator.
References for round 1:
1 https://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/, McCloskey, H.J. 1960, âGod and Evilâ Philosophical Quarterly 10: 97-114
2 Suzy Platt (1993). Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. Barnes & Noble. p. 123. ISBN 9780880297684.
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 16, 17
4 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
5 https://books.google.com/books?id=3cUOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA515&lpg=PA515&dq=does+perfection+imply+that+one+is+not+tempted&source=bl&ots=kAr19CdrIp&sig=ACfU3U2j7Cn_VrnWPGg3jQUcyvmSZi5vfg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLiej7u6LoAhVO7J4KHVBSC40Q6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=does%20perfection%20imply%20that%20one%20is%20not%20tempted&f=false
In many cases, in order to understand a concept, I invite the elimination of mirrors. What I mean by that is that all of us are our worst enemy in understanding another's perspective, and we tend to consult our own paradigms for verification, like looking in a mirror. Lose the mirror, i.e., lose the paradigm. In this case, I would recommend losing the clock, because it seems to be an impediment. I don't even believe that, beyond our earth perspective, time exists at all. So, lose it if that is a hangup. I use this "tool" whenever challenged in my perception of eternity, because many people hang onto a concept of a Big Bang, then an infinity ahead, only, that's not infinity, at all. There is not beginning, but that's a paradigm many have difficulty accepting. I am not so troubled by the idea. Ergo, does it matter relative to the debate? Yes, I acknowledge that we have moved on in understanding of both Genesis creation and Darwin evolution, but it is my choice of debate parameters. And, yes, I understand that it appears that I am, contrary to losing mirrors, that I am imposing one. It is simply to restrain the debate in the confines of brackets of time. Why? Because there are arguments with the brackets such that either Pro or Con can win the debate. Accept, or don't.
Then don't understand. Entirely your choice