no problem. This debate might help: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2473-on-balance-abortion-should-remain-legal
My strategy is to resort to essential rights to body until the opponent proves otherwise. You could mention baby violating the woman, but it's only later that you have to address unintended nature, so on and so forth.
the reasoning is that 13 weeks is conscious standard (and that explains why they vast majority of women decide so before 13 weeks for abortion) [https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950] ... and the big problem is the "parasite"/"slave" comparison from lack of abortion.
other way around. Choicer usually think only 3rd term counts as best (1st term does not count as life that can infringe upon the woman's autonomy). This is the best agreement that both can agree to, that 1st term abortions should be allowed. 2nd is the arguable part.
note to self to use this as a final straw... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abortion-abandonment-and-positive-rights-the-limits-of-compulsory-altruism/12B2E3CF9296247A0D572ED4807A7833
ok, this one is more interesting, however Investopedia says "An entrepreneur is an individual who creates a new business, bearing most of the risks and enjoying most of the rewards". A better premise would be, "sustaining a business does not mainly rely on the creator(s) wants and needs"
I am not sure why you are using double-edged sources that explain the problem within paragraphs of introducing them lol. You taking advantage of the 500 char limit?
RFD: Intel tries for another EZ win by kritiking the resolution, stressing the "ALL" people have the right. Let's see if it worked.
R2: Ancap notes that babies cannot actually wield or buy weapons, though this is a double edged sword for him. Con notes that because Con cannot (responsibly) use guns, that they do not have the rights to them.
R3: Ancap kinda talks over con especially with stressing on other reasons to own guns, and tries to take down the kritik about other "gun types". Con moves his idea further to young children potentially being in danger with gun use.
R4: Ancap tries to hold his "framework" but uses 2nd amendment, which is a US thing. He accuses Intel of attacking him, but... that's not the core part of the debate, to be honest. Con just repeats that Ancap failed to adjust for minors using guns...
R5: Ancap brings it all in by trying to note the benefits of allowing all people to own guns better than ... con's negative impacts. Since Con did not attack these, it's interesting to compare "check authoritarian governments" + rape and sexual assault+ rural areas. However Con notes that merely loosening gun control itself could lead to these results, not, letting everyone own guns. I feel like the child point alone makes pro's burden unfulfilled.
Conclusion: If Ancap made this debate about letting people above 18 who had no criminal activity, obtain guns, then he could've handily had this debate. But all people having guns seems too much rights as con notes. It's unclear if we are comparing status quo to everyone have gun, vs only government have gun to everyone have gun. Con seems to be advocating for the first comparison, and pro doesn't seem to knock away the looseness of his policy. So pro loses the debate.
*sweats* I wasted too much characters saying "If even start can be accomplished, rest of the world's effort can work together to resolve this problem." lol
to be fair, a debate in the spirit of death penalty, except saying "we should punish assault with assault" would be a viable debate topic not violating DART (because Death Penalty with firing execution can be argued to be violence, otherwise)
Sadly, there is already I for Intersex, so you will have to either advocate for a confusing replacement, or a LGBTQIAI which is strange to say the least.
it's okay. I haven't seen you do much with 500 char except offer a syllogism. It's hard to say who will win if you're stripped of the ability to cite my words or waste characters defining ideas/burden of proof
okay, now I really don't know who 9.9.9 is. The grounding of the arguments makes me feel they are Zaroette or something. Maybe Ore_Ele?
no problem. This debate might help: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2473-on-balance-abortion-should-remain-legal
My strategy is to resort to essential rights to body until the opponent proves otherwise. You could mention baby violating the woman, but it's only later that you have to address unintended nature, so on and so forth.
really, dude? I'm surprised emotional arguments don't work on you.
stop doing this, we haven't had enough debates since the last Trial debate, so we don't know if you changed or not.
My mission here is not to win , but to clarify and inform.
Eh you know what I’m probably transferring accounts after my debate with MisterChris. Here’s nothing to lose.
sorry i forgot
This debate can’t be won by con, not even Roy or Imabench at maximal trolling capacity
thoughts on this one?
I'm aware how strong Danielle is, but Roy has consistently beaten her.
the reasoning is that 13 weeks is conscious standard (and that explains why they vast majority of women decide so before 13 weeks for abortion) [https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950] ... and the big problem is the "parasite"/"slave" comparison from lack of abortion.
other way around. Choicer usually think only 3rd term counts as best (1st term does not count as life that can infringe upon the woman's autonomy). This is the best agreement that both can agree to, that 1st term abortions should be allowed. 2nd is the arguable part.
the problem with "unnecessary" is that it is near impossible to prove; mistakes show the truth of mankind, establishing a groundbase for the future.
note to self to use this as a final straw... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abortion-abandonment-and-positive-rights-the-limits-of-compulsory-altruism/12B2E3CF9296247A0D572ED4807A7833
to be fair, I could drop all your arguments except the first one and win on virtue of that alone
*laughs maliciously in 92% unintended pregancy*
ok, this one is more interesting, however Investopedia says "An entrepreneur is an individual who creates a new business, bearing most of the risks and enjoying most of the rewards". A better premise would be, "sustaining a business does not mainly rely on the creator(s) wants and needs"
welcome to my Ted talk
You brave user, battling intelligence I can I BB style
I think, extending to 2100 and having at least 3k characters would help greatly lol. It's almost impossible to prove 2040 in 500 characters
also there was no way for me to win anyways, I was just teasing at your sources
vote plz?
vote pls?
I am not sure why you are using double-edged sources that explain the problem within paragraphs of introducing them lol. You taking advantage of the 500 char limit?
RFD: Intel tries for another EZ win by kritiking the resolution, stressing the "ALL" people have the right. Let's see if it worked.
R2: Ancap notes that babies cannot actually wield or buy weapons, though this is a double edged sword for him. Con notes that because Con cannot (responsibly) use guns, that they do not have the rights to them.
R3: Ancap kinda talks over con especially with stressing on other reasons to own guns, and tries to take down the kritik about other "gun types". Con moves his idea further to young children potentially being in danger with gun use.
R4: Ancap tries to hold his "framework" but uses 2nd amendment, which is a US thing. He accuses Intel of attacking him, but... that's not the core part of the debate, to be honest. Con just repeats that Ancap failed to adjust for minors using guns...
R5: Ancap brings it all in by trying to note the benefits of allowing all people to own guns better than ... con's negative impacts. Since Con did not attack these, it's interesting to compare "check authoritarian governments" + rape and sexual assault+ rural areas. However Con notes that merely loosening gun control itself could lead to these results, not, letting everyone own guns. I feel like the child point alone makes pro's burden unfulfilled.
Conclusion: If Ancap made this debate about letting people above 18 who had no criminal activity, obtain guns, then he could've handily had this debate. But all people having guns seems too much rights as con notes. It's unclear if we are comparing status quo to everyone have gun, vs only government have gun to everyone have gun. Con seems to be advocating for the first comparison, and pro doesn't seem to knock away the looseness of his policy. So pro loses the debate.
sorry I was in the middle of typing it when I had to eat lunch. It'll be here.
let's see if I can win this using only I can I BB style of arguments, since Mall's debating style is similar to that Chinese Entertainment show.
damn son. Looks like it's up to Supadudz, to try to defeat you!
sadly, Crossed will likely be unable to come upon such a smart comeback
imagine I win this with A Modest Proposal lol
also here's the source I forgot for cell phones, PC, Fridge if you need it: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?id=11358
wrong source for 6th mass extinction, this is the correct one: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/24/13596
we can redo this at 10k characters after it's over if you want. 500 char is hella tough
*sweats* I wasted too much characters saying "If even start can be accomplished, rest of the world's effort can work together to resolve this problem." lol
That’s the first time I’ve seen someone use transgender to refute abortion...
Also are we only talking about US please clarify
Can you make the description say on net balance so pro doesn’t have to say every single benefit is amazing and awesome
I am glad you noted that pro didnt even pull the big guns lol (history of grid, standards... etc). Maybe he was too busy.
wait, what about "eliminate witnesses" encouraged?
to be fair, a debate in the spirit of death penalty, except saying "we should punish assault with assault" would be a viable debate topic not violating DART (because Death Penalty with firing execution can be argued to be violence, otherwise)
yeah. And I ain't losing this one because either Mall wants LGBTQIAI, or he has to argue that Intersex should be excluded in favor of incest.
Sadly, there is already I for Intersex, so you will have to either advocate for a confusing replacement, or a LGBTQIAI which is strange to say the least.
note to self to use this article in future. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.22.749&rep=rep1&type=pdf
to be fair, debaters on the level of Mikal could potentially win on pro's side
hard to debate, hard to vote?
why must you betray me?
I think you will find that 500 characters is infinitely harder than 3,500 lol
it's okay. I haven't seen you do much with 500 char except offer a syllogism. It's hard to say who will win if you're stripped of the ability to cite my words or waste characters defining ideas/burden of proof
There are not four different ways to prove 1+1=2.
OH NO ITS OROMAGI