I think you could be transferring the negative connotations of cancer to a zygote. What makes cancer a 'bad' thing is that it is an unnatural disease; a zygote is not.
That woman would already possess the unalienable right to life; therefore the clone would also have the right of life ipso facto. Or would you contend that this isn't the case?
I am a tremendous advocate for birth control; teenage and out of wed-lock pregnancies are a big contributor to poverty.
The current defnition is not incongruent with your argument. You could argue that a human that is not developmentally 6 months old, does not bring more benefit to society (utilitarianism) than an animal (which we kill all the time). Unless I am misrepresenting your argument -- this is your intent, right?
I would then have to ask why specialized cells demacartes humanity, when a zygote has its own individual genetic blueprint, where hair colour, eye colour, race etc. are already determined?
If you take issue with the definition, I am sure we can agree on one. However, I am puzzled to why the specification that it is a 'human' is problematic for you. The intent of the debate does not encompass animal rights, or anything 'inhuman'.
'
Whilst that is true, they aren't creating subjective notions of those objective properties; they are people choosing to not represent their true selves. If all of those objective questions were replaced with their subjective socio-cultural counterparts, people could still choose to not represent what they would identify as.
Fair enough. Although, I would think @Ramshutu would vote fairly and honestly. I do agree with you on how other people could decide a winner; ultimatley voting from personal bias. If anything, that would mean you would most likely win, since it seems I am affirming the unpopular opinion.
I do believe my argument is irrefutable, but if it were to come down to "but are we just going to pretend like science doesn't exist, so that people can have more choices" I wouldn't see why this cannnot apply to anything. Like, what's the point of having scientific principles when we can simply throw the textbook out the window, create a new, arbitrary concept that uses socio-economic factors and ascribe it a name. Why can't we do this with age, hair colour, race, height, weight, species...? People would find that absurd, but I am unsure why people feel the same way about gender.
The Bible is certainly up for interpretation which would allow a Christian to interpret it as anything logically possible. There are many other arguments with more efficacy; many philosophers believe the paradox hasn't stood up to much scrutiny.
It says "any unwarranted acceptance". I challenged you to the debate, thus your acceptance is warranted. Moreover, I messaged you before the debate to carefully read the description before accepting if there was anything you wanted changed.
It was a red-herring because economic factors tie more precisely with feasibility. You restricted the resolution to only efficiency; this is why I was more inclined in my vote. Although you had a good argument against building the wall in general you didn't provide much of an argument for its inefficiency. For example, a dark matter drive is unfathomably expensive, so even if we could build one it wouldn't be feasible, but despite the cost it would be wholly efficient. That's why I suggest you both have another debate because many of both of your arguments were not in the context of efficiency.
The economy contention was ultimately a red-herring to the resolution; I'd suggest you guys have a rematch and change it to a general debate on whether or not the wall should be built or not, rather than focusing the resolution on wholly effectiveness.
I'm still experimenting with the formats - the contender needn't waive the last round because the instigator is shoehorning a rebuttal with their opening argument.
It is the power to do anything - even logically impossible tasks. Don't worry, my argument will not include the omnipotence paradox - I find the argument fallacious anyway.
Is this okay? I won't be boiling into the semantics of omnipotence per se.
So you believe personhood relies on if someone can bring joy to another?
I think you could be transferring the negative connotations of cancer to a zygote. What makes cancer a 'bad' thing is that it is an unnatural disease; a zygote is not.
Early born babies and children, the elderly and the disabled would all be disqualified from your definition of personhood.
That woman would already possess the unalienable right to life; therefore the clone would also have the right of life ipso facto. Or would you contend that this isn't the case?
I am a tremendous advocate for birth control; teenage and out of wed-lock pregnancies are a big contributor to poverty.
The current defnition is not incongruent with your argument. You could argue that a human that is not developmentally 6 months old, does not bring more benefit to society (utilitarianism) than an animal (which we kill all the time). Unless I am misrepresenting your argument -- this is your intent, right?
I remain puzzled to why this causes you to reject the definition.
I would then have to ask why specialized cells demacartes humanity, when a zygote has its own individual genetic blueprint, where hair colour, eye colour, race etc. are already determined?
Like for example stem cells are unspecialized.
Interesting. Although, then wouldn't all regular non-specialized cells that grow and divide normally be considered cancer as well?
Yup, I am arguing PRO.
Why wouldn't it be considered cancer even when cell specialization occurs?
If you take issue with the definition, I am sure we can agree on one. However, I am puzzled to why the specification that it is a 'human' is problematic for you. The intent of the debate does not encompass animal rights, or anything 'inhuman'.
'
I'd accept but I'd have to read the Bible first.
Sure. You would have to run me through everything and only if you are able to deal with a Scottish accent.
I do not think you are stupid RM.
That explains a lot. Thanks RationalMadman.
Whilst that is true, they aren't creating subjective notions of those objective properties; they are people choosing to not represent their true selves. If all of those objective questions were replaced with their subjective socio-cultural counterparts, people could still choose to not represent what they would identify as.
That's great! Let me know when you've returned from holiday.
Fair enough. Although, I would think @Ramshutu would vote fairly and honestly. I do agree with you on how other people could decide a winner; ultimatley voting from personal bias. If anything, that would mean you would most likely win, since it seems I am affirming the unpopular opinion.
I do believe my argument is irrefutable, but if it were to come down to "but are we just going to pretend like science doesn't exist, so that people can have more choices" I wouldn't see why this cannnot apply to anything. Like, what's the point of having scientific principles when we can simply throw the textbook out the window, create a new, arbitrary concept that uses socio-economic factors and ascribe it a name. Why can't we do this with age, hair colour, race, height, weight, species...? People would find that absurd, but I am unsure why people feel the same way about gender.
Would you be interested in finishing this debate where we left off; copy and pasting the current rounds?
Bare in mind the debate is about a relational attribute of a God, not the concept of God as a whole.
The Bible is certainly up for interpretation which would allow a Christian to interpret it as anything logically possible. There are many other arguments with more efficacy; many philosophers believe the paradox hasn't stood up to much scrutiny.
A live debate?
We can do a rematch after this debate then. To the voters, compare arguments as if Speedrace never forfeited.
I understand.
It's 16 where I am from; I didn't know many exercising their right.
12 hours left. Just a heads up.
Essence I suppose.
This will be interesting.
Always interesting to see controversial resolutions. Are you playing Devil's Advocate?
Always interesting to see controversial resolutions. Are you playing Devil's Advocate?
Yes, that is exactly the case.
It says "any unwarranted acceptance". I challenged you to the debate, thus your acceptance is warranted. Moreover, I messaged you before the debate to carefully read the description before accepting if there was anything you wanted changed.
It was a red-herring because economic factors tie more precisely with feasibility. You restricted the resolution to only efficiency; this is why I was more inclined in my vote. Although you had a good argument against building the wall in general you didn't provide much of an argument for its inefficiency. For example, a dark matter drive is unfathomably expensive, so even if we could build one it wouldn't be feasible, but despite the cost it would be wholly efficient. That's why I suggest you both have another debate because many of both of your arguments were not in the context of efficiency.
The economy contention was ultimately a red-herring to the resolution; I'd suggest you guys have a rematch and change it to a general debate on whether or not the wall should be built or not, rather than focusing the resolution on wholly effectiveness.
Yes haha.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IoXExnR3SjmUrat-bC-TjtbKCne8TApUq8pTqs3zlBU/edit?usp=sharing
I'll draw up a vote now.
It will be decided in the Cormier Vs Miocic rematch!
I might accept this debate if it remains unaccepted over the next few days.
Just had the same problem -- didn't even realise it didn't include my diagram :(
I'm still experimenting with the formats - the contender needn't waive the last round because the instigator is shoehorning a rebuttal with their opening argument.
I've also supported His non-existence in a previous debate as well :)
I'm interested in accepting -- although my rating is only 1500. If you're willing to lower the rating I'll happily accept.
It is the power to do anything - even logically impossible tasks. Don't worry, my argument will not include the omnipotence paradox - I find the argument fallacious anyway.
Is this okay? I won't be boiling into the semantics of omnipotence per se.