Regardless of the source of a given problem, a debate is between two people and the decision to delete said debate requires both sides to agree, absent the case where one side just doesn't show up at all. If you want to let voters decide that instead, you can always just post your R1 here in the comments and argue that voters should consider it as your R1 because of site issues. Otherwise, you'll have to wait and see whether Barney agrees.
I'd rather have an actual debate on a topic we're both interested in than test whether you have a substantive argument you could use to win your own debate as Con, so I'll have to decline.
Guess that depends on the voter. In my case, I’m a stickler for definitions and, where they’re specific, rules. From that perspective I can’t see a way around what you’ve given, though if you’re willing to stretch it, I’m sure you can find material to work with that some voters would see as valid.
Yes, you’ve already mentioned the semantic angle. It doesn’t require a Kritik, and if you want to spend the debate breaking down the word “dangerous,” it’s a fine way to infuriate your opponent. Not interested. If you’re thinking of some other way, I can’t see it.
I guess we just disagree on the framing of this debate then. The general topic of gender affirming therapy certainly should include that kind of discussion, and despite the framing, I hope that Con provides that kind of argumentation, even if it can’t net them the debate.
I'm not really interested in doing that, since the way you're talking about winning on Con requires either a Kritik (which you've disallowed) or a debate that focuses largely on semantics, which I don't find interesting nor productive. If you truly think this is winnable for Con without engaging in either one of those, then we're simply not looking at the same resolution or the same rule set.
I mean, yes? I think you're making my point for me. I don't see anywhere in your description where you even allow your opponent to make the type of argument that balances the dangers of not getting gender affirming therapy against getting it. If anything, I see you actively disallowing that kind of argument, since they're only allowed to "argue that Gender Affirming Therapy is NOT Dangerous", making any points regarding its benefits extra topical and actively against the rules you've laid out. Saying that they can argue thresholds of dangerousness seems kind of pointless when it's an established fact that surgery comes with substantial dangers, regardless of the purpose. Claiming that your opponent can take the position that those dangers are below a threshold that should be considered "dangerous" is not particularly reasonable, but I agree that it is the only way that they could possibly come out on top, just not one that's likely to be at all fruitful.
That's the only way one could argue a topic like this. The trouble with doing so is two-fold.
One, the way that Pro has defined "dangerous." If any gender affirming therapy is hazardous to personal health, then it doesn't matter if they better than the alternative. Pro affirms the resolution based on that definition regardless because the practice is still dangerous even if we deem it net beneficial. He had the opportunity to define dangerous differently in order to engage with the possibility that, if taken as a net value, gender affirming therapy is less dangerous than the alternative of doing nothing, though with this definition, that type of argument is effectively off topic. As written, the topic requires that Pro present what is dangerous in gender affirming therapy, and subsequently requires that Con prove that those dangers are nonexistent.
Two, Pro has also restricted the type of argumentation that can be had in this debate, stating that Pro may ONLY argue regarding the dangers of gender affirming therapy and Con may ONLY argue that those are not actually dangers. That means that he has actively disallowed, in the rules of this debate, the type of argument you're talking about. If Con argues that it is more dangerous for these people not to pursue gender affirming therapy, then Con is arguing outside of the bounds of their required stance, since that doesn't directly counter the existence of these dangers. Pro can and likely will argue that such arguments go against the rules of the debate. Even if he doesn't, many voters may note that rule and hold Con to it. At minimum, that means that Con would likely sacrifice the conduct point to simply make this argument, though many voters may simply disregard all arguments that stray outside of the stances laid out in the rules.
If that was your aim, then you should have probably set the bar higher for yourself. As is, you’ve made it so that any arguments to that effect are extra topical - they’re not relevant to whether or not you win this debate because all you have to do to win is show that any of the procedures involved in gender affirming therapy are dangerous. Demonstrating that there’s nothing good about it is even outside the bounds of what you’ve allowed yourself to argue under “STANCES” unless it directly relates to what is dangerous.
If Barney agrees, I can have this debate deleted and you can remake it. Otherwise, whether it was a site bug or anything else, there’s nothing I can do to fix it.
I don’t think the question of personhood and when it begins is productive. If you’re placing it based on religion, then it depends whose religious beliefs are correct. Determining whether your religion is the right one, or at least more accurate, would require having another, separate debate that I’m honestly not interested in having. The other perspective is largely based on a through-line, typified by this quote of yours:
“Within the nature of human beings, if allowed to live and develop, that first cell at fertilization will emerge as a human being and, therefore, a personal being.”
Branching off of that, you’ve made the point that we should essentially give all stages of life along this line the benefit of the doubt. I have two problems with this.
One, I’m not sure why you start at fertilization. What is it about that particular step that makes it the definitive “first”? We’ve already agreed that there are no empirically defined traits that confer any stage of development with personhood, so what is it about the zygote that renders it a person, while the separate sperm and ovum is not? They are part of that through-line leading to a personal being, right? I’m not sure why they’re cut out of this.
Two, and connected to the first, what happens when this process is interrupted? Your argument was that someone who is a personal being has always been one, but we can only verify that for people who have incontrovertibly become personal beings. Anyone who doesn’t reach that point, i.e. the point of self-consciousness, cannot be verified in the same sense. For that matter, I’d say it’s at least unclear whether someone has always been a personal being or became a personal being over the course of their development, which renders the assertion that one who is a person has always been a person from conception.
The result is that I don’t assign personhood to the unborn. We can and must assign personhood to humans, so I simply don’t do it developmentally. Persons are those who have reached the point of viability, i.e. the ability to live outside the mother’s womb. I fully admit it’s arbitrary, though my basis for selecting that isn’t for any acquisition of traits or personhood, but rather due to the legal, social, and medical realities inherent to reproduction as it relates to society. Pre-viability runs aground of these problems, post-viability does not.
I'd call all this the short version. There's a good deal of reasoning that I haven't included, though I'm presenting this as a basis for discussion that will likely last a while, so I open it up for your consideration.
I appreciate that you’ve addressed the point, and as such will end this portion of our discussion and focus on the bigger picture of why I hold my views, as well as what they are, since you and I appear to see them differently. When I get home, I’ll write up a breakdown of my perspective on the issue.
In your response, I’m still seeing you dance around the question. Statements like this:
“The currently held belief on the question of personhood may include consciousness, or reasoning, or the ability to communicate”
Don’t tell me that there is or isn’t an empirically derived threshold for personhood. They tell me what you disagree with that some people believe should be the threshold for personhood, which we already have agreed is arbitrary. So, I’ll ask again and note that I’m not looking for a drawn out answer where you tell me how else it should be defined. I’m aware that this is not your preferred way of defining the beginning of personhood, but again, you have said multiple times that it is scientifically (meaning empirically) defined. I keep asking this question open-ended and you keep moving onto other subjects instead of answering it directly, so please, I’m begging you, provide a short answer for the following question:
Is the beginning of personhood empirically, scientifically defined, and if so, what traits/criteria define it?
You’re mistaking my focus on a single point with rejection of all other possibilities. I’ve said (now several times) that it is my aim to establish a baseline of agreement in some way, shape or form before proceeding onto other issues. That’s not a rejection of non-empirical reasoning, that’s simply an attempt to address one key issue that’s rather important for understanding my perspective. It’s what I’ve been trying to do since we started discussing this in the comments of this debate. Again, you keep trying to move past this issue without giving me a straight answer, so yes, I’m pretty stuck on this.
It’s been my point since the start that personhood isn’t defined biologically, and that it’s starting point is therefore not empirically derived. You seem to be agreeing with this to some extent now because you are saying that science can’t determine what is moral. I agree. The problem is, has been, and will continue to be (until you address it clearly in some way, shape or form) that you (not me) have argued that there is an empirically defined starting point for personhood. You have somewhat vaguely kept affirming this by arguing that the scientific community has some consensus on the issue, one you have yet to clearly define.
If you want me to answer your questions regarding how I view the unborn and the ethics of the issue, I need a clear answer on this, otherwise we’ll just keep returning to this issue over and over again. I think I’ve already given some of those answers in the context of the debate, and perhaps that’s why you keep turning to it, but I’ll be straight up: I’m not going there until we resolve this. When we discussed this via PM, I was willing to go down every possible road and just keep branching on the topic. I want to keep this focused so that we can make some headway. If you want me to give a breakdown of my position, I can, but it requires this as a baseline and I’d rather know how much or how little agreement we have here. I still don’t know, and we’ve been doing this for days.
So, please, I’m asking you to give me a straightforward answer on whether there exist empirically proven biological criteria for the beginning of personhood. Either way, if you answer that, we can finally move on.
I asked you at the start whether this was an open discussion of our positions on the issue or whether you wanted to dig into the debate. Up until now, it's been the former. Now, you're making it the latter. I'm not going to try to do both simultaneously, so if you have responses to my points from the debate, we can either drop the issues we've been discussing up until now and get into my points from the debate in more detail, or we can continue along the lines on which we already started. Your choice.
Wow, I clearly have been bad at communicating this if that's your take-away.
It's never been my argument (either in this debate or elsewhere) that one cannot know anything that cannot be empirically proven, and while I have problems with the claim that God or any other entity has provided us with this specific knowledge of when a person begins, I haven't actually made that argument yet in this discussion. My sole point is and has been that there is no way to empirically determine when a person begins scientifically, and therefore that no one can know based solely on empirical evidence when a person begins. It's not a dichotomy because I'm not setting scientific evidence at odds with faith-based knowledge or any other kind of reasoning. I haven't even made any points about why this specific mode of acquiring knowledge should be preferred, so I'm not sure where you're getting a dichotomy in this.
I also don't know why you keep delineating between science and scientism, or for that matter, why you keep responding to points I'm not making. If you see scientism in my argument, feel free to point it out, but my point to date has only been that no individual trait or set of traits delineates between a human and a human being/person. That doesn't involve separating "a human being and a person via some stage of growth and development" - in fact, I've continually argued that doing so is arbitrary. I have, however, argued that being human as ascribed by traits is in many cases distinct from being a human being/person. You've agreed to that over the course of this discussion since you agree that not all cells that are clearly human are themselves individual human beings. You've given me a set of traits that you believe delineate between a human person and a human non-person, though so far, you haven't committed to arguing that science ascribes these traits as the beginning of personhood. You've said now that "Its "being" or "essence" starts at conception. That is a consensus of science.", though that's another dodge around my question. Science doesn't engage in concepts of "being" or "essence" - it uses empirical evidence (in this case, some marked traits) to distinguish organisms. If science has determined what those traits are that make a person, please, present them. So far, what I've seen from you are your personal views of what those traits should be.
And even in those, I'm still unclear about a lot of factors. You're now arguing that artificial attempts to generate a person don't preclude ascribing the result personhood, so an embryo that is grown outside of the womb is a person because, eventually, it will be transplanted. What if it isn't? Should we count it as a person all the same? And, if and when we do create an artificial womb that can be used to gestate in vitro fertilized embryos, will the result still be a person? I'm honestly asking because you made this delineation - you included a delineation between artificial methods and natural methods, not me. So I'm curious as to when something is not a person because of artificial impositions. Where's the cutoff?
The rest of this response is moving past the issue, and again, I don't think I even have a clear answer from you yet. If there's a scientific consensus regarding personhood and when it starts, don't just tell me that one exists and send me a bunch of links, tell me how they arrived at it. A consensus in the scientific community doesn't just spring up from personal opinion, it comes from clear delineations and broad agreement about those delineations. If you want to argue that I'm wrong to believe how I do, we can get to that after we've passed what I thought would be a simple baseline of understanding that I still don't believe we have. Honestly, I thought I'd get a clear answer by now and just be done with this part. I also don't appreciate having my position continually mischaracterized, though again, I'll come back to that after we've cleared this portion of the discussion.
Yeah… the way this is framed is, effectively, a truism. Since you’ve restricted all arguments to issues of whether or not any gender affirming practice is hazardous, you’re requiring your opponent to argue that any and all surgeries, procedures and medications associated with the practice present no hazards, which is impossible. Someone could argue that it’s worth the risk, but you’ve barred that argument from the debate.
"I'm just making a point that understanding what the unborn is requires more than biology and science. That only takes you so far, then you plead ignorance and uncertainty."
Technically incorrect. I argued that we are all ignorant on this issue when it comes to issues of biology and science, not just that I personally am ignorant and therefore uncertain, though I agree insofar as uncertainty is an accurate characterization of my position.
"Yes, I do want to hear your justification for when personhood begins, among other things, because it plays a central part in most debates on abortion, including this one and Roe V. Wade. The legalization of abortion, except in rare instances, was made possible in part by the court's understanding of personhood. You admitted you don't know when personhood begins, but I want to hear when you believe and the reasons for that belief."
I haven't given one and I don't plan to do so. I don't believe it's possible to determine precisely when personhood begins, I think I made that abundantly clear. My belief falls in line with that uncertainty, so I don't know why you're expecting a distinct answer to that request. I agree that if we had that answer, it should be central to the debate on abortion. I don't agree that we have it.
"My stance on personhood is from a self-evident perspective and common sense. From a scientific perspective, we know what a human being is, and that it is different from other types of beings. We know that a human being's nature is a personal nature. It deals with what the Unborn is - a human being and the nature of human beings. It also seeks to find out, how from a biological perspective how such a thing can be known and if there is a better or more reasonable explanation. I think I conveyed that."
You conveyed that, but you haven't answered my question, at least not in any form that I can nail down. Do you believe that science has empirically proven when personhood begins? Your position appears to be ontological and derived (at least in part) from the scientific definition of what a human is, but that's not the same thing. Do you believe that science has deduced the exact set of traits necessary for an entity to be designated a person?
I'm not dichotomizing. I'm focusing in on the first, and leaving the second for later discussion. As I recall, we had a habit of going off in a few different directions in our discussions about abortion, which inevitably resulted in long, rambling posts (I'm particularly guilty of that) and having to revisit points over and over. My goal is to get this particular portion of the discussion behind us so that we can focus in on other concerns.
The problem I'm having with your characterization of human nature is that you're reducing it to the biological, i.e. those things that "can be known and verified." They are derived from a sperm and ovum, they go through conception, they generate an individual and separate living organism. Those are all verifiable steps with specific traits that we can identify. Distinguishing a human sperm from a gorilla sperm is also about traits, mainly DNA. But then you go on to say that there's some nebulous "nature" that you cannot define, something distinct from these elements, a part of the ontological aspect. I don't even know what Haeckel's embryos are, and I'm not separating different stages of growth, so I don't know what you think I'm doing here.
"Yes, you identify them as persons correctly. Human male sperm and human female egg are the prerequisites for producing a human being. Yes, that can be done artificially now. That was not the case centuries ago nd it is not natural but artificial."
...But doesn't this run contrary to what you just said about what distinguishes persons from non-persons?
"YOU: "3) Must do so in the absence of any artificial means."
By any intelligent attempts or means to alter its nature since God deemed it what it is."
If this generates a person, then #3 must be an inaccurate characterization of your position.
"Do you believe you are killing a human being? Please answer that. You seem to skip by that time and again."
Pretty sure I clarified this in the debate numerous times, hence I didn't feel that it was necessary to clarify it again here after you read this debate. But fine, I'll give you the same answer I gave Bones: since I can't determine that it is a person, my answer is that I am uncertain. Is the unborn at all stages of development a human being? I don't know.
You seem to have downshifted into a religious stance on the issue, and while I'm not going to challenge you on that basis, that is your perspective and rather distinct from mine. My impression was that you wanted to understand what leads me to my views on abortion, and you initially challenged me (several times in that first set of posts) on the basis that you believe that there is a scientific basis for the start of personhood. You're right, my perspective on personhood is largely driven by what we can empirically prove. It's fine if you think other issues should be paramount, but that's going beyond the issues we've been discussing and I'd like to get past this first. So, forgive me if I'm coming off as stubborn on this, but again, it was your perspective (unless I misread it) that there is a scientifically proven point at which personhood begins. If I'm wrong on that, if we're on the same page that there is no empirical means by which we can determine when personhood begins, then we can count the issue as agreed and move on with that as a baseline. If we can't, then I'd like to wrap that up before we move onto other issues.
PGA, there's a reason I'm focusing on biological differences. Once we get into ontology and natures, we're dealing in non-empirical spheres. Biological distinction is typified by things like "characteristics, traits, qualities, [and] abilities", distinct natures are far more nebulous. What defines human nature? How can we determine that a zygote has human nature? If your response is that at some point, that zygote will become a full grown human, what about all those zygotes that don't make it that far? How can we determine that for them? You talk about a human male and female mating (which, again, is biological), though there are a multitude of circumstances where zygotes are made via other methods, e.g. in vitro fertilization. They are still persons despite the absence of mating. Clearly, mating is not a prerequisite for personhood.
Beyond that, you're just slipping into other subjects, e.g. what imparts value, which is a secondary question.
So, let's just clarify this before we move onto your other questions, because I feel this is rather fundamental to my view and we need to have a clear distinction here before we can get down to the other issues you've presented:
You're saying that unique DNA and the somewhat nebulous aspect of embodying the entirety of a human are both necessary and sufficient for one to be considered a person? When I refer to the latter (and I'll try to break this down as you have, forgive me for any errors), you're arguing that the stage of development must have:
1) The capacity to divide and differentiate into numerous tissue types in and of itself,
2) The capability to do so in the absence of any intervention beyond affording it nutrition and an appropriate environment,
3) Must do so in the absence of any artificial means.
Please, modify this as you see fit, but I'd like a clear statement about what separates a person, in your estimation, from what is simply considered biologically human. I did note that you included "God 'breathing' into them the breath of life", though as that is not an empirical claim, I'm leaving it out of this. I'm seeking a purely scientific reason why the unborn at all stages of development must be considered a person, so adding in religious statements like this detracts from the issue.
Saying it’s by nature punts the question unless you’re no longer arguing that personhood is a empirically established. Nature isn’t something that can be measured in a lab. It’s not a trait we can use to differentiate one organism from another. If it’s not based on traits in your estimation, then we agree to that extent. If it is based on traits, then reducing it to “nature” is too non-specific.
You’re not talking about a single cell or “an entity that isn’t “more than one type of cell”, but you would designate a zygote as a person. I don’t understand that distinction. I also don’t understand why having more than one cell is what makes a human being. Isn’t that just a stage of development? Why isn’t that similarly arbitrary?
To that end, as well, if I take an arm off of a person, I’m not separating one person from another despite the fact that both have differentiated human cells. Maybe this was meant to be a response to that:
“entity that is directing the growth and functioning from within itself of its ENTIRE LIVING BEING”
But I’m unclear because a developing embryo doesn’t direct its own growth, at least not in its entirety. If I were to grow an organ in the lab, I would not be growing a new human, despite the fact that the stem cells I’m using to grow it are able to partially direct their own growth. I’m imposing external growth factors on it to make it grow a specific way. The same is true with an embryo.
So, I ask again: what traits make a person distinct from just being human? You acknowledge that the two are distinct by saying that a skin cell is not a person, but I have yet to see something that differentiates all persons from non-person human cells and tissues.
We are talking about two different things. Scientists can determine whether an organism, tissue or cell is human. We do that by taking a set of traits (DNA most often, since it covers all of them), and noting genes that are indicative of what is human. We can also track the development of specific traits. That’s how science is used to make these determinations.
What you’re talking about is personhood, specifically its beginnings. You would likely not argue that any cell that has human DNA is, itself, a person. A skin cell is not a person. If I injected a pig with human DNA, it does not become a person. And, presumably, you would argue that gametes aren’t persons. These would all be designated as human in some way, shape or form, yet they are not persons. Hence, the issue is the distinction: when does something that is human under biological definitions become a person? I haven’t heard a satisfying answer to this question yet, so I invite you to address it instead of just punting back to me with more questions.
In general, I think a lot of what you've posted here comes down to "personhood matters." I agree that it does, but I disagree that we can accurately designate when personhood begins. To do so empirically requires assigning a specific trait or set of traits as the definitive beginning of personhood. Absent that, it becomes a philosophical question, and different philosophies can and will disagree for a variety of reasons. Frankly, much of my opinion on the beginnings of personhood and how much it should factor into the issue of abortion stems from this: greater uncertainty should render this portion of the issue a minor one when considering policy. That's not a dismissal of personhood as an issue, that just recognizes that our policy shouldn't be dictated by an arbitrary answer to a question we have no means to adequately answer.
Can Con say that the Unborn is NOT a human being? (I do not believe he can reasonably do this, nor has he. What is the consensus from Science?).
I didn't say that, and I'm not saying that now. I was pretty blatant about my position. Regarding what science can do, if you're talking about empirically showing that a given form of life is a human being, that depends on the criteria. I'll note that Bones himself said that selecting specific criteria for what is a human being is problematic, mainly because it's arbitrary. So, since we cannot answer that scientifically because we cannot define what specific physical aspects make a human being, I think that relegates the question of whether the unborn is a person to philosophy.
Can he say that the Unborn is not a PERSON? (He has admitted he can't).
That's repetitious with the above question. I treat "human being" and "person" identically.
Can Con say the Unborn is only a blob of tissue? (Not according to science).
I didn't, and I don't.
Can Con say it is okay to kill human beings without just cause? (Not unless he believes human beings are not intrinsically valuable).
I didn't, and I don't.
Does Con believe innocent human beings such as the Unborn are worthless? (If he does, and he appears to, he also places little to zero worth on his own life or that of his family. Is he willing to do that? Can anybody just take those lives without reprecussion? Where is the justice there? There is none. Yet he permits it in the case of the Unborn. Where is the justice there?).
I didn't, and I don't. At no point in this debate did I make any statement to that effect.
Is the Unborn an innocent human being? (What has it done wrong? Nothing. Did it choose its circumstances. No, generally speaking, the woman and man consented to sexual intercourse knowing that it could lead to pregnancy. Does she have a responsibility in engaging in sex? She now thinks not).
I have argued and will continue to argue that determining that the unborn is a human being is a philosophical question. As such, I push back on the notion that the unborn is empirically defined as a human being.
Is the woman consenting to kill another innocent human being? (Yes, she is if she agrees to end the life in her womb without just cause).
I appreciate the extensive thoughts on the topic, but I'm a bit lost on what you're looking to get from all this.
We've discussed this issue privately at great length, and I'm willing to extend that here, but you seem to be bouncing between presenting your own arguments for why certain points require more attention from me and talking about issues that were directly covered in the debate. If you want to talk about this debate as we wrote it, we can do that. If you want to talk about your perspective on the topic and personhood, specifically, we can do that. I'd rather ensure that I'm focused on one than try to cover both simultaneously.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
Under the Foregone Conclusions section of the voting policy:
"For debates in which any reasonable person would know the argument outcome from barest of skimming, they may rightly be declared a foregone conclusion and held to a somewhat lower standard when voting against the dolt. Effectively, if one side does not give enough of a topical argument to weigh, then there is no need to write a more detailed vote than their lack of a case.
While the sufficiency standard clearly points to appeals to the quantity of arguments not being enough, someone with a single line assertion against a warranted case with sources simply does not merit the same level of consideration. "
This debate meets this standard, as the degree and extent of argumentation is clearly and demonstrably distinct. The vote is sufficient in that the voter pointed out that this was a foregone conclusion and awards argument points on that basis.
**************************************************
...This isn't exactly a situation we see often where someone accepts two debates offered by the same user and then decides not to argue on either one. Usually, when this happens, the instigator asks us to remove the debate entirely since it becomes a waste of time. So, no, we don't have a set of rules or guidelines that include this specific set of circumstances suffices as spam. That's why moderators have discretion on instances like this.
This debate has been reverted to rated with the caveat that a similar performance by Con would effectively render this as spam and it will return to unrated.
This debate has been reverted to rated, both on the basis that it finished as a rated debate and because it was not obviously spam. That being said, as a repeat of this debate was posted with the same opponent, a repeat performance in that debate will be treated as spam. I will similarly revert that debate to rated.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Vici // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
The title says:
All things considered, the problem of evil is not a significant problem for the existence of God.
Description says:
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.
It is clear that, from the description alone, omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible - one means all loving and one means all powerful yet this is tautologically incompatible to our world, logic does not allow for "all loving" and "all powerful" to then allow for evils to exist, for evil is tautologically contrary to all lovingness. The instigator has created a tautolgical impossibility from the get go, and as logic dictates, impossibility is impossible to come back from, hence nothing PRO says can possibly be rendered true.
Thus, as the description describes a state of affair which is simply impossible, PRO cannot win.
>Reason for Mod Action:
...Honestly, where to start?
The voter quotes from the description where the instigator included an excerpt from Wikipedia to define what the debate is about. The voter then claims that this same quote somehow also establishes a rule that two of those terms are incompatible, despite the fact that the quote does not include the word "incompatible" and instead simply defines what the basis for argumentation is. This definition cannot reasonably be mistaken for a rule or establish a tautology that both sides must adhere to in order to proceed with the debate. Interpreting it as such adds to and twists the words in the description.
The voter also awards arguments to Con on the basis that Pro created a tautological impossibility without applying what that actually means to the debate itself. There are two sides in this debate, one affirming and one negating the resolution. Instead of factoring that into their decision, the voter simply says "impossibility is impossible to come back from" and claims that Pro can't have a true argument as long as the tautology exists, essentially rendering a vote because the voter has a problem with tautologies rather than because of anything relevant to the debate.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sidewalker // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro set up the debate with the first two lines, and then did nothing to establish that USFG has the ability to overturn an election, which of course it doesn't, there is no constitutional or legal process for doing so, and secondly he did nothing to establish line two to show the requisite evidence of fraudulent voting that could have mattered in the first place. Instead he seems to rely on the complex set of rules that followed to gain the win, but that certainly did not make his case. I awarded condut point to con based on the attempt by pro to utilize rules rather than argument to win, I think it was a disengenuous attempt.
You win a debate with content and a strong argument, I don't think you can win a debate on a technicality of rules complexity, nor can you turn over an Federal election on one, especially in the absense of any established rules for overturning an election whatsoever. While the rules were complex and presumably designed to favor pro, I don't think pro complied any better then con, you could probably have three more debates about each rule.
Lastly, considering that rule 7 has been tested in court on this subject 60 times and lost every time, I'm was convinced pro's argument would need to be extraordinary, but it didn't appear to even be trying to make the requisite argument. May as well have just stated he thinks we should overturn the election because Trump said to, as far as I can tell, that was the actual basis of his argument.
As far as acual content, reason, and facts go, Con made the case strongly, with a solid argument and good sources.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter does assess some points presented in the debate, he solely focuses on arguments presented by Con and does not engage with responses from Pro or any of Pro's arguments. This specific point may be the most important one in the debate, but the voter cannot simply say that without touching upon the responses to it.
The conduct point is insufficiently explained. Both sides attempted to use the rules in this manner, and while Pro is the one who wrote those rules, Con did accept them by taking the debate. Any justification for conduct on this basis must include that context.
The source points are insufficiently explained. The voter just says that Con had good sources, which is not a comparison of the sources presented in the debate, nor is it sufficient evaluation of Con's sources to award these points.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Novice_II // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
Quoting the voting policy:
"Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards)."
As such, votes on this debate are not moderated so long as they do not award more points to the side that forfeited every round over the side that forfeited all but one round.
**************************************************
I understand that you're still relatively new to the site and to voting. This removal is not meant to dissuade you from voting, just to draw attention to the missing elements in your RFD. In particular, though I didn't mention this as part of the reasons for removal, it's best not to insert arguments or perspectives that are not presented by the debaters themselves, as you did with rule 7. It may be a valid point, but if it's not given by the debaters, then you're essentially inserting yourself into the debate.
This is an issue that we should specify, though we'll have to discuss it in some detail first. My initial thoughts are that any changes can be made before it is accepted, but that the circumstances in which that can happen should decrease after it is accepted. Cases like this where the instigator expresses what they want the debate to be in the description, but does not format the debate in the same manner, seem like a legitimate case for moderation to make those expressed changes after it is accepted.
From the description and K_Michael's follow-up comments, I have a hard time believing that he wants this to be rated. Even if he did, one of the debaters here is disclosing that his arguments aren't being written by himself, that they are being taken from a text generator. It's not something we've had to deal with before, but in concept, a debater obtaining (or even trying to obtain) ELO using an outside resource to fully write their arguments, even if it's disclosed, should not be allowed. I'll discuss it with the rest of moderation, but that's my take on it.
I'll say up front that no one is required to award any specific category of points, regardless of what happens in the debate.
Additionally, full forfeits have different rules:
"Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards)."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
As such, votes on this debate are not moderated so long as the voter awards more points to you.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter appears to spend a large portion of their RFD explaining how they would run an argument differently from Pro, they do nonetheless provide specific analysis of the arguments presented by both sides and how that affects their decision. As with previous RFDs, the voter does not need to go into detail about how each point from the debaters does or doesn't work. So long as the voter provides feedback that applies to many or all of the arguments presented by each side, that is sufficient.
**************************************************
Feels like you've got a different perception of what is "the HEART of" the argument in this debate. Voters are allowed to make that determination for themselves. That doesn't mean they can dismiss your case wholesale without explanation, but it does mean that they have some leeway when it comes to evaluation of what arguments matter in a debate and why. K_Michael gave you a specific reason why he believes your arguments don't work. Though he doesn't outright point to two of your arguments, he still gives reasoning for why they would not matter in this debate: because of what is written in the description. You clearly argued against that perception, but just because you argued it doesn't mean that that argument must be a substantial factor in a voter's decision, particularly if they didn't find it compelling.
As for sources, I really don't understand your point. Both sides used common knowledge sources. K_Michael pointed to a source from Barney that is not common knowledge and required more digging into the data. Unless you have reason to believe that source of yours should be considered similarly potent, I don't think this is responsive to his reasoning.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does sufficiently analyze arguments insofar as he covers points presented by both debaters and considers their context with regards to the description. The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points. This appears to be the case with this vote. If the contents of this vote were only specific to a dropped point presented by Pro, that would be a problem, but the reasoning this voter gives as central to his decision - that the description confines what can be discussed to what is present on this site - is sufficiently explained and covers other points made in the debate.
The voter also sufficiently analyzes sources, taking specific examples from both debaters for comparison.
**************************************************
Regardless of the source of a given problem, a debate is between two people and the decision to delete said debate requires both sides to agree, absent the case where one side just doesn't show up at all. If you want to let voters decide that instead, you can always just post your R1 here in the comments and argue that voters should consider it as your R1 because of site issues. Otherwise, you'll have to wait and see whether Barney agrees.
I'd rather have an actual debate on a topic we're both interested in than test whether you have a substantive argument you could use to win your own debate as Con, so I'll have to decline.
Guess that depends on the voter. In my case, I’m a stickler for definitions and, where they’re specific, rules. From that perspective I can’t see a way around what you’ve given, though if you’re willing to stretch it, I’m sure you can find material to work with that some voters would see as valid.
Yes, you’ve already mentioned the semantic angle. It doesn’t require a Kritik, and if you want to spend the debate breaking down the word “dangerous,” it’s a fine way to infuriate your opponent. Not interested. If you’re thinking of some other way, I can’t see it.
I guess we just disagree on the framing of this debate then. The general topic of gender affirming therapy certainly should include that kind of discussion, and despite the framing, I hope that Con provides that kind of argumentation, even if it can’t net them the debate.
I'm not really interested in doing that, since the way you're talking about winning on Con requires either a Kritik (which you've disallowed) or a debate that focuses largely on semantics, which I don't find interesting nor productive. If you truly think this is winnable for Con without engaging in either one of those, then we're simply not looking at the same resolution or the same rule set.
I mean, yes? I think you're making my point for me. I don't see anywhere in your description where you even allow your opponent to make the type of argument that balances the dangers of not getting gender affirming therapy against getting it. If anything, I see you actively disallowing that kind of argument, since they're only allowed to "argue that Gender Affirming Therapy is NOT Dangerous", making any points regarding its benefits extra topical and actively against the rules you've laid out. Saying that they can argue thresholds of dangerousness seems kind of pointless when it's an established fact that surgery comes with substantial dangers, regardless of the purpose. Claiming that your opponent can take the position that those dangers are below a threshold that should be considered "dangerous" is not particularly reasonable, but I agree that it is the only way that they could possibly come out on top, just not one that's likely to be at all fruitful.
That's the only way one could argue a topic like this. The trouble with doing so is two-fold.
One, the way that Pro has defined "dangerous." If any gender affirming therapy is hazardous to personal health, then it doesn't matter if they better than the alternative. Pro affirms the resolution based on that definition regardless because the practice is still dangerous even if we deem it net beneficial. He had the opportunity to define dangerous differently in order to engage with the possibility that, if taken as a net value, gender affirming therapy is less dangerous than the alternative of doing nothing, though with this definition, that type of argument is effectively off topic. As written, the topic requires that Pro present what is dangerous in gender affirming therapy, and subsequently requires that Con prove that those dangers are nonexistent.
Two, Pro has also restricted the type of argumentation that can be had in this debate, stating that Pro may ONLY argue regarding the dangers of gender affirming therapy and Con may ONLY argue that those are not actually dangers. That means that he has actively disallowed, in the rules of this debate, the type of argument you're talking about. If Con argues that it is more dangerous for these people not to pursue gender affirming therapy, then Con is arguing outside of the bounds of their required stance, since that doesn't directly counter the existence of these dangers. Pro can and likely will argue that such arguments go against the rules of the debate. Even if he doesn't, many voters may note that rule and hold Con to it. At minimum, that means that Con would likely sacrifice the conduct point to simply make this argument, though many voters may simply disregard all arguments that stray outside of the stances laid out in the rules.
If that was your aim, then you should have probably set the bar higher for yourself. As is, you’ve made it so that any arguments to that effect are extra topical - they’re not relevant to whether or not you win this debate because all you have to do to win is show that any of the procedures involved in gender affirming therapy are dangerous. Demonstrating that there’s nothing good about it is even outside the bounds of what you’ve allowed yourself to argue under “STANCES” unless it directly relates to what is dangerous.
If Barney agrees, I can have this debate deleted and you can remake it. Otherwise, whether it was a site bug or anything else, there’s nothing I can do to fix it.
I don’t think the question of personhood and when it begins is productive. If you’re placing it based on religion, then it depends whose religious beliefs are correct. Determining whether your religion is the right one, or at least more accurate, would require having another, separate debate that I’m honestly not interested in having. The other perspective is largely based on a through-line, typified by this quote of yours:
“Within the nature of human beings, if allowed to live and develop, that first cell at fertilization will emerge as a human being and, therefore, a personal being.”
Branching off of that, you’ve made the point that we should essentially give all stages of life along this line the benefit of the doubt. I have two problems with this.
One, I’m not sure why you start at fertilization. What is it about that particular step that makes it the definitive “first”? We’ve already agreed that there are no empirically defined traits that confer any stage of development with personhood, so what is it about the zygote that renders it a person, while the separate sperm and ovum is not? They are part of that through-line leading to a personal being, right? I’m not sure why they’re cut out of this.
Two, and connected to the first, what happens when this process is interrupted? Your argument was that someone who is a personal being has always been one, but we can only verify that for people who have incontrovertibly become personal beings. Anyone who doesn’t reach that point, i.e. the point of self-consciousness, cannot be verified in the same sense. For that matter, I’d say it’s at least unclear whether someone has always been a personal being or became a personal being over the course of their development, which renders the assertion that one who is a person has always been a person from conception.
The result is that I don’t assign personhood to the unborn. We can and must assign personhood to humans, so I simply don’t do it developmentally. Persons are those who have reached the point of viability, i.e. the ability to live outside the mother’s womb. I fully admit it’s arbitrary, though my basis for selecting that isn’t for any acquisition of traits or personhood, but rather due to the legal, social, and medical realities inherent to reproduction as it relates to society. Pre-viability runs aground of these problems, post-viability does not.
I'd call all this the short version. There's a good deal of reasoning that I haven't included, though I'm presenting this as a basis for discussion that will likely last a while, so I open it up for your consideration.
I appreciate that you’ve addressed the point, and as such will end this portion of our discussion and focus on the bigger picture of why I hold my views, as well as what they are, since you and I appear to see them differently. When I get home, I’ll write up a breakdown of my perspective on the issue.
In your response, I’m still seeing you dance around the question. Statements like this:
“The currently held belief on the question of personhood may include consciousness, or reasoning, or the ability to communicate”
Don’t tell me that there is or isn’t an empirically derived threshold for personhood. They tell me what you disagree with that some people believe should be the threshold for personhood, which we already have agreed is arbitrary. So, I’ll ask again and note that I’m not looking for a drawn out answer where you tell me how else it should be defined. I’m aware that this is not your preferred way of defining the beginning of personhood, but again, you have said multiple times that it is scientifically (meaning empirically) defined. I keep asking this question open-ended and you keep moving onto other subjects instead of answering it directly, so please, I’m begging you, provide a short answer for the following question:
Is the beginning of personhood empirically, scientifically defined, and if so, what traits/criteria define it?
You’re mistaking my focus on a single point with rejection of all other possibilities. I’ve said (now several times) that it is my aim to establish a baseline of agreement in some way, shape or form before proceeding onto other issues. That’s not a rejection of non-empirical reasoning, that’s simply an attempt to address one key issue that’s rather important for understanding my perspective. It’s what I’ve been trying to do since we started discussing this in the comments of this debate. Again, you keep trying to move past this issue without giving me a straight answer, so yes, I’m pretty stuck on this.
It’s been my point since the start that personhood isn’t defined biologically, and that it’s starting point is therefore not empirically derived. You seem to be agreeing with this to some extent now because you are saying that science can’t determine what is moral. I agree. The problem is, has been, and will continue to be (until you address it clearly in some way, shape or form) that you (not me) have argued that there is an empirically defined starting point for personhood. You have somewhat vaguely kept affirming this by arguing that the scientific community has some consensus on the issue, one you have yet to clearly define.
If you want me to answer your questions regarding how I view the unborn and the ethics of the issue, I need a clear answer on this, otherwise we’ll just keep returning to this issue over and over again. I think I’ve already given some of those answers in the context of the debate, and perhaps that’s why you keep turning to it, but I’ll be straight up: I’m not going there until we resolve this. When we discussed this via PM, I was willing to go down every possible road and just keep branching on the topic. I want to keep this focused so that we can make some headway. If you want me to give a breakdown of my position, I can, but it requires this as a baseline and I’d rather know how much or how little agreement we have here. I still don’t know, and we’ve been doing this for days.
So, please, I’m asking you to give me a straightforward answer on whether there exist empirically proven biological criteria for the beginning of personhood. Either way, if you answer that, we can finally move on.
I asked you at the start whether this was an open discussion of our positions on the issue or whether you wanted to dig into the debate. Up until now, it's been the former. Now, you're making it the latter. I'm not going to try to do both simultaneously, so if you have responses to my points from the debate, we can either drop the issues we've been discussing up until now and get into my points from the debate in more detail, or we can continue along the lines on which we already started. Your choice.
Wow, I clearly have been bad at communicating this if that's your take-away.
It's never been my argument (either in this debate or elsewhere) that one cannot know anything that cannot be empirically proven, and while I have problems with the claim that God or any other entity has provided us with this specific knowledge of when a person begins, I haven't actually made that argument yet in this discussion. My sole point is and has been that there is no way to empirically determine when a person begins scientifically, and therefore that no one can know based solely on empirical evidence when a person begins. It's not a dichotomy because I'm not setting scientific evidence at odds with faith-based knowledge or any other kind of reasoning. I haven't even made any points about why this specific mode of acquiring knowledge should be preferred, so I'm not sure where you're getting a dichotomy in this.
I also don't know why you keep delineating between science and scientism, or for that matter, why you keep responding to points I'm not making. If you see scientism in my argument, feel free to point it out, but my point to date has only been that no individual trait or set of traits delineates between a human and a human being/person. That doesn't involve separating "a human being and a person via some stage of growth and development" - in fact, I've continually argued that doing so is arbitrary. I have, however, argued that being human as ascribed by traits is in many cases distinct from being a human being/person. You've agreed to that over the course of this discussion since you agree that not all cells that are clearly human are themselves individual human beings. You've given me a set of traits that you believe delineate between a human person and a human non-person, though so far, you haven't committed to arguing that science ascribes these traits as the beginning of personhood. You've said now that "Its "being" or "essence" starts at conception. That is a consensus of science.", though that's another dodge around my question. Science doesn't engage in concepts of "being" or "essence" - it uses empirical evidence (in this case, some marked traits) to distinguish organisms. If science has determined what those traits are that make a person, please, present them. So far, what I've seen from you are your personal views of what those traits should be.
And even in those, I'm still unclear about a lot of factors. You're now arguing that artificial attempts to generate a person don't preclude ascribing the result personhood, so an embryo that is grown outside of the womb is a person because, eventually, it will be transplanted. What if it isn't? Should we count it as a person all the same? And, if and when we do create an artificial womb that can be used to gestate in vitro fertilized embryos, will the result still be a person? I'm honestly asking because you made this delineation - you included a delineation between artificial methods and natural methods, not me. So I'm curious as to when something is not a person because of artificial impositions. Where's the cutoff?
The rest of this response is moving past the issue, and again, I don't think I even have a clear answer from you yet. If there's a scientific consensus regarding personhood and when it starts, don't just tell me that one exists and send me a bunch of links, tell me how they arrived at it. A consensus in the scientific community doesn't just spring up from personal opinion, it comes from clear delineations and broad agreement about those delineations. If you want to argue that I'm wrong to believe how I do, we can get to that after we've passed what I thought would be a simple baseline of understanding that I still don't believe we have. Honestly, I thought I'd get a clear answer by now and just be done with this part. I also don't appreciate having my position continually mischaracterized, though again, I'll come back to that after we've cleared this portion of the discussion.
Yeah… the way this is framed is, effectively, a truism. Since you’ve restricted all arguments to issues of whether or not any gender affirming practice is hazardous, you’re requiring your opponent to argue that any and all surgeries, procedures and medications associated with the practice present no hazards, which is impossible. Someone could argue that it’s worth the risk, but you’ve barred that argument from the debate.
"I'm just making a point that understanding what the unborn is requires more than biology and science. That only takes you so far, then you plead ignorance and uncertainty."
Technically incorrect. I argued that we are all ignorant on this issue when it comes to issues of biology and science, not just that I personally am ignorant and therefore uncertain, though I agree insofar as uncertainty is an accurate characterization of my position.
"Yes, I do want to hear your justification for when personhood begins, among other things, because it plays a central part in most debates on abortion, including this one and Roe V. Wade. The legalization of abortion, except in rare instances, was made possible in part by the court's understanding of personhood. You admitted you don't know when personhood begins, but I want to hear when you believe and the reasons for that belief."
I haven't given one and I don't plan to do so. I don't believe it's possible to determine precisely when personhood begins, I think I made that abundantly clear. My belief falls in line with that uncertainty, so I don't know why you're expecting a distinct answer to that request. I agree that if we had that answer, it should be central to the debate on abortion. I don't agree that we have it.
"My stance on personhood is from a self-evident perspective and common sense. From a scientific perspective, we know what a human being is, and that it is different from other types of beings. We know that a human being's nature is a personal nature. It deals with what the Unborn is - a human being and the nature of human beings. It also seeks to find out, how from a biological perspective how such a thing can be known and if there is a better or more reasonable explanation. I think I conveyed that."
You conveyed that, but you haven't answered my question, at least not in any form that I can nail down. Do you believe that science has empirically proven when personhood begins? Your position appears to be ontological and derived (at least in part) from the scientific definition of what a human is, but that's not the same thing. Do you believe that science has deduced the exact set of traits necessary for an entity to be designated a person?
I'm not dichotomizing. I'm focusing in on the first, and leaving the second for later discussion. As I recall, we had a habit of going off in a few different directions in our discussions about abortion, which inevitably resulted in long, rambling posts (I'm particularly guilty of that) and having to revisit points over and over. My goal is to get this particular portion of the discussion behind us so that we can focus in on other concerns.
The problem I'm having with your characterization of human nature is that you're reducing it to the biological, i.e. those things that "can be known and verified." They are derived from a sperm and ovum, they go through conception, they generate an individual and separate living organism. Those are all verifiable steps with specific traits that we can identify. Distinguishing a human sperm from a gorilla sperm is also about traits, mainly DNA. But then you go on to say that there's some nebulous "nature" that you cannot define, something distinct from these elements, a part of the ontological aspect. I don't even know what Haeckel's embryos are, and I'm not separating different stages of growth, so I don't know what you think I'm doing here.
"Yes, you identify them as persons correctly. Human male sperm and human female egg are the prerequisites for producing a human being. Yes, that can be done artificially now. That was not the case centuries ago nd it is not natural but artificial."
...But doesn't this run contrary to what you just said about what distinguishes persons from non-persons?
"YOU: "3) Must do so in the absence of any artificial means."
By any intelligent attempts or means to alter its nature since God deemed it what it is."
If this generates a person, then #3 must be an inaccurate characterization of your position.
"Do you believe you are killing a human being? Please answer that. You seem to skip by that time and again."
Pretty sure I clarified this in the debate numerous times, hence I didn't feel that it was necessary to clarify it again here after you read this debate. But fine, I'll give you the same answer I gave Bones: since I can't determine that it is a person, my answer is that I am uncertain. Is the unborn at all stages of development a human being? I don't know.
You seem to have downshifted into a religious stance on the issue, and while I'm not going to challenge you on that basis, that is your perspective and rather distinct from mine. My impression was that you wanted to understand what leads me to my views on abortion, and you initially challenged me (several times in that first set of posts) on the basis that you believe that there is a scientific basis for the start of personhood. You're right, my perspective on personhood is largely driven by what we can empirically prove. It's fine if you think other issues should be paramount, but that's going beyond the issues we've been discussing and I'd like to get past this first. So, forgive me if I'm coming off as stubborn on this, but again, it was your perspective (unless I misread it) that there is a scientifically proven point at which personhood begins. If I'm wrong on that, if we're on the same page that there is no empirical means by which we can determine when personhood begins, then we can count the issue as agreed and move on with that as a baseline. If we can't, then I'd like to wrap that up before we move onto other issues.
PGA, there's a reason I'm focusing on biological differences. Once we get into ontology and natures, we're dealing in non-empirical spheres. Biological distinction is typified by things like "characteristics, traits, qualities, [and] abilities", distinct natures are far more nebulous. What defines human nature? How can we determine that a zygote has human nature? If your response is that at some point, that zygote will become a full grown human, what about all those zygotes that don't make it that far? How can we determine that for them? You talk about a human male and female mating (which, again, is biological), though there are a multitude of circumstances where zygotes are made via other methods, e.g. in vitro fertilization. They are still persons despite the absence of mating. Clearly, mating is not a prerequisite for personhood.
Beyond that, you're just slipping into other subjects, e.g. what imparts value, which is a secondary question.
So, let's just clarify this before we move onto your other questions, because I feel this is rather fundamental to my view and we need to have a clear distinction here before we can get down to the other issues you've presented:
You're saying that unique DNA and the somewhat nebulous aspect of embodying the entirety of a human are both necessary and sufficient for one to be considered a person? When I refer to the latter (and I'll try to break this down as you have, forgive me for any errors), you're arguing that the stage of development must have:
1) The capacity to divide and differentiate into numerous tissue types in and of itself,
2) The capability to do so in the absence of any intervention beyond affording it nutrition and an appropriate environment,
3) Must do so in the absence of any artificial means.
Please, modify this as you see fit, but I'd like a clear statement about what separates a person, in your estimation, from what is simply considered biologically human. I did note that you included "God 'breathing' into them the breath of life", though as that is not an empirical claim, I'm leaving it out of this. I'm seeking a purely scientific reason why the unborn at all stages of development must be considered a person, so adding in religious statements like this detracts from the issue.
Saying it’s by nature punts the question unless you’re no longer arguing that personhood is a empirically established. Nature isn’t something that can be measured in a lab. It’s not a trait we can use to differentiate one organism from another. If it’s not based on traits in your estimation, then we agree to that extent. If it is based on traits, then reducing it to “nature” is too non-specific.
You’re not talking about a single cell or “an entity that isn’t “more than one type of cell”, but you would designate a zygote as a person. I don’t understand that distinction. I also don’t understand why having more than one cell is what makes a human being. Isn’t that just a stage of development? Why isn’t that similarly arbitrary?
To that end, as well, if I take an arm off of a person, I’m not separating one person from another despite the fact that both have differentiated human cells. Maybe this was meant to be a response to that:
“entity that is directing the growth and functioning from within itself of its ENTIRE LIVING BEING”
But I’m unclear because a developing embryo doesn’t direct its own growth, at least not in its entirety. If I were to grow an organ in the lab, I would not be growing a new human, despite the fact that the stem cells I’m using to grow it are able to partially direct their own growth. I’m imposing external growth factors on it to make it grow a specific way. The same is true with an embryo.
So, I ask again: what traits make a person distinct from just being human? You acknowledge that the two are distinct by saying that a skin cell is not a person, but I have yet to see something that differentiates all persons from non-person human cells and tissues.
We are talking about two different things. Scientists can determine whether an organism, tissue or cell is human. We do that by taking a set of traits (DNA most often, since it covers all of them), and noting genes that are indicative of what is human. We can also track the development of specific traits. That’s how science is used to make these determinations.
What you’re talking about is personhood, specifically its beginnings. You would likely not argue that any cell that has human DNA is, itself, a person. A skin cell is not a person. If I injected a pig with human DNA, it does not become a person. And, presumably, you would argue that gametes aren’t persons. These would all be designated as human in some way, shape or form, yet they are not persons. Hence, the issue is the distinction: when does something that is human under biological definitions become a person? I haven’t heard a satisfying answer to this question yet, so I invite you to address it instead of just punting back to me with more questions.
In general, I think a lot of what you've posted here comes down to "personhood matters." I agree that it does, but I disagree that we can accurately designate when personhood begins. To do so empirically requires assigning a specific trait or set of traits as the definitive beginning of personhood. Absent that, it becomes a philosophical question, and different philosophies can and will disagree for a variety of reasons. Frankly, much of my opinion on the beginnings of personhood and how much it should factor into the issue of abortion stems from this: greater uncertainty should render this portion of the issue a minor one when considering policy. That's not a dismissal of personhood as an issue, that just recognizes that our policy shouldn't be dictated by an arbitrary answer to a question we have no means to adequately answer.
Alright, I can at least address your questions.
Can Con say that the Unborn is NOT a human being? (I do not believe he can reasonably do this, nor has he. What is the consensus from Science?).
I didn't say that, and I'm not saying that now. I was pretty blatant about my position. Regarding what science can do, if you're talking about empirically showing that a given form of life is a human being, that depends on the criteria. I'll note that Bones himself said that selecting specific criteria for what is a human being is problematic, mainly because it's arbitrary. So, since we cannot answer that scientifically because we cannot define what specific physical aspects make a human being, I think that relegates the question of whether the unborn is a person to philosophy.
Can he say that the Unborn is not a PERSON? (He has admitted he can't).
That's repetitious with the above question. I treat "human being" and "person" identically.
Can Con say the Unborn is only a blob of tissue? (Not according to science).
I didn't, and I don't.
Can Con say it is okay to kill human beings without just cause? (Not unless he believes human beings are not intrinsically valuable).
I didn't, and I don't.
Does Con believe innocent human beings such as the Unborn are worthless? (If he does, and he appears to, he also places little to zero worth on his own life or that of his family. Is he willing to do that? Can anybody just take those lives without reprecussion? Where is the justice there? There is none. Yet he permits it in the case of the Unborn. Where is the justice there?).
I didn't, and I don't. At no point in this debate did I make any statement to that effect.
Is the Unborn an innocent human being? (What has it done wrong? Nothing. Did it choose its circumstances. No, generally speaking, the woman and man consented to sexual intercourse knowing that it could lead to pregnancy. Does she have a responsibility in engaging in sex? She now thinks not).
I have argued and will continue to argue that determining that the unborn is a human being is a philosophical question. As such, I push back on the notion that the unborn is empirically defined as a human being.
Is the woman consenting to kill another innocent human being? (Yes, she is if she agrees to end the life in her womb without just cause).
See above.
I appreciate the extensive thoughts on the topic, but I'm a bit lost on what you're looking to get from all this.
We've discussed this issue privately at great length, and I'm willing to extend that here, but you seem to be bouncing between presenting your own arguments for why certain points require more attention from me and talking about issues that were directly covered in the debate. If you want to talk about this debate as we wrote it, we can do that. If you want to talk about your perspective on the topic and personhood, specifically, we can do that. I'd rather ensure that I'm focused on one than try to cover both simultaneously.
As was discussed previously, a similar performance has resulted in this debate returning to unrated.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
Under the Foregone Conclusions section of the voting policy:
"For debates in which any reasonable person would know the argument outcome from barest of skimming, they may rightly be declared a foregone conclusion and held to a somewhat lower standard when voting against the dolt. Effectively, if one side does not give enough of a topical argument to weigh, then there is no need to write a more detailed vote than their lack of a case.
While the sufficiency standard clearly points to appeals to the quantity of arguments not being enough, someone with a single line assertion against a warranted case with sources simply does not merit the same level of consideration. "
This debate meets this standard, as the degree and extent of argumentation is clearly and demonstrably distinct. The vote is sufficient in that the voter pointed out that this was a foregone conclusion and awards argument points on that basis.
**************************************************
...This isn't exactly a situation we see often where someone accepts two debates offered by the same user and then decides not to argue on either one. Usually, when this happens, the instigator asks us to remove the debate entirely since it becomes a waste of time. So, no, we don't have a set of rules or guidelines that include this specific set of circumstances suffices as spam. That's why moderators have discretion on instances like this.
Your opponent would render it spam by effectively turning it into a carbon copy of the previous debate.
This debate has been reverted to rated with the caveat that a similar performance by Con would effectively render this as spam and it will return to unrated.
This debate has been reverted to rated, both on the basis that it finished as a rated debate and because it was not obviously spam. That being said, as a repeat of this debate was posted with the same opponent, a repeat performance in that debate will be treated as spam. I will similarly revert that debate to rated.
Don’t think I’ll get to this one in time.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Vici // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
The title says:
All things considered, the problem of evil is not a significant problem for the existence of God.
Description says:
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.
It is clear that, from the description alone, omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible - one means all loving and one means all powerful yet this is tautologically incompatible to our world, logic does not allow for "all loving" and "all powerful" to then allow for evils to exist, for evil is tautologically contrary to all lovingness. The instigator has created a tautolgical impossibility from the get go, and as logic dictates, impossibility is impossible to come back from, hence nothing PRO says can possibly be rendered true.
Thus, as the description describes a state of affair which is simply impossible, PRO cannot win.
>Reason for Mod Action:
...Honestly, where to start?
The voter quotes from the description where the instigator included an excerpt from Wikipedia to define what the debate is about. The voter then claims that this same quote somehow also establishes a rule that two of those terms are incompatible, despite the fact that the quote does not include the word "incompatible" and instead simply defines what the basis for argumentation is. This definition cannot reasonably be mistaken for a rule or establish a tautology that both sides must adhere to in order to proceed with the debate. Interpreting it as such adds to and twists the words in the description.
The voter also awards arguments to Con on the basis that Pro created a tautological impossibility without applying what that actually means to the debate itself. There are two sides in this debate, one affirming and one negating the resolution. Instead of factoring that into their decision, the voter simply says "impossibility is impossible to come back from" and claims that Pro can't have a true argument as long as the tautology exists, essentially rendering a vote because the voter has a problem with tautologies rather than because of anything relevant to the debate.
**************************************************
I'll give it a look if it is reported, I guess.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sidewalker // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro set up the debate with the first two lines, and then did nothing to establish that USFG has the ability to overturn an election, which of course it doesn't, there is no constitutional or legal process for doing so, and secondly he did nothing to establish line two to show the requisite evidence of fraudulent voting that could have mattered in the first place. Instead he seems to rely on the complex set of rules that followed to gain the win, but that certainly did not make his case. I awarded condut point to con based on the attempt by pro to utilize rules rather than argument to win, I think it was a disengenuous attempt.
You win a debate with content and a strong argument, I don't think you can win a debate on a technicality of rules complexity, nor can you turn over an Federal election on one, especially in the absense of any established rules for overturning an election whatsoever. While the rules were complex and presumably designed to favor pro, I don't think pro complied any better then con, you could probably have three more debates about each rule.
Lastly, considering that rule 7 has been tested in court on this subject 60 times and lost every time, I'm was convinced pro's argument would need to be extraordinary, but it didn't appear to even be trying to make the requisite argument. May as well have just stated he thinks we should overturn the election because Trump said to, as far as I can tell, that was the actual basis of his argument.
As far as acual content, reason, and facts go, Con made the case strongly, with a solid argument and good sources.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter does assess some points presented in the debate, he solely focuses on arguments presented by Con and does not engage with responses from Pro or any of Pro's arguments. This specific point may be the most important one in the debate, but the voter cannot simply say that without touching upon the responses to it.
The conduct point is insufficiently explained. Both sides attempted to use the rules in this manner, and while Pro is the one who wrote those rules, Con did accept them by taking the debate. Any justification for conduct on this basis must include that context.
The source points are insufficiently explained. The voter just says that Con had good sources, which is not a comparison of the sources presented in the debate, nor is it sufficient evaluation of Con's sources to award these points.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Novice_II // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
Quoting the voting policy:
"Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards)."
As such, votes on this debate are not moderated so long as they do not award more points to the side that forfeited every round over the side that forfeited all but one round.
**************************************************
I understand that you're still relatively new to the site and to voting. This removal is not meant to dissuade you from voting, just to draw attention to the missing elements in your RFD. In particular, though I didn't mention this as part of the reasons for removal, it's best not to insert arguments or perspectives that are not presented by the debaters themselves, as you did with rule 7. It may be a valid point, but if it's not given by the debaters, then you're essentially inserting yourself into the debate.
I should think not, though I'm just getting some thoughts out about it.
This is an issue that we should specify, though we'll have to discuss it in some detail first. My initial thoughts are that any changes can be made before it is accepted, but that the circumstances in which that can happen should decrease after it is accepted. Cases like this where the instigator expresses what they want the debate to be in the description, but does not format the debate in the same manner, seem like a legitimate case for moderation to make those expressed changes after it is accepted.
From the description and K_Michael's follow-up comments, I have a hard time believing that he wants this to be rated. Even if he did, one of the debaters here is disclosing that his arguments aren't being written by himself, that they are being taken from a text generator. It's not something we've had to deal with before, but in concept, a debater obtaining (or even trying to obtain) ELO using an outside resource to fully write their arguments, even if it's disclosed, should not be allowed. I'll discuss it with the rest of moderation, but that's my take on it.
Fixed it.
I am still planning on voting on this, guys, mainly just need to re-read those final rounds and get my thoughts together.
I’ll aim to get a vote up on this. Remind me as it gets later in the voting period.
I'll say up front that no one is required to award any specific category of points, regardless of what happens in the debate.
Additionally, full forfeits have different rules:
"Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards)."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
As such, votes on this debate are not moderated so long as the voter awards more points to you.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter appears to spend a large portion of their RFD explaining how they would run an argument differently from Pro, they do nonetheless provide specific analysis of the arguments presented by both sides and how that affects their decision. As with previous RFDs, the voter does not need to go into detail about how each point from the debaters does or doesn't work. So long as the voter provides feedback that applies to many or all of the arguments presented by each side, that is sufficient.
**************************************************
Feels like you've got a different perception of what is "the HEART of" the argument in this debate. Voters are allowed to make that determination for themselves. That doesn't mean they can dismiss your case wholesale without explanation, but it does mean that they have some leeway when it comes to evaluation of what arguments matter in a debate and why. K_Michael gave you a specific reason why he believes your arguments don't work. Though he doesn't outright point to two of your arguments, he still gives reasoning for why they would not matter in this debate: because of what is written in the description. You clearly argued against that perception, but just because you argued it doesn't mean that that argument must be a substantial factor in a voter's decision, particularly if they didn't find it compelling.
As for sources, I really don't understand your point. Both sides used common knowledge sources. K_Michael pointed to a source from Barney that is not common knowledge and required more digging into the data. Unless you have reason to believe that source of yours should be considered similarly potent, I don't think this is responsive to his reasoning.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does sufficiently analyze arguments insofar as he covers points presented by both debaters and considers their context with regards to the description. The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points. This appears to be the case with this vote. If the contents of this vote were only specific to a dropped point presented by Pro, that would be a problem, but the reasoning this voter gives as central to his decision - that the description confines what can be discussed to what is present on this site - is sufficiently explained and covers other points made in the debate.
The voter also sufficiently analyzes sources, taking specific examples from both debaters for comparison.
**************************************************