Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative

like 0

1) Burden of Proof on each side "Your position in this debate is to argue that there is a 100% chance" Which I am doing. I am also arguing my case that far better than you are arguing the case you are suppossed to be arguing, that there is a zero percent chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary/_______. "I interpret this debate so that the BoP is on Pro since their role in this debate is to prove that there is a 100% chance. " Actually you didnt.... In your (epically failed) attempt at trolling, you only ever stated what my BoP is, not that the entire BoP is on me. You afforded me the opportunity to define what YOUR OWN burden of proof is, which I have done, and now you are paying the price for it XD "You cannot prove my argument 100% false" Reality itself states that your argument is 100% false, because there is no reason why an alien who could consume planets would come all the way to Earth just to play football in human form, and then suck at it. Your trolling is bad, and you should feel bad "so it is possible that I would have a brain" It may be possible , but judging from your arguments, your win ratio, and your trolling abilities, it is probable that you dont have a brain ;) "you cannot create new rules in R2 since I have accepted the debate that is unfair on me since I did not know that you would do that." Well that's too bad for you :) Like I said, I know how to play this game far better than you. "It is like me doing a God debate and suddenly changing the defininitions and stating that my opponnet cannot argue against the definitions in any way halfway through the debate - that's just unfair." Except I didnt actually change the definitions of anything, I only elaborated on what YOUR Burden of Proof is, since you neglected to do so in the first place, and also locking down your ability to try to wriggle your way out of it ;) "New rules aren't allowed half way through a debate" There was no rule in the first round stating that I couldnt add new rules halfway through the debate, and your interpretation of the debate never said that I couldn't add new rules halfway through the debate XD "And by the way, just because you have been on this site longer - it does not mean that you are a better troll than me" No, the reason I'm a better troll than you because I'm in the actual Hall of Fame on this site predominantly FOR trolling: <URL>... "I am certain that I am better." If you're the better troll than me then how come IM the one who turned the tables on YOU and now YOU are the one whining about it like a baby? :) ========================================================================================================== To summarize the debate, It is my duty, as interpreted by con, to prove that there is a 100% chance that a Biden/Warren ticket would beat a Clinton/__________ ticket. I have provided substantial evidence in round 1 indicating that there is a 100% chance of this happening, ALL of which con has failed to dispute, and has therefore conceded. Con on the other hand had to argue why there is a 0% chance of a Biden/Warren ticket beating a Clinton/__________ ticket in the primaries, and he has failed to do that spectacularly. He has cited no evidence at all that Clinton + ? would ALWAYS beat Biden + Warren. Instead, con has spent the entire time disputing me changing the rules of the debate, even though he did exactly that in round one. Con concedes all arguments made in round 1, and therefore, you should vote pro. Better luck next time con ;)

imabench

1) Burden of Proof on each side "Your position in this debate is to argue that there is a 100% chance" Which I am doing. I am also arguing my case that far better than you are arguing the case you are suppossed to be arguing, that there is a zero percent chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary/_______. "I interpret this debate so that the BoP is on Pro since their role in this debate is to prove that there is a 100% chance. " Actually you didnt.... In your (epically failed) attempt at trolling, you only ever stated what my BoP is, not that the entire BoP is on me. You afforded me the opportunity to define what YOUR OWN burden of proof is, which I have done, and now you are paying the price for it XD "You cannot prove my argument 100% false" Reality itself states that your argument is 100% false, because there is no reason why an alien who could consume planets would come all the way to Earth just to play football in human form, and then suck at it. Your trolling is bad, and you should feel bad "so it is possible that I would have a brain" It may be possible , but judging from your arguments, your win ratio, and your trolling abilities, it is probable that you dont have a brain ;) "you cannot create new rules in R2 since I have accepted the debate that is unfair on me since I did not know that you would do that." Well that's too bad for you :) Like I said, I know how to play this game far better than you. "It is like me doing a God debate and suddenly changing the defininitions and stating that my opponnet cannot argue against the definitions in any way halfway through the debate - that's just unfair." Except I didnt actually change the definitions of anything, I only elaborated on what YOUR Burden of Proof is, since you neglected to do so in the first place, and also locking down your ability to try to wriggle your way out of it ;) "New rules aren't allowed half way through a debate" There was no rule in the first round stating that I couldnt add new rules halfway through the debate, and your interpretation of the debate never said that I couldn't add new rules halfway through the debate XD "And by the way, just because you have been on this site longer - it does not mean that you are a better troll than me" No, the reason I'm a better troll than you because I'm in the actual Hall of Fame on this site predominantly FOR trolling: http://www.debate.org... "I am certain that I am better." If you're the better troll than me then how come IM the one who turned the tables on YOU and now YOU are the one whining about it like a baby? :) ========================================================================================================== To summarize the debate, It is my duty, as interpreted by con, to prove that there is a 100% chance that a Biden/Warren ticket would beat a Clinton/__________ ticket. I have provided substantial evidence in round 1 indicating that there is a 100% chance of this happening, ALL of which con has failed to dispute, and has therefore conceded. Con on the other hand had to argue why there is a 0% chance of a Biden/Warren ticket beating a Clinton/__________ ticket in the primaries, and he has failed to do that spectacularly. He has cited no evidence at all that Clinton + ? would ALWAYS beat Biden + Warren. Instead, con has spent the entire time disputing me changing the rules of the debate, even though he did exactly that in round one. Con concedes all arguments made in round 1, and therefore, you should vote pro. Better luck next time con ;)

Politics

A-Joe-Biden-Elizabeth-Warren-ticket-would-defeat-a-Hillary-Clinton-ticket-in-the-primaries/1/

So, I do LD in high school and found out that I know Bsh1 outside of DDO. He crushed me in my round at NCFL nationals, and I would like to have a rematch if he's up to it. I'd like first round to be acceptance, and then just proceed from there.

LtCmdrData

So, I do LD in high school and found out that I know Bsh1 outside of DDO. He crushed me in my round at NCFL nationals, and I would like to have a rematch if he's up to it. I'd like first round to be acceptance, and then just proceed from there.

Philosophy

A-Just-Society-Sould-Never-Deliberately-Initiate-War/1/

Yeah--sorry about the mix up on sides. But, I guess it should be intriguing to see our arguments for the opposite take on the topic. Okay, here's my case: I negate. Observation One: Never is defined by Merriam Webster as "at no time; under no circumstances." Thus, the affirmative must argue that a just society, regardless of other considerations, cannot go to war. If there are conditions under which a just society may deliberately initiate war, i.e. if there is a possibility a just society may initiate war, then one must negate. Observation Two: "Should" expresses what is best or most suitable. This is illustrated by the sentence, "people should eat healthy." Thus, an affirmative is arguing that war is never the best or most suitable course of action for a just society. Observation Three: To say that a just society exists is not to say that a just society cannot be surrounded by unjust or aggressive ones. We cannot say, therefore, that a just society exists in isolation from threats that it may need to respond to. My value premise is Societal Welfare, defined as the health and wellbeing of a society and its members. When discussing whether societies should or should not initiate war, we must consider how war will impact a society"s welfare. Thus, prefer this value on strength of link. The value criterion for this round must be Pragmatism, defined as practicality in problem-solving. According to Prof. Gary Woller, prefer pragmatism as a weighing calculus because societies must act practically. He contends: "Appeals to a priori moral principles...often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense"the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that"their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society." This implies a discussion of pragmatism. Woller 2 observes that: "deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy...a priori moral principles...do not themselves suggest appropriate public policies, and"create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem." My premise is that it is both possible for a just society to go to war and that it is practical for a just society"on occasion"to employ war as a tool from the toolkit. Point One: There are external threats a just society will need to preemptively respond to. According to Prof. James Schall, "Machiavelli advised that a prince should spend most of his time preparing for war...If we are this prince"s neighbors, do we take no notice of his preparations?...The prince thinks war is an answer. It can help him in his goal of acquiring and keeping power. We may have to suffer a defeat at his hands, but we should not choose to bring one on ourselves. Though much carnage happens in war, still we cannot conclude from this that 'war is not the answer.' It may not be the only answer," but it is oftentimes the most practical. "No valid alternative to war can be a mere...frivolous hope that nothing bad will happen no matter what." Point Two: War as a means of intervention is oftentimes effective. Professors Western and Goldstein note: "many of the criticisms formulated in response to the botched campaigns of 1992-95 still guide the conversation about intervention today. The charges are outdated. Contrary to the claims that interventions prolong wars...the most violent and protracted cases in recent history...have been cases in which the international community was unwilling either to intervene or to sustain a commitment with credible force." According to Prof. Patrick Regan of the University of Canterbury, 82.4 percent of major power interventions are successful. Point Three: Nonviolent acts often are unsuccessful. Prof. Brian Martin notes, "Nonviolent action is not guaranteed to succeed...The...prodemocracy movement in China, after a short flowering, was crushed in the Beijing massacre. Perhaps more worrying are the dispiriting aftermaths following some short-term successes of nonviolent action...The aftermath of the Iranian revolution was disastrous. The new Islamic regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini was just as ruthless as its predecessor." Ultimately, he concludes non-violent resistances alone tend to fail on balance. Point Four: The initiation of precise, limited war now, does prevent more destructive war later. Prof. W. Burke-White contends that deliberately initiated war is a tool that can force other governments to respect human rights. Even the possibility of it being used deters regimes from infringing global ethical norms. This in turn promotes peace. He states: "states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression...a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance global security" by reducing a nation"s war capital. Point Five: War is justified as a tool in the toolkit. Affirming would rule out war for any reasons. It makes sense that, even if war does not work in all cases, that we don"t rule it out, because there may a come a time when it will be the best option. To place such restrictions on action"as the affirmative would have us do"is not pragmatic or reasonable. It is not in the best interests of any society. Therefore, war should be justified as a tool in our toolkit; it doesn"t need to be used in every case, but it should be there in case we need it. Insofar as it"s possible for a just society to wage war, and that having the ability to initiate war is highly practical, it is in the interest of societal welfare to negate"thus ensuring a just society"s ability to respond to its needs in the most suitable manner possible, even if that means war.

LtCmdrData

Yeah--sorry about the mix up on sides. But, I guess it should be intriguing to see our arguments for the opposite take on the topic. Okay, here's my case: I negate. Observation One: Never is defined by Merriam Webster as "at no time; under no circumstances." Thus, the affirmative must argue that a just society, regardless of other considerations, cannot go to war. If there are conditions under which a just society may deliberately initiate war, i.e. if there is a possibility a just society may initiate war, then one must negate. Observation Two: "Should" expresses what is best or most suitable. This is illustrated by the sentence, "people should eat healthy." Thus, an affirmative is arguing that war is never the best or most suitable course of action for a just society. Observation Three: To say that a just society exists is not to say that a just society cannot be surrounded by unjust or aggressive ones. We cannot say, therefore, that a just society exists in isolation from threats that it may need to respond to. My value premise is Societal Welfare, defined as the health and wellbeing of a society and its members. When discussing whether societies should or should not initiate war, we must consider how war will impact a society"s welfare. Thus, prefer this value on strength of link. The value criterion for this round must be Pragmatism, defined as practicality in problem-solving. According to Prof. Gary Woller, prefer pragmatism as a weighing calculus because societies must act practically. He contends: "Appeals to a priori moral principles...often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense"the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that"their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society." This implies a discussion of pragmatism. Woller 2 observes that: "deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy...a priori moral principles...do not themselves suggest appropriate public policies, and"create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem." My premise is that it is both possible for a just society to go to war and that it is practical for a just society"on occasion"to employ war as a tool from the toolkit. Point One: There are external threats a just society will need to preemptively respond to. According to Prof. James Schall, "Machiavelli advised that a prince should spend most of his time preparing for war...If we are this prince"s neighbors, do we take no notice of his preparations?...The prince thinks war is an answer. It can help him in his goal of acquiring and keeping power. We may have to suffer a defeat at his hands, but we should not choose to bring one on ourselves. Though much carnage happens in war, still we cannot conclude from this that 'war is not the answer.' It may not be the only answer," but it is oftentimes the most practical. "No valid alternative to war can be a mere...frivolous hope that nothing bad will happen no matter what." Point Two: War as a means of intervention is oftentimes effective. Professors Western and Goldstein note: "many of the criticisms formulated in response to the botched campaigns of 1992-95 still guide the conversation about intervention today. The charges are outdated. Contrary to the claims that interventions prolong wars...the most violent and protracted cases in recent history...have been cases in which the international community was unwilling either to intervene or to sustain a commitment with credible force." According to Prof. Patrick Regan of the University of Canterbury, 82.4 percent of major power interventions are successful. Point Three: Nonviolent acts often are unsuccessful. Prof. Brian Martin notes, "Nonviolent action is not guaranteed to succeed...The...prodemocracy movement in China, after a short flowering, was crushed in the Beijing massacre. Perhaps more worrying are the dispiriting aftermaths following some short-term successes of nonviolent action...The aftermath of the Iranian revolution was disastrous. The new Islamic regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini was just as ruthless as its predecessor." Ultimately, he concludes non-violent resistances alone tend to fail on balance. Point Four: The initiation of precise, limited war now, does prevent more destructive war later. Prof. W. Burke-White contends that deliberately initiated war is a tool that can force other governments to respect human rights. Even the possibility of it being used deters regimes from infringing global ethical norms. This in turn promotes peace. He states: "states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression...a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance global security" by reducing a nation"s war capital. Point Five: War is justified as a tool in the toolkit. Affirming would rule out war for any reasons. It makes sense that, even if war does not work in all cases, that we don"t rule it out, because there may a come a time when it will be the best option. To place such restrictions on action"as the affirmative would have us do"is not pragmatic or reasonable. It is not in the best interests of any society. Therefore, war should be justified as a tool in our toolkit; it doesn"t need to be used in every case, but it should be there in case we need it. Insofar as it"s possible for a just society to wage war, and that having the ability to initiate war is highly practical, it is in the interest of societal welfare to negate"thus ensuring a just society"s ability to respond to its needs in the most suitable manner possible, even if that means war.

Philosophy

A-Just-Society-Sould-Never-Deliberately-Initiate-War/1/

Do debaters normally respond this quickly...? Well, that speech was the same style from bsh1 that I saw at NCFLs, and it was effective. This should be a challenge! I'm not sure if I can bold or italicize things on this site, so bear with me on formatting. I think I'll go AC, NC, and see how that works. Here we go... Bsh1: The definitions are generally okay, but I will quarrel with one portion of the definition of a JS. I think that the last line about having "concern for the rights of all peoples and societies" is nebulous. I think that a JS could be non-interventionist or even isolationist as long as it acts generally in a just fashion. Look at Switzerland--it's just, but it pursues a noncommittal foreign policy. So, I agree with everything in the definitions, except that last sentence. Alright, on to the observations. I'm on board with the idea that "disdain" isn't war, and that there actually needs to be conflict, but I don't think it needs to be widespread. Look at the North Koreans idiots. They fire rockets into South Korea periodically, just to remind people that they're all at war. It's not widespread, but it is real, occasional violence. As for "never," I would wager that the most accepted definition is the one I gave, and so that should be preferred. Colloquial speech is not the same as what the term denotes. Your definition is colloquial, and not a denotation. As "never" is being used more formally here, my denotative definition is better. You agree with my value. I was a bit surprised that you did this, but I guess it gave you more time to rebut my contentions. So, this round should be weighed from a pragmatic (cost-benefit-like) view, with the goal of achieve the awesome value of Societal Welfare. Point A (PA): You know, Mutual Assured Destruction has done a TON to prevent violence. Look at the USSR and the US, they have never directly waged war against one another. Arguably, this would have been more devastating then the proxy wars they fought. But, the arms race has really dropped off--look at how many countries have signed on to treaties against WMDs. Look at South Africa who gave up its nuclear technology. And, this reduction in WMDs is happening even as preemption becomes a global legal norm, as with Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, etc. Also, sanctions and the Geneva Convention seem like, and are, great ways of checking the risk of "total war." That's one of those phrases where if you drop your voice a few octaves and say the phrase, your argument sounds really impressive. But, in reality, we have WMDs, but they are rarely used in actual combat, especially with the advent of UN measure to curb the practice. PB: War is not just about procuring power, man. It can be used for a variety of purposes: humanitarian intervention, proactive self-defense, yada yada yada...So, if your concern is a unilateral drop in the threshold for self-defense, why not have a multilateral agreement. Your argument here doesn't actually affirm, because I can still lower the threshold, and thus defeat the Murdoch evidence, but I just have to do it multilaterally. PC: "Usually" poor intelligence does not mean that poor intelligence will be a problem in all, or even many, cases. This does prove that JS can "never" initiate war, even if you believe that never is very rare. PD: War doesn't always annoy other nations. Look at humanitarian interventions; they can have a wide base of support. Also, just annoying other nations won't lead to more violence. We annoy the Russians all the time with our interventionist antics, but we're not at war with them yet, are we? In fact, we even communicate with them! PE: Okay, so this argument is just a permutation of the negative. I can also have diplomacy, homeland security, and counterterrorism. But, I also keep war as a tool in the tool kit because you never know when war will be the best option. LtCmdrData: OV: A just society is not a perfect society. All societies, just or otherwise, will occasionally have to act pragmatically, even if that means doing something unjust. A just society is just on the whole, meaning that if you subtract its unjust behavior from its just behavior, a JS is still net just. Basically, it's like a JS is net just, not always just. This is borne out in the framework you agreed to. We're talking about pragmatism, not moral absolutes. So, this is a great place to apply my "deontology bad" arguments from earlier (see my criterion paragraph in my NC.) Obs. 1 - I rebutted this fallacy earlier... Obs. 2 - Great! Obs. 3 - We'll see... P1: You say you're endorsing "prudence." Well, it's not prudent to rule out options, is it? Then you're tying your hands. So, if you try all those alternatives and they still don't work, then what? Then, you have to be able to use war as a last resort. P2: Okay, so W&G; is old...but the Canterbury evidence is still valid. And, old doesn't mean bad. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's not correct, and you never dispute the card's accuracy. P3: The "unilateral adoption of a pacifist stance by one nation" leaves that nation vulnerable to attack. Cross-apply Machiavelli here. Plus, you argue for more homeland security, but then say we should decrease military security? A bit contradictory... Also, you never really rebutted the fact that nonviolent resistance doesn't have a awesome/super amazing/supercalifragilistic record, so this point should be carried across the flow. P4: Again with the alternatives. This is just a permutation of my case. It's so non-unique it's not funny. I can do the alternatives too, I just don't rule out war. So, when the alternatives fail, I have war in my back pocket, so I can try the alternatives first. So, I won't have to tradeoff with war, because I can do all of these things. It's not an either/or situation. P5: I already addressed this... Alright, that's all I've got to say this round. Adios!

LtCmdrData

Do debaters normally respond this quickly...? Well, that speech was the same style from bsh1 that I saw at NCFLs, and it was effective. This should be a challenge! I'm not sure if I can bold or italicize things on this site, so bear with me on formatting. I think I'll go AC, NC, and see how that works. Here we go... Bsh1: The definitions are generally okay, but I will quarrel with one portion of the definition of a JS. I think that the last line about having "concern for the rights of all peoples and societies" is nebulous. I think that a JS could be non-interventionist or even isolationist as long as it acts generally in a just fashion. Look at Switzerland--it's just, but it pursues a noncommittal foreign policy. So, I agree with everything in the definitions, except that last sentence. Alright, on to the observations. I'm on board with the idea that "disdain" isn't war, and that there actually needs to be conflict, but I don't think it needs to be widespread. Look at the North Koreans idiots. They fire rockets into South Korea periodically, just to remind people that they're all at war. It's not widespread, but it is real, occasional violence. As for "never," I would wager that the most accepted definition is the one I gave, and so that should be preferred. Colloquial speech is not the same as what the term denotes. Your definition is colloquial, and not a denotation. As "never" is being used more formally here, my denotative definition is better. You agree with my value. I was a bit surprised that you did this, but I guess it gave you more time to rebut my contentions. So, this round should be weighed from a pragmatic (cost-benefit-like) view, with the goal of achieve the awesome value of Societal Welfare. Point A (PA): You know, Mutual Assured Destruction has done a TON to prevent violence. Look at the USSR and the US, they have never directly waged war against one another. Arguably, this would have been more devastating then the proxy wars they fought. But, the arms race has really dropped off--look at how many countries have signed on to treaties against WMDs. Look at South Africa who gave up its nuclear technology. And, this reduction in WMDs is happening even as preemption becomes a global legal norm, as with Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, etc. Also, sanctions and the Geneva Convention seem like, and are, great ways of checking the risk of "total war." That's one of those phrases where if you drop your voice a few octaves and say the phrase, your argument sounds really impressive. But, in reality, we have WMDs, but they are rarely used in actual combat, especially with the advent of UN measure to curb the practice. PB: War is not just about procuring power, man. It can be used for a variety of purposes: humanitarian intervention, proactive self-defense, yada yada yada...So, if your concern is a unilateral drop in the threshold for self-defense, why not have a multilateral agreement. Your argument here doesn't actually affirm, because I can still lower the threshold, and thus defeat the Murdoch evidence, but I just have to do it multilaterally. PC: "Usually" poor intelligence does not mean that poor intelligence will be a problem in all, or even many, cases. This does prove that JS can "never" initiate war, even if you believe that never is very rare. PD: War doesn't always annoy other nations. Look at humanitarian interventions; they can have a wide base of support. Also, just annoying other nations won't lead to more violence. We annoy the Russians all the time with our interventionist antics, but we're not at war with them yet, are we? In fact, we even communicate with them! PE: Okay, so this argument is just a permutation of the negative. I can also have diplomacy, homeland security, and counterterrorism. But, I also keep war as a tool in the tool kit because you never know when war will be the best option. LtCmdrData: OV: A just society is not a perfect society. All societies, just or otherwise, will occasionally have to act pragmatically, even if that means doing something unjust. A just society is just on the whole, meaning that if you subtract its unjust behavior from its just behavior, a JS is still net just. Basically, it's like a JS is net just, not always just. This is borne out in the framework you agreed to. We're talking about pragmatism, not moral absolutes. So, this is a great place to apply my "deontology bad" arguments from earlier (see my criterion paragraph in my NC.) Obs. 1 - I rebutted this fallacy earlier... Obs. 2 - Great! Obs. 3 - We'll see... P1: You say you're endorsing "prudence." Well, it's not prudent to rule out options, is it? Then you're tying your hands. So, if you try all those alternatives and they still don't work, then what? Then, you have to be able to use war as a last resort. P2: Okay, so W&G; is old...but the Canterbury evidence is still valid. And, old doesn't mean bad. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's not correct, and you never dispute the card's accuracy. P3: The "unilateral adoption of a pacifist stance by one nation" leaves that nation vulnerable to attack. Cross-apply Machiavelli here. Plus, you argue for more homeland security, but then say we should decrease military security? A bit contradictory... Also, you never really rebutted the fact that nonviolent resistance doesn't have a awesome/super amazing/supercalifragilistic record, so this point should be carried across the flow. P4: Again with the alternatives. This is just a permutation of my case. It's so non-unique it's not funny. I can do the alternatives too, I just don't rule out war. So, when the alternatives fail, I have war in my back pocket, so I can try the alternatives first. So, I won't have to tradeoff with war, because I can do all of these things. It's not an either/or situation. P5: I already addressed this... Alright, that's all I've got to say this round. Adios!

Philosophy

A-Just-Society-Sould-Never-Deliberately-Initiate-War/1/

I guess the AC, NC order is working out, so I'll just stick with it for this round. Thanks for Pro for accepting the rematch--I think it's been closer then the round we did at NCFLs. Maybe the flipped sides had something to do with that...IDK. Anyway, I'll stop digressing and get to the debating. Bsh1: Fine, I can agree with your whole definition so long as it is understood that the resolution is not saying that a society must always be interventionist. Obs. 1 - Most people would agree that the Koreas are still at war, despite the lack of widespread conflict, so that kinda backs up what I said earlier--war doesn't need widespread conflict to be war. As for the Congo-Rwanda example, that may be true in their geopolitical situation, but the geopolitical situation in Korea is different. This means that, depending on locale, war is not necessarily widespread. Obs. 2 - Regardless of the source, "very rare" is a colloquial definitions. The examples you offer are colloquial. Not only that, but most definitions/dictionaries define "never" the way I did. You never rebutted this, and when I say that, I don't mean "very rarely." Flow this point across. Thus, my definition is more predictable and fair, and should be preferred. PA: No, obviously MAD won't prevent war in all cases--but you never rebut that MAD does prevent some war. But, the fact that MAD isn't foolproof is correct. That's why we have a UN, with enforceable resolutions, and why we have the Geneva Convention. These check against the risk of "total war," because nations don't want these penalties imposed on them. You use the example of Syria, well, look at Syria now. The U.S. threatened it with war unless it stopped using WMDs, and Syria stopped. This shows how war itself can be used as a tool against "total war." this turns your argument by showing that initiations of war (as the U.S. was about to do) can be good. PB: You totally drop my argument that Murdoch is talking about "unilaterally" imposed thresholds. That's completely fixable, and I, in my world, can fix it. Thus, this argument doesn't actually harm my advocacy. Then, you talk about "cycle of violence" as not reserved for power-mongering. Yet, power was the only thing Schuman addressed. And really, humanitarian efforts like Libya have not led to more violence, so that kinda defeats your claim that initiating war always leads to these cycles. PC: You basically concede that this offense is insufficient to affirm, which is all I wanted to show. So...yeah. That's good. PD: War is a last resort strategy. If we try alternatives first, we won't always have to annoy other nations. Then, if the alternatives fail, we can use war when we need it. Some war with some annoyance is better then tying our hands. And, don't forget, I don't say that war is the best option in all cases, just that it should be a tool in the toolkit. PE: You admit that I can perm your argument. Thus, I can co-opt all the benefits of alternatives while still having war as a potential tool in case I need it. That's good for me. Alright, everyone. Let's summarize my offense thus far. (1) Never is an absolute prohibition. Bsh1 must show that initiating war is ALWAYS impermissible for a just society. (2) Total War is unlikely when you consider MAD as well as international checks against it. (3) PC is insufficient offense for Bsh1 to win the debate. (4) I can co-opt his alternatives and their benefits. Thus, I not only get those benefits, but also any potential benefits from war. So, if war has any benefits AT ALL, I will have more benefits that Bsh1, who is limited to his alternatives. Under a pragmatic calculus, then, I win. LtCmdrData: OV: This is now a nonissue... Obs. 1, 2, 3 - Already hashed-out... P1: The cesium example was cool. Great imagery. Yet, even cesium can have some benefits. If I want to break into a safe for example. Then, cesium would be great. So, clearly, I should still keep some cesium around, just in case I'm in a larcenous mood. P2: Yeah, don't have the link to the Canterbury stuff. It's in text form. But, W&G; still can be corroborated by it... P3: Fine, so homeland and military are different, and you can do self-defense. But, not being able to prevent attacks still sucks. If the bomber are already about to unload their contents over New York city, its a bit late to scramble the jets in defense. It's so much better just to annihilate the bomber before they've even taken off. Preemption is a key component of effective self-defense. If you accept that, then you accept that initiating war is sometimes okay. At that point, you ought to vote for me. P4: Okay, yeah. So I might need to tradeoff every now and again. So what? Having options gives me flexibility; in that sense, the very fact that I have a tradeoff is nice, 'cause I can weigh the options. P5: Yeah, yeah. Already covered this. More analysis of the offense: (1) Preemption is beneficial. (2) Cesium is fun--er, I mean it can be useful. So, I have a ton of offense that shows that war is a pragmatic choice. Vote for me! Gracias and adios!

LtCmdrData

I guess the AC, NC order is working out, so I'll just stick with it for this round. Thanks for Pro for accepting the rematch--I think it's been closer then the round we did at NCFLs. Maybe the flipped sides had something to do with that...IDK. Anyway, I'll stop digressing and get to the debating. Bsh1: Fine, I can agree with your whole definition so long as it is understood that the resolution is not saying that a society must always be interventionist. Obs. 1 - Most people would agree that the Koreas are still at war, despite the lack of widespread conflict, so that kinda backs up what I said earlier--war doesn't need widespread conflict to be war. As for the Congo-Rwanda example, that may be true in their geopolitical situation, but the geopolitical situation in Korea is different. This means that, depending on locale, war is not necessarily widespread. Obs. 2 - Regardless of the source, "very rare" is a colloquial definitions. The examples you offer are colloquial. Not only that, but most definitions/dictionaries define "never" the way I did. You never rebutted this, and when I say that, I don't mean "very rarely." Flow this point across. Thus, my definition is more predictable and fair, and should be preferred. PA: No, obviously MAD won't prevent war in all cases--but you never rebut that MAD does prevent some war. But, the fact that MAD isn't foolproof is correct. That's why we have a UN, with enforceable resolutions, and why we have the Geneva Convention. These check against the risk of "total war," because nations don't want these penalties imposed on them. You use the example of Syria, well, look at Syria now. The U.S. threatened it with war unless it stopped using WMDs, and Syria stopped. This shows how war itself can be used as a tool against "total war." this turns your argument by showing that initiations of war (as the U.S. was about to do) can be good. PB: You totally drop my argument that Murdoch is talking about "unilaterally" imposed thresholds. That's completely fixable, and I, in my world, can fix it. Thus, this argument doesn't actually harm my advocacy. Then, you talk about "cycle of violence" as not reserved for power-mongering. Yet, power was the only thing Schuman addressed. And really, humanitarian efforts like Libya have not led to more violence, so that kinda defeats your claim that initiating war always leads to these cycles. PC: You basically concede that this offense is insufficient to affirm, which is all I wanted to show. So...yeah. That's good. PD: War is a last resort strategy. If we try alternatives first, we won't always have to annoy other nations. Then, if the alternatives fail, we can use war when we need it. Some war with some annoyance is better then tying our hands. And, don't forget, I don't say that war is the best option in all cases, just that it should be a tool in the toolkit. PE: You admit that I can perm your argument. Thus, I can co-opt all the benefits of alternatives while still having war as a potential tool in case I need it. That's good for me. Alright, everyone. Let's summarize my offense thus far. (1) Never is an absolute prohibition. Bsh1 must show that initiating war is ALWAYS impermissible for a just society. (2) Total War is unlikely when you consider MAD as well as international checks against it. (3) PC is insufficient offense for Bsh1 to win the debate. (4) I can co-opt his alternatives and their benefits. Thus, I not only get those benefits, but also any potential benefits from war. So, if war has any benefits AT ALL, I will have more benefits that Bsh1, who is limited to his alternatives. Under a pragmatic calculus, then, I win. LtCmdrData: OV: This is now a nonissue... Obs. 1, 2, 3 - Already hashed-out... P1: The cesium example was cool. Great imagery. Yet, even cesium can have some benefits. If I want to break into a safe for example. Then, cesium would be great. So, clearly, I should still keep some cesium around, just in case I'm in a larcenous mood. P2: Yeah, don't have the link to the Canterbury stuff. It's in text form. But, W&G; still can be corroborated by it... P3: Fine, so homeland and military are different, and you can do self-defense. But, not being able to prevent attacks still sucks. If the bomber are already about to unload their contents over New York city, its a bit late to scramble the jets in defense. It's so much better just to annihilate the bomber before they've even taken off. Preemption is a key component of effective self-defense. If you accept that, then you accept that initiating war is sometimes okay. At that point, you ought to vote for me. P4: Okay, yeah. So I might need to tradeoff every now and again. So what? Having options gives me flexibility; in that sense, the very fact that I have a tradeoff is nice, 'cause I can weigh the options. P5: Yeah, yeah. Already covered this. More analysis of the offense: (1) Preemption is beneficial. (2) Cesium is fun--er, I mean it can be useful. So, I have a ton of offense that shows that war is a pragmatic choice. Vote for me! Gracias and adios!

Philosophy

A-Just-Society-Sould-Never-Deliberately-Initiate-War/1/

I'm not really one for rematches, but that fifth round at CatNats was fun. I'm game. Though, you know you reversed the sides--I negated at CatNats. Anyway, I think this should be a interesting debate! Good luck!

bsh1

I'm not really one for rematches, but that fifth round at CatNats was fun. I'm game. Though, you know you reversed the sides--I negated at CatNats. Anyway, I think this should be a interesting debate! Good luck!

Philosophy

A-Just-Society-Sould-Never-Deliberately-Initiate-War/1/

So, it is normally customary for the NC to be presented after the AC, but this order has been flipped in this debate. So, instead of just presenting the affirmative constructive (AC) speech as usual, I will also present my affirmative rebuttal (AR) at this time. Therefore, order will be AC, NC. Thanks to Lt.Cmdr.Data for instigating this debate... PRO's CASE/AC Definitions: 1. Deliberate- as "unimpulsive" according to Black"s Law 2. Plato in his book, In Crito, describes a just society. He observes that totalitarians cannot be just because they inherently disregard their citizenries' freedoms. Therefore, a just society must respect the freedoms of its people. Additionally, a just society should have concern for the rights of all peoples and societies in order to remain free of malice. Observation One: Stanford Encyclopedia offers the following explanation of war: "The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities, do not suffice as indicators of war. The conflict of arms must be actual...for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be...widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war." Furthermore, Stanford notes that, "the onset of war requires a commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until a fighter intends to go to war and until it does so with a heavy quantum of force." In this way, the onset of war is triggered by an original, offensive act or by "a state of ongoing violence." Thus, we can extrapolate that to "initiate" war is both mobilization of forces and the actualization of violence. <URL>... Observation Two: Never is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as being very rare, this is evidenced by such statements as, "You never win the lottery." I agree with Con's Value and his Criterion for this round. It is my Sole Contention that deliberately initiating war is destructive, and thus it should be avoided. Sub-point A: Deliberate initiations of war lead to more devastating warfare. According to Prof. Andrew Alexandra, "the financial costs of the preparation and waging of deliberate war have increased, as has the devastation caused by those war...Such deliberate initiations spur the desire for more potent weaponry. And as one armed force gains weapons of greater destructive power and delivery systems capable of carrying these weapons further and faster, others strive to match them, for fear that they will be overwhelmed by these weapons in potential future conflicts. So the deadly spiral of the arms race escalates. The effect of this escalation is to make us less, not more, secure. And as more weapons are made, so more and more of the world's productive resources are diverted to their production. At the same time, states are forced to tighten control of their populations: to tax and conscript them, against their wills, to provide the resources and personnel necessary for war..." Alexandra also notes that this intensification is also likely to lead to a greater reliance on the vastly deleterious "total war" model. Sub-point B: Deliberate Initiations of War engender aggression and intensified violence. According to Prof. Frederick Schuman, "Since other powers feeling themselves threatened by an expanding power, they will at some point resist its further aggrandizement; relentless pursuit of power spells war--which is the ultimate negation of all morality." By this, Schuman indicates that aggression results in a pushback as a counter to the initial aggression, creating an endless cycle of violence and retaliation that will result in incalculable harms. Prof. Steven Murdoch concurs, arguing, "For many experts, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations change the self-defense analysis. In a world with these catastrophic weapons, they believe that countries should be allowed to strike preemptively. But how far these experts are willing to stray from a strict rule of self-defense, which requires actual enemy attack, turns upon what they emphasize. Some lawyers worry that a lower threshold for self-defense interventions, decided upon unilaterally, will impinge on nations" sovereignty and increase cycles of violence." Sub-point C: Limited strategic information makes deliberate initiations of war unwise. Prof. Dan Reiter, cites the following examples from his study: "In July 1949, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) estimated that the Soviet Union would not be able to construct a nuclear weapon until mid-1951, though the first Soviet nuclear test occurred only some weeks later in August 1949...The day before the first Chinese nuclear test, the CIA estimated a Chinese test within 6 to 8 months." Reiter goes on to summarize his meta-analysis of various military actions over the past 50 years, stating simply, "that in this modern era, intentionally beginning war fails or is made more destructive more than it succeeds as there is usually an incomplete intelligence picture of the situation." Sub-point D: Deliberate Initiations of War reduce global cooperation. Prof. David Cole claims deliberate initiations of war "both make it less likely that societies will obtain cooperation from other societies and engender intersocietal animus. Reduced cooperation, poor communication, and increased hostility breed intensified violence and reduce global cooperation." If the global society feels as if an individual society is likely to aggress, the global society tends to isolate and closely monitor this society, sometimes even striking first out of fear, whether that fear is rational or not. Additionally, in a global culture where aggression is more prevalent, societies will tend to be more individualistic and isolationist as a whole. Sub-point E: Deliberate initiation of war should not be preferred as there are viable alternatives, including diplomacy, homeland security, and defensive counterterrorism. According to Prof. Dan Reiter, deliberate wars "often consume resources which might otherwise be allocated to these three essential approaches, costing hundreds of billions of dollars over just the medium term. The unfortunate reality is that societies do not have an infinite amount of money to spend." It follows that other, equally effective policies, could be pursued rather than resorting to deliberate war. He notes that statistically, diplomacy and defensive counterterrorism have been equally, if not more effective, than deliberate initiations of war. Reiter therefore urges counterterrorism initiatives, including ballistic missile defense, fissile material recovery, and port security, among other recommendations. NGOs are another means of achieving objectives, as they can often provide peaceful assistance on the ground and act as neutral interlocutors for various factions. Furthermore, according to Prof. Patrick Regan, NGOs tend to be 12% more effective than state actors in reducing armed conflict. CON/NC: Overview: A just society would not use violence as it has regard for human life. If justice is giving each their due, and innocents are not due death, and innocents will inevitably die in war, then war is unjust. If war is unjust, a just society would never do it. This takes out the NC. Obs. 1 - Never does not connote an absolute. My grandma says she'll "never win publisher's clearing house lottery," but yet she could. In this sense, "never" is more similar to "very rare." Obs. 2 - I concur. Obs. 3 - I agree; a JS should just not use war as its response. Point One: I am not endorsing frivolous hopes, I am endorsing prudence--and war is not prudent. Vigilance in self-defense is always desirable, and if you cross-apply my sub-point E here, you can see that war is not necessary in order to respond to myriad external threats. Moreover, the ills of war could actually cause more harms to the JS than a policy of preemption. Point Two: I looked up the Western and Goldstein card--it's from the '70s, which is not exactly up-to-date. Finally, without a link to the Canterbury evidence, it is very hard for me to evaluate its validity; I cannot find it online. Also, cross-apply my case here--war is ineffective. Point Three: Nonviolence does have benefits. Alexandra argues, "There is ample historical evidence, for example, of the ways in which measures supposed to increase military security--development of armaments, strengthening of border posts, and so on--can undermine trust between states, and actually make conflict more, not less, likely, as well as the tendency for low-level military conflicts to escalate. The unilateral adoption of a pacifist stance by one nation removes these potential provocations for invasion. We also have a good deal of evidence for the effectiveness of non-military resistance to armed invasion. That evidence itself must have some deterrent force for those who contemplate military occupation of a state that has institutionalized pacifist resistance." Point Four: There are alternatives to war that could achieve the exact same thing that the Burke-White card is referring to. Moreover, war forces tradeoffs. According to Reiter, "preventive attacks...consume resources which might otherwise be allocated to [alternative] approaches. Preventive attacks are tremendously expensive, costing hundreds of billions of dollars over just the medium term. The unfortunate reality is that a society does not have an infinite amount of money to spend." So, we trade peaceful alternatives for violent war? That's not pragmatic. Point Five: Never = very rare. I'm not ruling anything out absolutely. I will provide my source's citations in the comment section of this debate. I message Lt.CmdrData and he has no objection to my doing this. Thanks for a good round, and for an unusually fast response time. I look forward to see how this debate unfolds. Thank you!

bsh1

So, it is normally customary for the NC to be presented after the AC, but this order has been flipped in this debate. So, instead of just presenting the affirmative constructive (AC) speech as usual, I will also present my affirmative rebuttal (AR) at this time. Therefore, order will be AC, NC. Thanks to Lt.Cmdr.Data for instigating this debate... PRO's CASE/AC Definitions: 1. Deliberate- as "unimpulsive" according to Black"s Law 2. Plato in his book, In Crito, describes a just society. He observes that totalitarians cannot be just because they inherently disregard their citizenries' freedoms. Therefore, a just society must respect the freedoms of its people. Additionally, a just society should have concern for the rights of all peoples and societies in order to remain free of malice. Observation One: Stanford Encyclopedia offers the following explanation of war: "The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities, do not suffice as indicators of war. The conflict of arms must be actual...for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be...widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war." Furthermore, Stanford notes that, "the onset of war requires a commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until a fighter intends to go to war and until it does so with a heavy quantum of force." In this way, the onset of war is triggered by an original, offensive act or by "a state of ongoing violence." Thus, we can extrapolate that to "initiate" war is both mobilization of forces and the actualization of violence. http://plato.stanford.edu... Observation Two: Never is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as being very rare, this is evidenced by such statements as, "You never win the lottery." I agree with Con's Value and his Criterion for this round. It is my Sole Contention that deliberately initiating war is destructive, and thus it should be avoided. Sub-point A: Deliberate initiations of war lead to more devastating warfare. According to Prof. Andrew Alexandra, "the financial costs of the preparation and waging of deliberate war have increased, as has the devastation caused by those war...Such deliberate initiations spur the desire for more potent weaponry. And as one armed force gains weapons of greater destructive power and delivery systems capable of carrying these weapons further and faster, others strive to match them, for fear that they will be overwhelmed by these weapons in potential future conflicts. So the deadly spiral of the arms race escalates. The effect of this escalation is to make us less, not more, secure. And as more weapons are made, so more and more of the world's productive resources are diverted to their production. At the same time, states are forced to tighten control of their populations: to tax and conscript them, against their wills, to provide the resources and personnel necessary for war..." Alexandra also notes that this intensification is also likely to lead to a greater reliance on the vastly deleterious "total war" model. Sub-point B: Deliberate Initiations of War engender aggression and intensified violence. According to Prof. Frederick Schuman, "Since other powers feeling themselves threatened by an expanding power, they will at some point resist its further aggrandizement; relentless pursuit of power spells war--which is the ultimate negation of all morality." By this, Schuman indicates that aggression results in a pushback as a counter to the initial aggression, creating an endless cycle of violence and retaliation that will result in incalculable harms. Prof. Steven Murdoch concurs, arguing, "For many experts, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations change the self-defense analysis. In a world with these catastrophic weapons, they believe that countries should be allowed to strike preemptively. But how far these experts are willing to stray from a strict rule of self-defense, which requires actual enemy attack, turns upon what they emphasize. Some lawyers worry that a lower threshold for self-defense interventions, decided upon unilaterally, will impinge on nations" sovereignty and increase cycles of violence." Sub-point C: Limited strategic information makes deliberate initiations of war unwise. Prof. Dan Reiter, cites the following examples from his study: "In July 1949, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) estimated that the Soviet Union would not be able to construct a nuclear weapon until mid-1951, though the first Soviet nuclear test occurred only some weeks later in August 1949...The day before the first Chinese nuclear test, the CIA estimated a Chinese test within 6 to 8 months." Reiter goes on to summarize his meta-analysis of various military actions over the past 50 years, stating simply, "that in this modern era, intentionally beginning war fails or is made more destructive more than it succeeds as there is usually an incomplete intelligence picture of the situation." Sub-point D: Deliberate Initiations of War reduce global cooperation. Prof. David Cole claims deliberate initiations of war "both make it less likely that societies will obtain cooperation from other societies and engender intersocietal animus. Reduced cooperation, poor communication, and increased hostility breed intensified violence and reduce global cooperation." If the global society feels as if an individual society is likely to aggress, the global society tends to isolate and closely monitor this society, sometimes even striking first out of fear, whether that fear is rational or not. Additionally, in a global culture where aggression is more prevalent, societies will tend to be more individualistic and isolationist as a whole. Sub-point E: Deliberate initiation of war should not be preferred as there are viable alternatives, including diplomacy, homeland security, and defensive counterterrorism. According to Prof. Dan Reiter, deliberate wars "often consume resources which might otherwise be allocated to these three essential approaches, costing hundreds of billions of dollars over just the medium term. The unfortunate reality is that societies do not have an infinite amount of money to spend." It follows that other, equally effective policies, could be pursued rather than resorting to deliberate war. He notes that statistically, diplomacy and defensive counterterrorism have been equally, if not more effective, than deliberate initiations of war. Reiter therefore urges counterterrorism initiatives, including ballistic missile defense, fissile material recovery, and port security, among other recommendations. NGOs are another means of achieving objectives, as they can often provide peaceful assistance on the ground and act as neutral interlocutors for various factions. Furthermore, according to Prof. Patrick Regan, NGOs tend to be 12% more effective than state actors in reducing armed conflict. CON/NC: Overview: A just society would not use violence as it has regard for human life. If justice is giving each their due, and innocents are not due death, and innocents will inevitably die in war, then war is unjust. If war is unjust, a just society would never do it. This takes out the NC. Obs. 1 - Never does not connote an absolute. My grandma says she'll "never win publisher's clearing house lottery," but yet she could. In this sense, "never" is more similar to "very rare." Obs. 2 - I concur. Obs. 3 - I agree; a JS should just not use war as its response. Point One: I am not endorsing frivolous hopes, I am endorsing prudence--and war is not prudent. Vigilance in self-defense is always desirable, and if you cross-apply my sub-point E here, you can see that war is not necessary in order to respond to myriad external threats. Moreover, the ills of war could actually cause more harms to the JS than a policy of preemption. Point Two: I looked up the Western and Goldstein card--it's from the '70s, which is not exactly up-to-date. Finally, without a link to the Canterbury evidence, it is very hard for me to evaluate its validity; I cannot find it online. Also, cross-apply my case here--war is ineffective. Point Three: Nonviolence does have benefits. Alexandra argues, "There is ample historical evidence, for example, of the ways in which measures supposed to increase military security--development of armaments, strengthening of border posts, and so on--can undermine trust between states, and actually make conflict more, not less, likely, as well as the tendency for low-level military conflicts to escalate. The unilateral adoption of a pacifist stance by one nation removes these potential provocations for invasion. We also have a good deal of evidence for the effectiveness of non-military resistance to armed invasion. That evidence itself must have some deterrent force for those who contemplate military occupation of a state that has institutionalized pacifist resistance." Point Four: There are alternatives to war that could achieve the exact same thing that the Burke-White card is referring to. Moreover, war forces tradeoffs. According to Reiter, "preventive attacks...consume resources which might otherwise be allocated to [alternative] approaches. Preventive attacks are tremendously expensive, costing hundreds of billions of dollars over just the medium term. The unfortunate reality is that a society does not have an infinite amount of money to spend." So, we trade peaceful alternatives for violent war? That's not pragmatic. Point Five: Never = very rare. I'm not ruling anything out absolutely. I will provide my source's citations in the comment section of this debate. I message Lt.CmdrData and he has no objection to my doing this. Thanks for a good round, and for an unusually fast response time. I look forward to see how this debate unfolds. Thank you!

Philosophy

A-Just-Society-Sould-Never-Deliberately-Initiate-War/1/

I will launch right into the debate. The order is AC, NC, as that seems to be the way we're structuring the debate. PRO/AC: Definitions: Extend my definition of deliberate. As for the definition of a JS, we have at least agreed that it is (1) not totalitarian, and (2) respecting of people's human rights. Con cites Switzerland as an example of a nation that is non-interventionist while still being just. But my last sentence was not saying that a nation had to be interventionist, merely I was arguing that it should not bear any biased or malice against other states or other peoples. Simply because a nation empathizes with others does not mean that it will act on its empathy. Thus, you can keep this last point. Obs. 1 - Con tries to use the North Korea example to disprove that war is necessarily widespread. Yet, Con is forgetting that the Korean war was initially widespread, and it is no longer a "war," whatever technicalities one might cite. It's a state of peace, that is ripe with tension that occasionally boils over into sporadic violence. That isn't war as it is understood in the round. A good counter example might be Rwanda and the Congo. Rwandan troops recently crossed into Congolese lands to pursue rebel groups. The incursion was temporary, and, while extremely annoyed at the Rwandans, the Congolese do not consider themselves at war with Rwanda. A few shots fired does not add up to war until a significant group of troops has been mustered and deployed. Obs. 2 - Con says my definition is informal, yet it comes from Black's Law--a very formal dictionary. This dictionary DENOTES its meaning as "very rare." Moreover, my examples stand--Con never stated why, in those examples, never did not mean what I claimed it to mean. Extend the examples. In doing so, you must also extend my definition. Sub-point A: Con argues that MAD will prevent total war; yet, this only works when both countries have WMDs. We don't go to war with Russia because of MAD, but yet, we can go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, despite Russian objections, because those targets lack nukes. Also keep in mind that not all WMDs deter. Biological and Chemical weapons, which Saddam did have, didn't deter us from going into Iraq. And, the success you give regarding South Africa and so on, are instances of effective diplomacy, which is an alternative to war. Finally, clearly sanctions do not always deter WMD use--look at the Assad regime in Syria. Thus, it is vital to take a more pacifistic approach to avoid the arms race to begin with. Sub-point B: My concern here is that initiations of war spur cycles of violence. Schuman argued that initiating war results in a push back that just creates cyclical violence. For example, the U.S. campaigns in Afghanistan boosted terrorist recruitment leading to increased terrorism. The U.S. countered with its war on terror, and now the militants are pushing back, as can be evidence by Al-Shabab's actions in Kenya. Another good example would be WWI leading to WWII leading to the cold war, and so on. Sub-point C: Con never contests the fact that intelligence is usually poor. Extend this argument. All Con does argue is that "usually fails" does not translate to "very rarely succeeds." Even if it doesn't, "usually fails" gets me part of the way there. Sub-point D: Con basically concedes my point when he agrees that our actions "annoy" other nations. Insofar as we build animosity with important global partners, we make it harder to achieve our diplomatic and economic agenda. Therefore, even if a lack of communication does not always lead to violence, it has other detrimental impacts to us. Con also makes this argument about humanitarian interventions, but gives no example to warrant his claim. A counterexample would be Libya, where we "annoyed" the Russians to no end in our humanitarian endeavors. Sub-point E: I admit that this point is a permutation of Con. But, that doesn't mean this argument is not important. These alternative, in my world, are the only options that should be used. My argument here was meant to show that these alternatives are effective enough that we don't actually need to keep war in our back pocket to use. Con never disputes the efficacy of any of these alternatives--extend my arguments. CON/NC OV: I concede my overview, though, even without it, I can still take out the NC. Obs. 1 - I already addressed this Obs. 1 and 2 - We basically agree here P1: It is not prudent to use options that almost always backfire and fail. That's like saying, if my keys and my knife can't open my car door, I'll have to try and use some cesium to blow it off. Sure, the cesium might blow the door off your car so you could get in. But then again, the cesium might also kill you. It's not prudent to keep options like that in anyone's tool kit, even as a last resort. P2: Con still has not given me the link to the Canterbury evidence, so I cannot evaluate its validity. As for the Western and Goldstein, Con concedes that it's old, but he tries to downplay some of my criticism by adding that old does not mean bad. Sure, old does not mean bad. But W&G; are drawing their conclusions from examples, and when those examples no longer apply (tech has improved, geopolitics has changed, etc.) then the evidence should be thrown out. P3: Homeland and military security are not the same thing. Homeland is more so border security, not an internal military build up, like in North Korea. So, I can promote one, while lessening the other without any inherent contradiction. As for leaving a nation vulnerable, the resolution only prevents JS from INIATING WAR. If attacked, they can still engage in self-defense. Moreover, you dropped Alexandra's argument that states that have established cultures of peaceful resistance are likely to deter violent invasions, because invaders don't want to contend with the hindrances and inconveniences of a disobedient populace. Look at Gandhi's movement in India, for instance. P4: Oftentimes you don't always have a choice--sometimes a call has to be made because you cannot afford to try to exhaust all alternative first. If you have finite resources and can only afford to do one: (1) war or (2) diplomacy, then you are making a tradeoff. And, with the massive costs of war, the most pragmatic route is to choose the alternative. P5: I already discussed this point in my observational analysis. I look forward to hearing/reading my opponent's responses. Thanks!

bsh1

I will launch right into the debate. The order is AC, NC, as that seems to be the way we're structuring the debate. PRO/AC: Definitions: Extend my definition of deliberate. As for the definition of a JS, we have at least agreed that it is (1) not totalitarian, and (2) respecting of people's human rights. Con cites Switzerland as an example of a nation that is non-interventionist while still being just. But my last sentence was not saying that a nation had to be interventionist, merely I was arguing that it should not bear any biased or malice against other states or other peoples. Simply because a nation empathizes with others does not mean that it will act on its empathy. Thus, you can keep this last point. Obs. 1 - Con tries to use the North Korea example to disprove that war is necessarily widespread. Yet, Con is forgetting that the Korean war was initially widespread, and it is no longer a "war," whatever technicalities one might cite. It's a state of peace, that is ripe with tension that occasionally boils over into sporadic violence. That isn't war as it is understood in the round. A good counter example might be Rwanda and the Congo. Rwandan troops recently crossed into Congolese lands to pursue rebel groups. The incursion was temporary, and, while extremely annoyed at the Rwandans, the Congolese do not consider themselves at war with Rwanda. A few shots fired does not add up to war until a significant group of troops has been mustered and deployed. Obs. 2 - Con says my definition is informal, yet it comes from Black's Law--a very formal dictionary. This dictionary DENOTES its meaning as "very rare." Moreover, my examples stand--Con never stated why, in those examples, never did not mean what I claimed it to mean. Extend the examples. In doing so, you must also extend my definition. Sub-point A: Con argues that MAD will prevent total war; yet, this only works when both countries have WMDs. We don't go to war with Russia because of MAD, but yet, we can go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, despite Russian objections, because those targets lack nukes. Also keep in mind that not all WMDs deter. Biological and Chemical weapons, which Saddam did have, didn't deter us from going into Iraq. And, the success you give regarding South Africa and so on, are instances of effective diplomacy, which is an alternative to war. Finally, clearly sanctions do not always deter WMD use--look at the Assad regime in Syria. Thus, it is vital to take a more pacifistic approach to avoid the arms race to begin with. Sub-point B: My concern here is that initiations of war spur cycles of violence. Schuman argued that initiating war results in a push back that just creates cyclical violence. For example, the U.S. campaigns in Afghanistan boosted terrorist recruitment leading to increased terrorism. The U.S. countered with its war on terror, and now the militants are pushing back, as can be evidence by Al-Shabab's actions in Kenya. Another good example would be WWI leading to WWII leading to the cold war, and so on. Sub-point C: Con never contests the fact that intelligence is usually poor. Extend this argument. All Con does argue is that "usually fails" does not translate to "very rarely succeeds." Even if it doesn't, "usually fails" gets me part of the way there. Sub-point D: Con basically concedes my point when he agrees that our actions "annoy" other nations. Insofar as we build animosity with important global partners, we make it harder to achieve our diplomatic and economic agenda. Therefore, even if a lack of communication does not always lead to violence, it has other detrimental impacts to us. Con also makes this argument about humanitarian interventions, but gives no example to warrant his claim. A counterexample would be Libya, where we "annoyed" the Russians to no end in our humanitarian endeavors. Sub-point E: I admit that this point is a permutation of Con. But, that doesn't mean this argument is not important. These alternative, in my world, are the only options that should be used. My argument here was meant to show that these alternatives are effective enough that we don't actually need to keep war in our back pocket to use. Con never disputes the efficacy of any of these alternatives--extend my arguments. CON/NC OV: I concede my overview, though, even without it, I can still take out the NC. Obs. 1 - I already addressed this Obs. 1 and 2 - We basically agree here P1: It is not prudent to use options that almost always backfire and fail. That's like saying, if my keys and my knife can't open my car door, I'll have to try and use some cesium to blow it off. Sure, the cesium might blow the door off your car so you could get in. But then again, the cesium might also kill you. It's not prudent to keep options like that in anyone's tool kit, even as a last resort. P2: Con still has not given me the link to the Canterbury evidence, so I cannot evaluate its validity. As for the Western and Goldstein, Con concedes that it's old, but he tries to downplay some of my criticism by adding that old does not mean bad. Sure, old does not mean bad. But W&G; are drawing their conclusions from examples, and when those examples no longer apply (tech has improved, geopolitics has changed, etc.) then the evidence should be thrown out. P3: Homeland and military security are not the same thing. Homeland is more so border security, not an internal military build up, like in North Korea. So, I can promote one, while lessening the other without any inherent contradiction. As for leaving a nation vulnerable, the resolution only prevents JS from INIATING WAR. If attacked, they can still engage in self-defense. Moreover, you dropped Alexandra's argument that states that have established cultures of peaceful resistance are likely to deter violent invasions, because invaders don't want to contend with the hindrances and inconveniences of a disobedient populace. Look at Gandhi's movement in India, for instance. P4: Oftentimes you don't always have a choice--sometimes a call has to be made because you cannot afford to try to exhaust all alternative first. If you have finite resources and can only afford to do one: (1) war or (2) diplomacy, then you are making a tradeoff. And, with the massive costs of war, the most pragmatic route is to choose the alternative. P5: I already discussed this point in my observational analysis. I look forward to hearing/reading my opponent's responses. Thanks!

Philosophy

A-Just-Society-Sould-Never-Deliberately-Initiate-War/1/

I would like to thank LtCmdrData for what has proved a great rematch. I will go AC, NC, voting issues. PRO/AC So, we now have clarified our definitional framework and are in agreement. How will the definition impact the round? As Con says: "the resolution is not saying that a society must always be interventionist." This actually hurts Con because it means that a just society can pursue a pacifist approach. Obs. 1 - I would argue that the current state of affairs in Korea is a tense peace, not a state of war, despite technical claims otherwise. Violence occurs rarely, sometimes less than once a year. We have more violence than that in some of our cities. That's not war. Moreover, Con is employing an ad hominem fallacy when he relies on what "most people" think. Con never directly rebuts my Congo example--extend it. Con tries to downplay my example's importance by noting geopolitical differences in the locations, yet, war is war wherever it is. And, in both of these cases, it's not war. Stanford is a credible source, and should be believed. Obs. 2 - Con is again trying to downplay my sources. Don't let him do this. Black's Law is incredibly reliable, and formal. It is not a dictionary prone to giving "colloquial" definitions. And again, simply because most sources do something, doesn't make them rights, as my examples illustrated. It's an ad hominem fallacy. Extend never as "very rare." But, even if you don't accept my definition, I can still win, as I shall show. PA: Con concedes MAD is an insufficient protection. Con also DROPs the fact that MAD fails even when we attack nations with WMDs, as was the case with Saddam and his chemical stockpiles. Con also drops the successes of alternatives over war. Con claims that it was U.S. threats of action that caused Assad to cave, but there are alternate explanations of this. Russia and China were likely pressuring Assad to stop, as the crises in Syria and the diplomatic fallout were giving them headaches. So, we can't really attribute Syria's concessions to U.S. military threats. PB: Schuman uses the word "power," but his analysis has broader implications. The fact that initiating war creates push back is true, as can be seen in my un-rebutted examples. Moreover, in Libya, cycles of violence were triggered by our intervention. There has been a upsurge in terrorist activities there, and weapons from Libya that were lost during the war made there way into Mali, and helped to fun insurgent rebels. So yes, our involvement in Libya did lead to more violence. Turn that example back on Con. PC: Sure, sub-point c doesn't affirm on it's own, but it is important un-rebutted offense for me, that, when coupled with other pieces of offense, will affirm. Con never contests my argument that intelligence is usually wrong; extend it. PD: Here again, Con skirts the issue. Con never contests the fact that war does have detrimental economic, diplomatic, and security-relations impacts. He just says it's better to deal with some of those problems then give up war altogether. No, it's not. PE: Con never rebuts my argument here that: "These alternatives, in my world, are the only options that should be used. My argument here was meant to show that these alternatives are effective enough that we don't actually need to keep war in our back pocket to use. Con never disputes the efficacy of any of these alternatives--extend my arguments." I will dispute Con's analysis of the offense. Here is my interpretation. I am winning several key points: (1) never = very rare, and even if it doesn't, I can still win; (2) MAD fails; (3) war leads to cycles of violence; (4) war harms our ability to communicate well, which has a multiplicity of negative consequences; (5) the alternatives are effective enough that we can safely do away with war as a tool in the toolbox. CON/NC I've gone over much of the observational and overview framework, so I won't touch on that here. P1: But, you have to ask, are the risks worth the benefits. The risks of cesium are so high, that almost no sane person would use it. In effect, they would NEVER use cesium because it is so volatile. This is the same with war. If initiating war is that dangerous and perilous then a JS would NEVER employ it as a tool. P2: Con drops all of my arguments against W&G.; Disregard that evidence. Without a link or a way to view the Canterbury evidence, we cannot ascertain its validity, and so we should not evaluate it. This takes out the entirety of Con's point two. He has no offense here. P3: Con agrees that I'm not contradicting myself, which strengthens my case. Con then offers the bomber example--but, if intelligence is usually wrong, as I have shown, then it is unlikely that you will have good intelligence on the bombers. How do you know where they are being kept before take off.? How do you know if they're even going to attack? By striking preemptively, you could be setting off a war that never needed to happen. If the bomber were never going to bomb you, then by destroying them preemptively, you are initiating a pointless war that will cost many lives. that's not pragmatic. P4: Tradeoffs are harmful in that they waste millions of dollars and entail unnecessary risks. Again, that is not pragmatic. P5: Never = very rare, but even if it didn't, I can still win. Offense counter-analysis: (1) Con's point two has been completely taken out; (2) Con could get us into pointless wars; and (3) tradeoffs are bad. VOTING ISSUES/ROUND ANALYSIS So, the value in this round is Societal Welfare, which I plan to uphold through a criterion of pragmatism. It is my job to show you that, from a pragmatic standpoint, a just society should never initiate war. Let's assume that never mean "at not point," which is the strict interpretation Con offers. I can still show, under this, that war should be rule out. Here is why: 1 - War leads to cycles of violence 2 - War harms our relations with other nations, which has many harmful consequences 3 - There are very effective alternatives which obviate the need to use war 4 - Intelligence is usually bad, so preemption fails 5 - Con, in his point two, is unable to show that war is statistically effective 6 - Con could get us into pointless wars In light of these truly dangerous and terrible consequences, war is just too risky a tool to keep in our toolkit. It's like cesium, it's just too much of a risk to carry around, let alone use. Therefore, it is wisest and most PRAGMATIC, just to rule it out altogether. At no point should war be used. The perils are just too great. War is not pragmatic, it does boost societal welfare, and it is not something a just society should initiate. With that, I urge a vote in affirmation of the resolution. Please, VOTE PRO! Thank you!

bsh1

I would like to thank LtCmdrData for what has proved a great rematch. I will go AC, NC, voting issues. PRO/AC So, we now have clarified our definitional framework and are in agreement. How will the definition impact the round? As Con says: "the resolution is not saying that a society must always be interventionist." This actually hurts Con because it means that a just society can pursue a pacifist approach. Obs. 1 - I would argue that the current state of affairs in Korea is a tense peace, not a state of war, despite technical claims otherwise. Violence occurs rarely, sometimes less than once a year. We have more violence than that in some of our cities. That's not war. Moreover, Con is employing an ad hominem fallacy when he relies on what "most people" think. Con never directly rebuts my Congo example--extend it. Con tries to downplay my example's importance by noting geopolitical differences in the locations, yet, war is war wherever it is. And, in both of these cases, it's not war. Stanford is a credible source, and should be believed. Obs. 2 - Con is again trying to downplay my sources. Don't let him do this. Black's Law is incredibly reliable, and formal. It is not a dictionary prone to giving "colloquial" definitions. And again, simply because most sources do something, doesn't make them rights, as my examples illustrated. It's an ad hominem fallacy. Extend never as "very rare." But, even if you don't accept my definition, I can still win, as I shall show. PA: Con concedes MAD is an insufficient protection. Con also DROPs the fact that MAD fails even when we attack nations with WMDs, as was the case with Saddam and his chemical stockpiles. Con also drops the successes of alternatives over war. Con claims that it was U.S. threats of action that caused Assad to cave, but there are alternate explanations of this. Russia and China were likely pressuring Assad to stop, as the crises in Syria and the diplomatic fallout were giving them headaches. So, we can't really attribute Syria's concessions to U.S. military threats. PB: Schuman uses the word "power," but his analysis has broader implications. The fact that initiating war creates push back is true, as can be seen in my un-rebutted examples. Moreover, in Libya, cycles of violence were triggered by our intervention. There has been a upsurge in terrorist activities there, and weapons from Libya that were lost during the war made there way into Mali, and helped to fun insurgent rebels. So yes, our involvement in Libya did lead to more violence. Turn that example back on Con. PC: Sure, sub-point c doesn't affirm on it's own, but it is important un-rebutted offense for me, that, when coupled with other pieces of offense, will affirm. Con never contests my argument that intelligence is usually wrong; extend it. PD: Here again, Con skirts the issue. Con never contests the fact that war does have detrimental economic, diplomatic, and security-relations impacts. He just says it's better to deal with some of those problems then give up war altogether. No, it's not. PE: Con never rebuts my argument here that: "These alternatives, in my world, are the only options that should be used. My argument here was meant to show that these alternatives are effective enough that we don't actually need to keep war in our back pocket to use. Con never disputes the efficacy of any of these alternatives--extend my arguments." I will dispute Con's analysis of the offense. Here is my interpretation. I am winning several key points: (1) never = very rare, and even if it doesn't, I can still win; (2) MAD fails; (3) war leads to cycles of violence; (4) war harms our ability to communicate well, which has a multiplicity of negative consequences; (5) the alternatives are effective enough that we can safely do away with war as a tool in the toolbox. CON/NC I've gone over much of the observational and overview framework, so I won't touch on that here. P1: But, you have to ask, are the risks worth the benefits. The risks of cesium are so high, that almost no sane person would use it. In effect, they would NEVER use cesium because it is so volatile. This is the same with war. If initiating war is that dangerous and perilous then a JS would NEVER employ it as a tool. P2: Con drops all of my arguments against W&G.; Disregard that evidence. Without a link or a way to view the Canterbury evidence, we cannot ascertain its validity, and so we should not evaluate it. This takes out the entirety of Con's point two. He has no offense here. P3: Con agrees that I'm not contradicting myself, which strengthens my case. Con then offers the bomber example--but, if intelligence is usually wrong, as I have shown, then it is unlikely that you will have good intelligence on the bombers. How do you know where they are being kept before take off.? How do you know if they're even going to attack? By striking preemptively, you could be setting off a war that never needed to happen. If the bomber were never going to bomb you, then by destroying them preemptively, you are initiating a pointless war that will cost many lives. that's not pragmatic. P4: Tradeoffs are harmful in that they waste millions of dollars and entail unnecessary risks. Again, that is not pragmatic. P5: Never = very rare, but even if it didn't, I can still win. Offense counter-analysis: (1) Con's point two has been completely taken out; (2) Con could get us into pointless wars; and (3) tradeoffs are bad. VOTING ISSUES/ROUND ANALYSIS So, the value in this round is Societal Welfare, which I plan to uphold through a criterion of pragmatism. It is my job to show you that, from a pragmatic standpoint, a just society should never initiate war. Let's assume that never mean "at not point," which is the strict interpretation Con offers. I can still show, under this, that war should be rule out. Here is why: 1 - War leads to cycles of violence 2 - War harms our relations with other nations, which has many harmful consequences 3 - There are very effective alternatives which obviate the need to use war 4 - Intelligence is usually bad, so preemption fails 5 - Con, in his point two, is unable to show that war is statistically effective 6 - Con could get us into pointless wars In light of these truly dangerous and terrible consequences, war is just too risky a tool to keep in our toolkit. It's like cesium, it's just too much of a risk to carry around, let alone use. Therefore, it is wisest and most PRAGMATIC, just to rule it out altogether. At no point should war be used. The perils are just too great. War is not pragmatic, it does boost societal welfare, and it is not something a just society should initiate. With that, I urge a vote in affirmation of the resolution. Please, VOTE PRO! Thank you!

Philosophy

A-Just-Society-Sould-Never-Deliberately-Initiate-War/1/

I believe that if we were to devise a system for controlling population humanely, nobody hurt or killed and we taught our children the way they are designed to be taught not as those before us have taught theirs. If we designed a web like politic system with no super power, the power that would protect us would come from unity we could find land, be self sufficient, productive and happy people, advanced far beyond where we are these paradigms are crippling us, tell me you don't want to see your fellow man run. Now please prove me wrong, poke holes that is the whole point of this idea, so we can put down the sticks we bludgent eachother with like chimps an help eachother understand. Our collective intelligence is the key to true evolution as a people, if only we would set aside prides and use our passion an tenacity for a more efficient, righteous cause, to find truth an to preserve our wonderful future with all the possibilities in the fabric in time waiting for us to decide what we want. to summarize i want you to tell me why this wont work because if you cant theres a chance it can. If it can i want my people to have the best shot at this life as a species and individually that the laws of our universe will allow.

Dr.Whatif

I believe that if we were to devise a system for controlling population humanely, nobody hurt or killed and we taught our children the way they are designed to be taught not as those before us have taught theirs. If we designed a web like politic system with no super power, the power that would protect us would come from unity we could find land, be self sufficient, productive and happy people, advanced far beyond where we are these paradigms are crippling us, tell me you don't want to see your fellow man run. Now please prove me wrong, poke holes that is the whole point of this idea, so we can put down the sticks we bludgent eachother with like chimps an help eachother understand. Our collective intelligence is the key to true evolution as a people, if only we would set aside prides and use our passion an tenacity for a more efficient, righteous cause, to find truth an to preserve our wonderful future with all the possibilities in the fabric in time waiting for us to decide what we want. to summarize i want you to tell me why this wont work because if you cant theres a chance it can. If it can i want my people to have the best shot at this life as a species and individually that the laws of our universe will allow.

Society

A-New-Way/1/

Firstly do you like agriculture? It is an amazing industry designed to keep up with the demands of population, isn't it crazy that as you say over population, which I am assuming is your way of saying the increase of population is a "myth" that the agriculture business continues to be one of the fastest growing forms of industry <URL> simple fact more are born than die what does that leave us with? also I'm assuming china is a myth? As for your second point what I mean by "nobody hurt or killed and we taught our children the way they are designed to be taught not as those before us have taught theirs" is that the rigidity and curriculum standards hold several students back preventing them to truly get involved in the education. No, I am not religious I believe in evolution which "designed" our brain for advanced pattern recognition an the retention of information to directly correlate with the pleasure involved with said information I like to call it fun. such as taking kids outside for biology an explaining it more thoroughly and purposefully since I'm sure you'll ask what I mean by purposefully, an explanation of the value of the information and the purpose of the knowledge This next part upset me a little you are smarter than this to know with our level of intelligence that there would be implements of defending ourselves as if we were going to devolve at the attempt at a more peace prone species to a place of pacify that makes us vulnerable to attack from the more than likely small number of convincing psychopaths now let me explain a little deeper every state has an elected council this councils job is not to provide an answer but a question to the people and a way to tally these votes so the people have control of themselves its not a cult diagram or a power agenda it is simply the pursuit not of perfection but science space and understanding of the world around us this Government wont have any say in matters of the home it would be that parents desicion how to raise their child this is only an additional option of a greater education now if there where matters to be dealt with on the policing end such as harm to others then a militia would attempt a peaceful apprehension so evidence could be examined an another vote could take place " If we designed a web like politic system with no super power," By this I suppose you mean no leader. However, when you say "we designed" someone has to design this. Wouldn't they be a leader? And how would a government function without a leader? Would the people always be telling the government what to do on every single issue? People would have to spend all of their time that way. No that would make that person the designer of a political system, a leader leads they don't design ask obama with obamacare. Have you ever heard of jury duty it would be alot like that for the policing issues with larger juries and for the voting for new elected council members its not like it would be an every day thing. "the power that would protect us would come from unity we could find land, be self sufficient" Apparently, we would be self sufficient by relying on others to protect us. This, in itself, is a contradiction. Also, this is the 21st century. Why do we need to "find land"? Are we explorers? Pioneers? Again, your smarter than this I am referring to self as the country as an entity you see because this way no one goes without because of circumstance there is always help so yes, self sufficient. Now now... you know what your right I'm sure America would be totally on bored or maybe Russia lets just ask them to repent all their history an change all their systems for us a new country like this isn't going to invade someone I mean comon did you think we would just swim around international waters self sufficiently. we have to find somewhere uninhabited with resources or we start off with war wrong direction don't you think I will ignore the fact that you refereed to my ideas as a commune as anyone with a mind an a few books knows a fallacy of logic when they see one "Our collective intelligence is the key to true evolution as a people, if only we would set aside prides and use our passion an tenacity for a more efficient, righteous cause, to find truth an to preserve our wonderful future with all the possibilities in the fabric in time waiting for us to decide what we want." Suppose that for some reason, you do know "the key to true evolution as a people", why would a new system of government be needed? People's collective intelligence is being used right now, as the world's best researchers and universities are sharing and gathering information. Also, who is to say that everyone working together (apparently with no leader, and therefor no order) is going to be more efficient than our current system? Competition is good. It drives us to do better than others, and so we achieve higher feats. No on this one your right there are no technologies being held down by big businesses and the segregation of knowledge with wealth doesn't exist its not like poor people have to work more denying them education and the rich can spend all there money so the professors from those universities would teach their rich children perpetuating the cycle- facetious sarcasm and competion can be amazing for growth lion cubs use it while playing to reinforce their instincts and prepare for their lives but you know who didn't have any competition Albert Einstein he grew up with nothing more than a few books his father had given him an the idea of magnetism with a pocket compass it wasn't until he was full grown and had developed the theory of relativity that he was even around people with minds like his so yes competition is good as a plaything but real breakthroughs and genius don't need competition to happen In summary, if people don't cooperate I'm assuming you mean the majority well I have faith in them if they don't think its right it probably isn't criminal acts will be handled civilly where our laws come from the best of all other countries visions if it becomes corrupt the people will revolt it would be law that council men are aloud no security I believe I rudely answered the question of land in the manner you rudely presented it I understand perfect is not real who wants perfect with nothing left to aim for we would have no point but I believe our point is to be the best we can be an I believe that the majority agrees Forgive my grammar and punctuation I typed this rather quickly and honestly I don't care its legible are we here to debate or work on our English assignments

Dr.Whatif

Firstly do you like agriculture? It is an amazing industry designed to keep up with the demands of population, isn't it crazy that as you say over population, which I am assuming is your way of saying the increase of population is a "myth" that the agriculture business continues to be one of the fastest growing forms of industry www.ers.usda.gov/media/201254/eb9_1_.pdf simple fact more are born than die what does that leave us with? also I'm assuming china is a myth? As for your second point what I mean by "nobody hurt or killed and we taught our children the way they are designed to be taught not as those before us have taught theirs" is that the rigidity and curriculum standards hold several students back preventing them to truly get involved in the education. No, I am not religious I believe in evolution which "designed" our brain for advanced pattern recognition an the retention of information to directly correlate with the pleasure involved with said information I like to call it fun. such as taking kids outside for biology an explaining it more thoroughly and purposefully since I'm sure you'll ask what I mean by purposefully, an explanation of the value of the information and the purpose of the knowledge This next part upset me a little you are smarter than this to know with our level of intelligence that there would be implements of defending ourselves as if we were going to devolve at the attempt at a more peace prone species to a place of pacify that makes us vulnerable to attack from the more than likely small number of convincing psychopaths now let me explain a little deeper every state has an elected council this councils job is not to provide an answer but a question to the people and a way to tally these votes so the people have control of themselves its not a cult diagram or a power agenda it is simply the pursuit not of perfection but science space and understanding of the world around us this Government wont have any say in matters of the home it would be that parents desicion how to raise their child this is only an additional option of a greater education now if there where matters to be dealt with on the policing end such as harm to others then a militia would attempt a peaceful apprehension so evidence could be examined an another vote could take place " If we designed a web like politic system with no super power," By this I suppose you mean no leader. However, when you say "we designed" someone has to design this. Wouldn't they be a leader? And how would a government function without a leader? Would the people always be telling the government what to do on every single issue? People would have to spend all of their time that way. No that would make that person the designer of a political system, a leader leads they don't design ask obama with obamacare. Have you ever heard of jury duty it would be alot like that for the policing issues with larger juries and for the voting for new elected council members its not like it would be an every day thing. "the power that would protect us would come from unity we could find land, be self sufficient" Apparently, we would be self sufficient by relying on others to protect us. This, in itself, is a contradiction. Also, this is the 21st century. Why do we need to "find land"? Are we explorers? Pioneers? Again, your smarter than this I am referring to self as the country as an entity you see because this way no one goes without because of circumstance there is always help so yes, self sufficient. Now now... you know what your right I'm sure America would be totally on bored or maybe Russia lets just ask them to repent all their history an change all their systems for us a new country like this isn't going to invade someone I mean comon did you think we would just swim around international waters self sufficiently. we have to find somewhere uninhabited with resources or we start off with war wrong direction don't you think I will ignore the fact that you refereed to my ideas as a commune as anyone with a mind an a few books knows a fallacy of logic when they see one "Our collective intelligence is the key to true evolution as a people, if only we would set aside prides and use our passion an tenacity for a more efficient, righteous cause, to find truth an to preserve our wonderful future with all the possibilities in the fabric in time waiting for us to decide what we want." Suppose that for some reason, you do know "the key to true evolution as a people", why would a new system of government be needed? People's collective intelligence is being used right now, as the world's best researchers and universities are sharing and gathering information. Also, who is to say that everyone working together (apparently with no leader, and therefor no order) is going to be more efficient than our current system? Competition is good. It drives us to do better than others, and so we achieve higher feats. No on this one your right there are no technologies being held down by big businesses and the segregation of knowledge with wealth doesn't exist its not like poor people have to work more denying them education and the rich can spend all there money so the professors from those universities would teach their rich children perpetuating the cycle- facetious sarcasm and competion can be amazing for growth lion cubs use it while playing to reinforce their instincts and prepare for their lives but you know who didn't have any competition Albert Einstein he grew up with nothing more than a few books his father had given him an the idea of magnetism with a pocket compass it wasn't until he was full grown and had developed the theory of relativity that he was even around people with minds like his so yes competition is good as a plaything but real breakthroughs and genius don't need competition to happen In summary, if people don't cooperate I'm assuming you mean the majority well I have faith in them if they don't think its right it probably isn't criminal acts will be handled civilly where our laws come from the best of all other countries visions if it becomes corrupt the people will revolt it would be law that council men are aloud no security I believe I rudely answered the question of land in the manner you rudely presented it I understand perfect is not real who wants perfect with nothing left to aim for we would have no point but I believe our point is to be the best we can be an I believe that the majority agrees Forgive my grammar and punctuation I typed this rather quickly and honestly I don't care its legible are we here to debate or work on our English assignments

Society

A-New-Way/1/

First- Where are you going to put this place? Either we put it in America or Russia, which, I assure you, will not be on board. We are both proud nations, an we are not about to change how we have been doing things for hundreds of years. OK if you had read thoroughly you would not have had such trouble understanding as all of these points were answered for instance: Again, your smarter than this I am referring to self as the country as an entity you see because this way no one goes without because of circumstance there is always help so yes, self sufficient. Now now... you know what your right I'm sure America would be totally on bored or maybe Russia lets just ask them to repent all their history an change all their systems for us a new country like this isn't going to invade someone I mean come on did you think we would just swim around international waters self sufficiently. we have to find !!somewhere uninhabited!! with resources or we start off with war wrong direction don't you think Do you see those exclamation point I am well aware that neither of those super powers is going give up their way of life that was sarcasm because you made it out as though there would be such difficulties in finding land and it was such an absurd idea as if I had an obvious alternative such as asking another country Antarctica is a wonderful place few bacteria an viruses due to the cold however I was thinking more along the lines of an island off the coast of Japan owned by Mitsubishi it is literally uninhabited if I could buy that there is a start but there are many places like that As for my point about overpopulation, if you would have read the pages which I linked you would have had a much better idea of what I was talking about. Sure, there is overcrowding, in places like China, but the whole world is far from being overpopulated. Also, I never said that a growing population was a myth. I said OVER-population was a myth, which it is. it is simple if it is growing which you just admitted to then eventually at this rate with a finite amount of resources and land we will become over populated eventually why wait until it is a problem to fix it do you honestly believe if we just keep doing what we are doing it will just sort itself out? The other thing about it, what is wrong with America? Sure, you could say the education system is messed up, and I would agree. However, why do we need a new government? We have an ingenious system of checks and balances, and it has worked for 300 years. humans are roughly 1000 to 10000 generations old Neanderthals were approximately 130000 years old there is just a scale of how young our species is now your telling me this system is the best its going to be that there's nothing wrong with it that is arrogance America isn't corrupt people aren't stuffing their pockets at the expense of my brothers and sisters? well let me tell you there wasn't much wrong with America in the beggining but as soon as our commander in chief stepped on the constitution an no one stood up we lost the right to say that there is nothing wrong with America. big business represses information on technologies because of greed why do we need a new government because the people that own this one would kill you if you tried to change a thing that's wrong with this one my friend the thing is government like that an the ones who defend them are unnecessary, and will not work. I want better for my children and yours than to have rights that somebody in a suit can pick an choose when to recognize this isn't a demand or invasion it is simply an idea that I want others to weigh in on because I know that our collective intelligence far exceeds my own lets shoot for the stars or else our legacy will die on this rock an in half the time our Neanderthal cousins did. Don't let that happen because you think this is as good as it gets there are 99% of people with less I don't want anyone who works for it to have less do you One more thing, when you tell me im not being clear you should tell me with what and how, you know as to be clear.

Dr.Whatif

First- Where are you going to put this place? Either we put it in America or Russia, which, I assure you, will not be on board. We are both proud nations, an we are not about to change how we have been doing things for hundreds of years. OK if you had read thoroughly you would not have had such trouble understanding as all of these points were answered for instance: Again, your smarter than this I am referring to self as the country as an entity you see because this way no one goes without because of circumstance there is always help so yes, self sufficient. Now now... you know what your right I'm sure America would be totally on bored or maybe Russia lets just ask them to repent all their history an change all their systems for us a new country like this isn't going to invade someone I mean come on did you think we would just swim around international waters self sufficiently. we have to find !!somewhere uninhabited!! with resources or we start off with war wrong direction don't you think Do you see those exclamation point I am well aware that neither of those super powers is going give up their way of life that was sarcasm because you made it out as though there would be such difficulties in finding land and it was such an absurd idea as if I had an obvious alternative such as asking another country Antarctica is a wonderful place few bacteria an viruses due to the cold however I was thinking more along the lines of an island off the coast of Japan owned by Mitsubishi it is literally uninhabited if I could buy that there is a start but there are many places like that As for my point about overpopulation, if you would have read the pages which I linked you would have had a much better idea of what I was talking about. Sure, there is overcrowding, in places like China, but the whole world is far from being overpopulated. Also, I never said that a growing population was a myth. I said OVER-population was a myth, which it is. it is simple if it is growing which you just admitted to then eventually at this rate with a finite amount of resources and land we will become over populated eventually why wait until it is a problem to fix it do you honestly believe if we just keep doing what we are doing it will just sort itself out? The other thing about it, what is wrong with America? Sure, you could say the education system is messed up, and I would agree. However, why do we need a new government? We have an ingenious system of checks and balances, and it has worked for 300 years. humans are roughly 1000 to 10000 generations old Neanderthals were approximately 130000 years old there is just a scale of how young our species is now your telling me this system is the best its going to be that there's nothing wrong with it that is arrogance America isn't corrupt people aren't stuffing their pockets at the expense of my brothers and sisters? well let me tell you there wasn't much wrong with America in the beggining but as soon as our commander in chief stepped on the constitution an no one stood up we lost the right to say that there is nothing wrong with America. big business represses information on technologies because of greed why do we need a new government because the people that own this one would kill you if you tried to change a thing that's wrong with this one my friend the thing is government like that an the ones who defend them are unnecessary, and will not work. I want better for my children and yours than to have rights that somebody in a suit can pick an choose when to recognize this isn't a demand or invasion it is simply an idea that I want others to weigh in on because I know that our collective intelligence far exceeds my own lets shoot for the stars or else our legacy will die on this rock an in half the time our Neanderthal cousins did. Don't let that happen because you think this is as good as it gets there are 99% of people with less I don't want anyone who works for it to have less do you One more thing, when you tell me im not being clear you should tell me with what and how, you know as to be clear.

Society

A-New-Way/1/

Now, in a perfect world, this would work. However, this is not a perfect world. People are not always good. I will assess your points in the order that they are presented: "I believe that if we were to devise a system for controlling population humanely" First of all, overpopulation is a myth at most, and greatly exaggerated at least. If you don't believe me, check out these websites, and you will be more informed on the matter. <URL>... <URL>... Next, "nobody hurt or killed and we taught our children the way they are designed to be taught not as those before us have taught theirs" I'm not sure if you are religious or not, but "the way they are designed to be taught" is a very strange sentence. And how would we teach them differently than people before us? Have our parents not taught us that killing and harming is wrong? And suppose you are not religious. If you aren't religious, isn't it within our instincts to harm others when we are threatened? So wouldn't it be an evolutionary (Evolution being our design, if you don't believe in a creator) hindrance if we refused to hurt or kill, even to survive? And will this new government dictate what parents can teach their children? What happens if you do not teach your children "the way they were designed to be taught"? " If we designed a web like politic system with no super power," By this I suppose you mean no leader. However, when you say "we designed" someone has to design this. Wouldn't they be a leader? And how would a government function without a leader? Would the people always be telling the government what to do on every single issue? People would have to spend all of their time that way. "the power that would protect us would come from unity we could find land, be self sufficient" Apparently, we would be self sufficient by relying on others to protect us. This, in itself, is a contradiction. Also, this is the 21st century. Why do we need to "find land"? Are we explorers? Pioneers? "productive and happy people, advanced far beyond where we are these paradigms are crippling us" We are advancing on our own, and I don't think that a commune is going to help scientific and cultural growth near as much as our current system. "Our collective intelligence is the key to true evolution as a people, if only we would set aside prides and use our passion an tenacity for a more efficient, righteous cause, to find truth an to preserve our wonderful future with all the possibilities in the fabric in time waiting for us to decide what we want." Suppose that for some reason, you do know "the key to true evolution as a people", why would a new system of government be needed? People's collective intelligence is being used right now, as the world's best researchers and universities are sharing and gathering information. Also, who is to say that everyone working together (apparently with no leader, and therefor no order) is going to be more efficient than our current system? Competition is good. It drives us to do better than others, and so we achieve higher feats. Now, in a perfect world, this just might work, but in your world, what happens if people don't cooperate? What if your system becomes corrupt? And, possible what I am wondering about the most, why do we need to find land? Please, in the next round, take time to answer some of my points. Thank you.

WillRiley

Now, in a perfect world, this would work. However, this is not a perfect world. People are not always good. I will assess your points in the order that they are presented: "I believe that if we were to devise a system for controlling population humanely" First of all, overpopulation is a myth at most, and greatly exaggerated at least. If you don't believe me, check out these websites, and you will be more informed on the matter. http://pop.org... http://overpopulationisamyth.com... Next, "nobody hurt or killed and we taught our children the way they are designed to be taught not as those before us have taught theirs" I'm not sure if you are religious or not, but "the way they are designed to be taught" is a very strange sentence. And how would we teach them differently than people before us? Have our parents not taught us that killing and harming is wrong? And suppose you are not religious. If you aren't religious, isn't it within our instincts to harm others when we are threatened? So wouldn't it be an evolutionary (Evolution being our design, if you don't believe in a creator) hindrance if we refused to hurt or kill, even to survive? And will this new government dictate what parents can teach their children? What happens if you do not teach your children "the way they were designed to be taught"? " If we designed a web like politic system with no super power," By this I suppose you mean no leader. However, when you say "we designed" someone has to design this. Wouldn't they be a leader? And how would a government function without a leader? Would the people always be telling the government what to do on every single issue? People would have to spend all of their time that way. "the power that would protect us would come from unity we could find land, be self sufficient" Apparently, we would be self sufficient by relying on others to protect us. This, in itself, is a contradiction. Also, this is the 21st century. Why do we need to "find land"? Are we explorers? Pioneers? "productive and happy people, advanced far beyond where we are these paradigms are crippling us" We are advancing on our own, and I don't think that a commune is going to help scientific and cultural growth near as much as our current system. "Our collective intelligence is the key to true evolution as a people, if only we would set aside prides and use our passion an tenacity for a more efficient, righteous cause, to find truth an to preserve our wonderful future with all the possibilities in the fabric in time waiting for us to decide what we want." Suppose that for some reason, you do know "the key to true evolution as a people", why would a new system of government be needed? People's collective intelligence is being used right now, as the world's best researchers and universities are sharing and gathering information. Also, who is to say that everyone working together (apparently with no leader, and therefor no order) is going to be more efficient than our current system? Competition is good. It drives us to do better than others, and so we achieve higher feats. Now, in a perfect world, this just might work, but in your world, what happens if people don't cooperate? What if your system becomes corrupt? And, possible what I am wondering about the most, why do we need to find land? Please, in the next round, take time to answer some of my points. Thank you.

Society

A-New-Way/1/

I am really not trying to be rude here, but some parts of your last argument were difficult to understand. May I please ask that over the next rounds you make it easier to understand, both for me, and the voters. There are several reasons that this will not work. First- Where are you going to put this place? Either we put it in America or Russia, which, I assure you, will not be on board. We are both proud nations, an we are not about to change how we have been doing things for hundreds of years. You also suggest "somewhere uninhabited with resources or we start off with war wrong direction don't you think" and "isn't going to invade someone" so, what we need to do is find a place on the world, that is uninhabited, and not controlled by any nation. There is literally only one place that fits that description, and I don't think you are going to like it. Its Antarctica. How are you going to convince the leaders of a country to give up their power? How do you know this will even work? What you are suggesting, is just not possible. As for my point about overpopulation, if you would have read the pages which I linked you would have had a much better idea of what I was talking about. Sure, there is overcrowding, in places like China, but the whole world is far from being overpopulated. Also, I never said that a growing population was a myth. I said OVER-population was a myth, which it is. The other thing about it, what is wrong with America? Sure, you could say the education system is messed up, and I would agree. However, why do we need a new government? We have an ingenious system of checks and balances, and it has worked for 300 years. The thing is, your system is unnecessary, and will not work.

WillRiley

I am really not trying to be rude here, but some parts of your last argument were difficult to understand. May I please ask that over the next rounds you make it easier to understand, both for me, and the voters. There are several reasons that this will not work. First- Where are you going to put this place? Either we put it in America or Russia, which, I assure you, will not be on board. We are both proud nations, an we are not about to change how we have been doing things for hundreds of years. You also suggest "somewhere uninhabited with resources or we start off with war wrong direction don't you think" and "isn't going to invade someone" so, what we need to do is find a place on the world, that is uninhabited, and not controlled by any nation. There is literally only one place that fits that description, and I don't think you are going to like it. Its Antarctica. How are you going to convince the leaders of a country to give up their power? How do you know this will even work? What you are suggesting, is just not possible. As for my point about overpopulation, if you would have read the pages which I linked you would have had a much better idea of what I was talking about. Sure, there is overcrowding, in places like China, but the whole world is far from being overpopulated. Also, I never said that a growing population was a myth. I said OVER-population was a myth, which it is. The other thing about it, what is wrong with America? Sure, you could say the education system is messed up, and I would agree. However, why do we need a new government? We have an ingenious system of checks and balances, and it has worked for 300 years. The thing is, your system is unnecessary, and will not work.

Society

A-New-Way/1/

I find your use of sarcasm both inappropriate and condescending. I ask you to please stop speaking in this manner. Also, I ask that the voters take note of Pro's behavior. I never said that we are the greatest that we can be. However, we have a system that works well. It's not as if we must start over in order to move forward. We can propose laws and constitutional amendments. I believe that the people are still the rulers of this nation, for we are the ones that put politicians into office, and we are the ones who buy the corporations products and use their services. If you want education reform and humane population control (I would also like to point out you have not yet explained how we would go about doing this) then you need to start a movement. If enough people agree with you, you will succeed. There is no reason for you to have "A New Way" at all, no reason for a new nation. Also, as for location, Antarctica wouldn't work because you wouldn't be able to farm or even stay outside for long periods of time. Now, maybe you could deal with that, but most people will not want to deal with it with you. Also, the island you mentioned is still controlled by Japan. You would not be independent, you would still be subject to Japanese law. Also, so the voters know, this is this island- <URL>... Now, does that seem like an ideal spot for a utopia? I think not. "we need a new government because the people that own this one would kill you if you tried to change a thing that's wrong with this one" I am sure that everyone realizes that the United States government doesn't kill people who speak up for change in government. Enough said on that. There is a reason that some people have more than others. Its not like people just magically end up with money. And still, everyone in America is doing pretty well as compared to other countries, especially countries with communism and other failing forms of government. Please, be logical. There is no way this can work. Also, I would love to hear how you will prevent anyone from hurting or killing.

WillRiley

I find your use of sarcasm both inappropriate and condescending. I ask you to please stop speaking in this manner. Also, I ask that the voters take note of Pro's behavior. I never said that we are the greatest that we can be. However, we have a system that works well. It's not as if we must start over in order to move forward. We can propose laws and constitutional amendments. I believe that the people are still the rulers of this nation, for we are the ones that put politicians into office, and we are the ones who buy the corporations products and use their services. If you want education reform and humane population control (I would also like to point out you have not yet explained how we would go about doing this) then you need to start a movement. If enough people agree with you, you will succeed. There is no reason for you to have "A New Way" at all, no reason for a new nation. Also, as for location, Antarctica wouldn't work because you wouldn't be able to farm or even stay outside for long periods of time. Now, maybe you could deal with that, but most people will not want to deal with it with you. Also, the island you mentioned is still controlled by Japan. You would not be independent, you would still be subject to Japanese law. Also, so the voters know, this is this island- http://desertedplaces.blogspot.com... Now, does that seem like an ideal spot for a utopia? I think not. "we need a new government because the people that own this one would kill you if you tried to change a thing that's wrong with this one" I am sure that everyone realizes that the United States government doesn't kill people who speak up for change in government. Enough said on that. There is a reason that some people have more than others. Its not like people just magically end up with money. And still, everyone in America is doing pretty well as compared to other countries, especially countries with communism and other failing forms of government. Please, be logical. There is no way this can work. Also, I would love to hear how you will prevent anyone from hurting or killing.

Society

A-New-Way/1/

I further extend my argument. Due to my opponent's forfeiture and lack of a sound argument, please, vote Con.

WillRiley

I further extend my argument. Due to my opponent's forfeiture and lack of a sound argument, please, vote Con.

Society

A-New-Way/1/

This debate sound pretty cool. So I would first probably be suspicious because weird stuff would be on the news.i would get prepared ahead of time. Get some supplies. Maybe some weapons. But good weapons. Like maybe some guns(as last resort of course) and some good quality melee weapons. Plan a route to take(to a isolated location of course)and a few backup routes to take. I live in the suburbs so traffic would be tight. I would take a bike because it is silent but that just when I leave the house and pass all the city. I would go to the mountains and maybe find an abandoned camp. I would make sure it's safe. Maybe there would be a spot that I could see the city from because the mountains that I live near you can see the city. See how bad it is and maybe try to clean it up slowly. I would have a group of ten max. Ten of the most important people in my life. We would all have to get physically fit by exercising. And we would have certain camps in different locations. We would have to take turns staying awake at night to patrol the area. If we are well off we will start to build barriers around the perimeter. Try to find the strongest material we can. Go to city(not the whole group maybe like 5 of us). Find a car that is good quality that is powerful good on gas and maybe even armored. In the end we might take a boat(with enough supplies) and try to find a island to live on. And we'll start being civil if we can.

SONOFGOD2013

This debate sound pretty cool. So I would first probably be suspicious because weird stuff would be on the news.i would get prepared ahead of time. Get some supplies. Maybe some weapons. But good weapons. Like maybe some guns(as last resort of course) and some good quality melee weapons. Plan a route to take(to a isolated location of course)and a few backup routes to take. I live in the suburbs so traffic would be tight. I would take a bike because it is silent but that just when I leave the house and pass all the city. I would go to the mountains and maybe find an abandoned camp. I would make sure it's safe. Maybe there would be a spot that I could see the city from because the mountains that I live near you can see the city. See how bad it is and maybe try to clean it up slowly. I would have a group of ten max. Ten of the most important people in my life. We would all have to get physically fit by exercising. And we would have certain camps in different locations. We would have to take turns staying awake at night to patrol the area. If we are well off we will start to build barriers around the perimeter. Try to find the strongest material we can. Go to city(not the whole group maybe like 5 of us). Find a car that is good quality that is powerful good on gas and maybe even armored. In the end we might take a boat(with enough supplies) and try to find a island to live on. And we'll start being civil if we can.

Entertainment

A-Series-Can-you-survive-a-Zombie-Apocalypse/1/

Can we start a new debate. I'm sorry I didn't read the rules. So can we? I'll do it right this time.

SONOFGOD2013

Can we start a new debate. I'm sorry I didn't read the rules. So can we? I'll do it right this time.

Entertainment

A-Series-Can-you-survive-a-Zombie-Apocalypse/1/

......um.....

SONOFGOD2013

......um.....

Entertainment

A-Series-Can-you-survive-a-Zombie-Apocalypse/1/

Ya

SONOFGOD2013

Ya

Entertainment

A-Series-Can-you-survive-a-Zombie-Apocalypse/1/

This is debate is part of a series of debates that I will debating on surviving an apocalypse. This debate in particular consists of surviving a zombie apocalypse. The voters will decide who has the better strategy to survive a zombie apocalypse. Objective: 1. The primary goal is to have a strategy to survive the zombie apocalypse. Both my opponent and I will begin the zombie scenario in the midst of a fictional metropolis. We can choose to leave for a rural area or suburb if we choose. Rules: 1.Neither I or my opponent may choose the same items, weapons, tactics, or strategy. The only exception is the location whether it be staying in the metropolis, moving to a suburb or a rural area. If this rule is broken, my opponent or I forfeit the debate. Round 1- My opponent and I will present the terms of how we will survive the initial week of the zombie apocalypse. We will only have the choice of selecting five items or objects to carry with us. We can choose to link up with a group of five people or less. Or we can chose to survive the zombie apocalypse by ourselves. Either way, only past the first round we can choose to link up with other groups, the military, bandits, or whomever we can think of. We will have this round ONLY to choose if we want to leave the metropolis for a rural area or a suburb. Round 2-We both will develop our post-apocalyptic plans. Here are some examples of some vague plans. We will discuss our plans in explicit detail. 1)Will we meet meet new survivors and start a colony? If so, what size and how many survivors? What are the objectives of the colony? 2) Scavenge for supplies and food by ourselves or with our small group from the 1st round? 3) Will we look to find a government or military safe haven? 4) Will we be looking to find for a colony of survivors? 5) Will we become bandits or hunters who plan on robbing other survivors? 6)Will we become nomads that roam the zombie apocalypse? Round 3- We will discuss how we will address the problems with the zombie apocalypse. These three groups must be addressed the military, bandits, and other survival groups. We will discuss what our relations with these groups or types of groups will be. Whether we will ally with other groups, avoid them, or make enemies of them. Round 4- We will discuss how we will deal with zombie hordes that encroach upon our living quarters or habitat. This means what weapons will we obtain? Will we build fortifications? Is there any training required? Any appropriate gear for combat? Or will we run from zombie hordes? Round 5-We will describe what are long term plan for survival is. I will leave the imaginations of my opponent and I up in the air for this one. My Round 1 Case: I will have to raid a few stores to obtain my items so it can be a bit dangerous. The five items that I will obtain are a katana, machete, backpack, a pack of double AA batteries, and a flashlight. I chose the katana and machete because these are melee weapons which will be good to fight zombies. I chose a backpack so I could pick up food and supplies as I survive. The flashlight will be good at night time to spot zombies and other hostile elements. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... |pcrid|<PHONE>|&{copy:s_kwcid} I will be battling my way to a less populated suburb by myself. I will avoid zombie hordes and ordinary people on the way. I will get to the suburb by way of small streets rather than main streets. The suburb will be less rambunctious as the metropolis. The suburb is less vulnerable than the metropolis. The metropolis will have more zombies because there is a higher population to be infected. The suburb is closer to civilization than the rural area. So I am in a position to find more survivors or aid later. I will temporarily locate a two story house. I will try to kill the zombies in the house. Then go on to fortify the house. I will bar the first floor windows, and cover them with sheets. The sheets wills prevent people from seeing inside. I will barricade the back door with a dresser located in the house. If there is a basement door, I will find a book shelf to barricade it. I will search the neighborhood for home improvement items like planks, nails, and a hammer. Then I will nail the planks to the basement door and back door while keeping those doors barricaded as well. The only door that will be able to be opened easily is the front. At night, the front door will be barricaded as well. <URL>... I will search the neighborhood houses and a local supermarket for food and store it in the home's fridge and basement. The zombies on my searches will be avoided because I am by myself. I will sleep on the top floor away from the windows.

Tophatdoc

This is debate is part of a series of debates that I will debating on surviving an apocalypse. This debate in particular consists of surviving a zombie apocalypse. The voters will decide who has the better strategy to survive a zombie apocalypse. Objective: 1. The primary goal is to have a strategy to survive the zombie apocalypse. Both my opponent and I will begin the zombie scenario in the midst of a fictional metropolis. We can choose to leave for a rural area or suburb if we choose. Rules: 1.Neither I or my opponent may choose the same items, weapons, tactics, or strategy. The only exception is the location whether it be staying in the metropolis, moving to a suburb or a rural area. If this rule is broken, my opponent or I forfeit the debate. Round 1- My opponent and I will present the terms of how we will survive the initial week of the zombie apocalypse. We will only have the choice of selecting five items or objects to carry with us. We can choose to link up with a group of five people or less. Or we can chose to survive the zombie apocalypse by ourselves. Either way, only past the first round we can choose to link up with other groups, the military, bandits, or whomever we can think of. We will have this round ONLY to choose if we want to leave the metropolis for a rural area or a suburb. Round 2-We both will develop our post-apocalyptic plans. Here are some examples of some vague plans. We will discuss our plans in explicit detail. 1)Will we meet meet new survivors and start a colony? If so, what size and how many survivors? What are the objectives of the colony? 2) Scavenge for supplies and food by ourselves or with our small group from the 1st round? 3) Will we look to find a government or military safe haven? 4) Will we be looking to find for a colony of survivors? 5) Will we become bandits or hunters who plan on robbing other survivors? 6)Will we become nomads that roam the zombie apocalypse? Round 3- We will discuss how we will address the problems with the zombie apocalypse. These three groups must be addressed the military, bandits, and other survival groups. We will discuss what our relations with these groups or types of groups will be. Whether we will ally with other groups, avoid them, or make enemies of them. Round 4- We will discuss how we will deal with zombie hordes that encroach upon our living quarters or habitat. This means what weapons will we obtain? Will we build fortifications? Is there any training required? Any appropriate gear for combat? Or will we run from zombie hordes? Round 5-We will describe what are long term plan for survival is. I will leave the imaginations of my opponent and I up in the air for this one. My Round 1 Case: I will have to raid a few stores to obtain my items so it can be a bit dangerous. The five items that I will obtain are a katana, machete, backpack, a pack of double AA batteries, and a flashlight. I chose the katana and machete because these are melee weapons which will be good to fight zombies. I chose a backpack so I could pick up food and supplies as I survive. The flashlight will be good at night time to spot zombies and other hostile elements. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.amazon.com... http://www.rei.com... |pcrid|37352409880|&{copy:s_kwcid} I will be battling my way to a less populated suburb by myself. I will avoid zombie hordes and ordinary people on the way. I will get to the suburb by way of small streets rather than main streets. The suburb will be less rambunctious as the metropolis. The suburb is less vulnerable than the metropolis. The metropolis will have more zombies because there is a higher population to be infected. The suburb is closer to civilization than the rural area. So I am in a position to find more survivors or aid later. I will temporarily locate a two story house. I will try to kill the zombies in the house. Then go on to fortify the house. I will bar the first floor windows, and cover them with sheets. The sheets wills prevent people from seeing inside. I will barricade the back door with a dresser located in the house. If there is a basement door, I will find a book shelf to barricade it. I will search the neighborhood for home improvement items like planks, nails, and a hammer. Then I will nail the planks to the basement door and back door while keeping those doors barricaded as well. The only door that will be able to be opened easily is the front. At night, the front door will be barricaded as well. http://www.shutterstock.com... I will search the neighborhood houses and a local supermarket for food and store it in the home's fridge and basement. The zombies on my searches will be avoided because I am by myself. I will sleep on the top floor away from the windows.

Entertainment

A-Series-Can-you-survive-a-Zombie-Apocalypse/1/

Apparently, my opponent was not reading the rules or the round functions. That will cost him some points. But we shall continue because there is only one rule that results in a forfeit. To my opponent, follow the rules for the rest of the debate please. I would suggest he start from the campsite and state his five items, and whatnot. Since I am in the suburbs, I will meet up with other survivors in the suburbs to start a colony. We will start the colony when we have nine or more survivors. The colony will be setup in a suburban cul-de-sac. The colony will be based on a set of 8-10 houses that share the same backyard. We will take turns fortifying the house while building up a stock of foods. Some survivors will be forging for food while others obtained melee weapons. These weapons will include knives, machetes, swords, bats, chainsaws, and every other melee weapon that can be obtained from the local stores. We would not concern ourselves with searching for handguns. If we found firearms, we will only take rifles. The rifles will not be used on zombies. So our colony will not fight zombie hordes head on. Rather our strategy will require us to attempt to lure the zombies into smaller groups to be slaughtered. Our colony would use melee weapons to fight the zombies. The colony will have a leader, and that will be me. This colony would have a maximum of twenty survivors. Our colony would be focused on building a safe haven in this apocalyptic world for alpha survivors. To join our colony, five zombies will need to be killed in melee combat. People with children below the age of thirteen will not be allowed.

Tophatdoc

Apparently, my opponent was not reading the rules or the round functions. That will cost him some points. But we shall continue because there is only one rule that results in a forfeit. To my opponent, follow the rules for the rest of the debate please. I would suggest he start from the campsite and state his five items, and whatnot. Since I am in the suburbs, I will meet up with other survivors in the suburbs to start a colony. We will start the colony when we have nine or more survivors. The colony will be setup in a suburban cul-de-sac. The colony will be based on a set of 8-10 houses that share the same backyard. We will take turns fortifying the house while building up a stock of foods. Some survivors will be forging for food while others obtained melee weapons. These weapons will include knives, machetes, swords, bats, chainsaws, and every other melee weapon that can be obtained from the local stores. We would not concern ourselves with searching for handguns. If we found firearms, we will only take rifles. The rifles will not be used on zombies. So our colony will not fight zombie hordes head on. Rather our strategy will require us to attempt to lure the zombies into smaller groups to be slaughtered. Our colony would use melee weapons to fight the zombies. The colony will have a leader, and that will be me. This colony would have a maximum of twenty survivors. Our colony would be focused on building a safe haven in this apocalyptic world for alpha survivors. To join our colony, five zombies will need to be killed in melee combat. People with children below the age of thirteen will not be allowed.

Entertainment

A-Series-Can-you-survive-a-Zombie-Apocalypse/1/

Sure so I will challenge you to a new debate then

Tophatdoc

Sure so I will challenge you to a new debate then

Entertainment

A-Series-Can-you-survive-a-Zombie-Apocalypse/1/

My opponent forfeited. He also denied to do another challenge. Con did not follow the structure as well.Vote Pro.

Tophatdoc

My opponent forfeited. He also denied to do another challenge. Con did not follow the structure as well.Vote Pro.

Entertainment

A-Series-Can-you-survive-a-Zombie-Apocalypse/1/

To repeat my last post.My opponent forfeited. He also denied to do another challenge. Con did not follow the structure as well.Vote Pro.

Tophatdoc

To repeat my last post.My opponent forfeited. He also denied to do another challenge. Con did not follow the structure as well.Vote Pro.

Entertainment

A-Series-Can-you-survive-a-Zombie-Apocalypse/1/

This is a debate that has to do with the catcher and the rye. I think that parents that baby their kids. Their kids end up being socially awkward and not knowing how to function properly in a normal society.

stevoaaa

This is a debate that has to do with the catcher and the rye. I think that parents that baby their kids. Their kids end up being socially awkward and not knowing how to function properly in a normal society.

Education

A-child-s-purity-should-not-be-protected-from-the-harsh-realities-of-the-world./1/

My argument is that there is scientific proof that a creator does exist. My faith guides me to believe the Christian God is the creator but science tells us that a creator exists. DNA is the proof. DNA is hard coded logic in a cell which is alive. To say that the world derived by chance (big bang theory and other theories), is to say that material (or matter) came before logic. This is simply impossible. If I we're to mash up the exact composition of a human body in basic elements (water, carbon, etc.) it still would not be a human. It is the logic that creates us and dictates what we will become. But who created this complex logic, which puts computer software complexity to shame? An atheist would have to argue that the logic came from material. In other words the elements came together somehow to create this logic. It just doesn't make sense to the human mind. If you believe this, you have more faith in atheism than I do in Christianity. Think of everything created in this world. What was the root cause of all these things, matter or logic? Of all man made things you must say logic because someone had to think of it before bringing it into fruition. But what about all natural things? If it is alive and has cells, you must argue it derived from logic as well. But who created the logic?

ny2244111

My argument is that there is scientific proof that a creator does exist. My faith guides me to believe the Christian God is the creator but science tells us that a creator exists. DNA is the proof. DNA is hard coded logic in a cell which is alive. To say that the world derived by chance (big bang theory and other theories), is to say that material (or matter) came before logic. This is simply impossible. If I we're to mash up the exact composition of a human body in basic elements (water, carbon, etc.) it still would not be a human. It is the logic that creates us and dictates what we will become. But who created this complex logic, which puts computer software complexity to shame? An atheist would have to argue that the logic came from material. In other words the elements came together somehow to create this logic. It just doesn't make sense to the human mind. If you believe this, you have more faith in atheism than I do in Christianity. Think of everything created in this world. What was the root cause of all these things, matter or logic? Of all man made things you must say logic because someone had to think of it before bringing it into fruition. But what about all natural things? If it is alive and has cells, you must argue it derived from logic as well. But who created the logic?

Religion

A-creator-of-the-universe-does-exist./1/

To mock the annoying style of debate you have become accustomed to, I shall copy and paste your arguments in quotes and refute them as well. : ) YOU - "First of all, that doesn't prove anything. There goes an ad populum fallacy among Christians, believing that a creator of the life on earth implies a creator of the UNIVERSE. For example, we create computers with "hard coded logic," but does that necessarily mean we created the UNIVERSE. And still, how does logic imply a creator in the first place?" ME - We created the "hard coded logic" and that means we created the computer. However, one could argue that someone or something first gave us this logic to create a computer in the first place. This extends my argument that logic can only derive from logic. Logic cannot come from material and if you trace this theory as far back as possible, you have to believe in a creator. Logic cannot simply come into existence without some other logical force acting upon it. Also, I could argue that your belief is "ad populum" because the education system teaches these theories to the masses. I'm actually anti establishment and you are the one conforming to popular belief. YOU - "No..... Where the heck are you going with this? This doesn't make any sense. First of all the creation of the world isn't what the big bang theory talks about. Second of all, you contradicted yourself as before you stated that DNA (which of course is made out of matter) is logic while going about how the matter that makes it up came afterward." ME - The first sentece for Big Bang under Wikipedia states "The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe. " How is this not talking of the creation of the world? Of course DNA is made of matter. So is all the information you store on a computer. It is all saved on a hard drive. But this is not the important stuff. The important stuff is what the information means. This is why I argue there must be a creator. The logic is so perfect in DNA, that only a universal creator could bring it into existence. ME - If you believe in primordial soup, then you have more faith in Atheism than I do in my religion. It seems as though your coming up with any excuse to deny the existence of a God. YOU - "Explain to me how this has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Also, you might want to reconsider your whole "logical" argument, as you are constantly putting the term out of context." ME - Believing logic came before matter has everything to do with a creator of the universe. That's what i've been arguing the whole time. That a supreme creator had to be logical in order to create such a perfect universe. I'm a software developer and we use "logic" in place of code or a certain way of thinking. Defintion: <URL>... . As you can see, there are many different interpretations fo the word. Why do liberals always try to argue what words mean instead of actually debating? YOU - "Life's creator = Universe's creator That argument is terribly invalid. Life's creator could have been part of the universe. Heck, that's like saying WE created the universe just because we create computers. Also, the existence of patterns or mechanical systems doesn't imply a creator as well. I gave the water cycle as an example." ME - Of course I believe life's creator = universe's creator. As I said before, logic came before matter. If it we're the case that they we're different, I could not say that. Your implying by believing the two are different that matter just came into being all of a sudden, and somehow a creator of life was created out of this matter. It is not feasible to believe that. I believe that God was in existence first, and through his power (or logic) he created the universe. I refuted the argument of the computers earlier in this round. You are correct when you say Nature creates patterns. But I believe that Nature was created by God anyhow. Once again, logic must come before logic. I'm getting ttired of stating that principle but it backs all of my arguments. After all, nature can create patterns but only God can create logic. Here's an excellent youtube video of a Harvard professor extending my argument:

ny2244111

To mock the annoying style of debate you have become accustomed to, I shall copy and paste your arguments in quotes and refute them as well. : ) YOU - "First of all, that doesn't prove anything. There goes an ad populum fallacy among Christians, believing that a creator of the life on earth implies a creator of the UNIVERSE. For example, we create computers with "hard coded logic," but does that necessarily mean we created the UNIVERSE. And still, how does logic imply a creator in the first place?" ME - We created the "hard coded logic" and that means we created the computer. However, one could argue that someone or something first gave us this logic to create a computer in the first place. This extends my argument that logic can only derive from logic. Logic cannot come from material and if you trace this theory as far back as possible, you have to believe in a creator. Logic cannot simply come into existence without some other logical force acting upon it. Also, I could argue that your belief is "ad populum" because the education system teaches these theories to the masses. I'm actually anti establishment and you are the one conforming to popular belief. YOU - "No..... Where the heck are you going with this? This doesn't make any sense. First of all the creation of the world isn't what the big bang theory talks about. Second of all, you contradicted yourself as before you stated that DNA (which of course is made out of matter) is logic while going about how the matter that makes it up came afterward." ME - The first sentece for Big Bang under Wikipedia states "The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe. " How is this not talking of the creation of the world? Of course DNA is made of matter. So is all the information you store on a computer. It is all saved on a hard drive. But this is not the important stuff. The important stuff is what the information means. This is why I argue there must be a creator. The logic is so perfect in DNA, that only a universal creator could bring it into existence. ME - If you believe in primordial soup, then you have more faith in Atheism than I do in my religion. It seems as though your coming up with any excuse to deny the existence of a God. YOU - "Explain to me how this has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Also, you might want to reconsider your whole "logical" argument, as you are constantly putting the term out of context." ME - Believing logic came before matter has everything to do with a creator of the universe. That's what i've been arguing the whole time. That a supreme creator had to be logical in order to create such a perfect universe. I'm a software developer and we use "logic" in place of code or a certain way of thinking. Defintion: http://www.merriam-webster.com... . As you can see, there are many different interpretations fo the word. Why do liberals always try to argue what words mean instead of actually debating? YOU - "Life's creator = Universe's creator That argument is terribly invalid. Life's creator could have been part of the universe. Heck, that's like saying WE created the universe just because we create computers. Also, the existence of patterns or mechanical systems doesn't imply a creator as well. I gave the water cycle as an example." ME - Of course I believe life's creator = universe's creator. As I said before, logic came before matter. If it we're the case that they we're different, I could not say that. Your implying by believing the two are different that matter just came into being all of a sudden, and somehow a creator of life was created out of this matter. It is not feasible to believe that. I believe that God was in existence first, and through his power (or logic) he created the universe. I refuted the argument of the computers earlier in this round. You are correct when you say Nature creates patterns. But I believe that Nature was created by God anyhow. Once again, logic must come before logic. I'm getting ttired of stating that principle but it backs all of my arguments. After all, nature can create patterns but only God can create logic. Here's an excellent youtube video of a Harvard professor extending my argument:

Religion

A-creator-of-the-universe-does-exist./1/

When you say I have to give the burden of proof, please realize that I believe I am giving proof that a creator of the universe exists. I am not arguing or at least not trying to argue on the basis of "you cannot prove a creator does not exist and therefore he/she/it does". I am stating that DNA PROVES a creator's existence because of the information contained within it. Now onto refuting your claims... This statement is pretty silly to me: YOU - "Logic isn't something that "exists", rather it is a tool created by us intelligent beings to help us make sense of things. How about this: every time you say "logic" replace it with "math"" How would one deny that logic exists? Would you say that your feelings do not exist? Would you say pain does not exist? Just because things are not seen, does not mean they don't exist (Perhaps another debatable topic). Also, logic is used appropriately grammatically in my arguments. I guess it matters what definition of Logic we're using. YOU - "You see, just like math, logic is but a tool DEVELOPED by intelligent beings to help them understand their environment. Just like math, or science, or literature, logic is not a physical thing that exists in our environment, rather something that intellectual beings developed to UNDERSTAND their environment." I agree with you only about math, science, literature, and logic not being physical things. Of course I believe they do "exist". Math, logic, and all intelligent information, came before matter and this is why they cannot be a mere tool made by intelligent beings to understand their environment. You BELIEVE matter came before logic and therefore you might conclude otherwise. Now on to the proposed questions you gave me: 1) I only stated that "A creator of the universe does exist" not a "creator of a creator" 2) See above 3) No, there is no information available to support this. DNA supports and proves an intelligent creator. 4) You could argue that the creator of the universe created the computer because the universe encapsulates the computer object. You cannot logically go in reverse and argue that something which was created, created it's creator. I would like to thank my opponent for taking the debate. Religion is always an interesting topic and although I disagree with him wholeheartedly, I respect his opinion. Please understand that although I am a Christian by faith, my argument was only that A creator of the universe does exist. I leave you with this quote: John O'Keefe - NASA astronomer: "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

ny2244111

When you say I have to give the burden of proof, please realize that I believe I am giving proof that a creator of the universe exists. I am not arguing or at least not trying to argue on the basis of "you cannot prove a creator does not exist and therefore he/she/it does". I am stating that DNA PROVES a creator's existence because of the information contained within it. Now onto refuting your claims... This statement is pretty silly to me: YOU - "Logic isn't something that "exists", rather it is a tool created by us intelligent beings to help us make sense of things. How about this: every time you say "logic" replace it with "math"" How would one deny that logic exists? Would you say that your feelings do not exist? Would you say pain does not exist? Just because things are not seen, does not mean they don't exist (Perhaps another debatable topic). Also, logic is used appropriately grammatically in my arguments. I guess it matters what definition of Logic we're using. YOU - "You see, just like math, logic is but a tool DEVELOPED by intelligent beings to help them understand their environment. Just like math, or science, or literature, logic is not a physical thing that exists in our environment, rather something that intellectual beings developed to UNDERSTAND their environment." I agree with you only about math, science, literature, and logic not being physical things. Of course I believe they do "exist". Math, logic, and all intelligent information, came before matter and this is why they cannot be a mere tool made by intelligent beings to understand their environment. You BELIEVE matter came before logic and therefore you might conclude otherwise. Now on to the proposed questions you gave me: 1) I only stated that "A creator of the universe does exist" not a "creator of a creator" 2) See above 3) No, there is no information available to support this. DNA supports and proves an intelligent creator. 4) You could argue that the creator of the universe created the computer because the universe encapsulates the computer object. You cannot logically go in reverse and argue that something which was created, created it's creator. I would like to thank my opponent for taking the debate. Religion is always an interesting topic and although I disagree with him wholeheartedly, I respect his opinion. Please understand that although I am a Christian by faith, my argument was only that A creator of the universe does exist. I leave you with this quote: John O'Keefe - NASA astronomer: "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

Religion

A-creator-of-the-universe-does-exist./1/

Okay, so what will happen is I will post a plan, that is a solution to a modern problem. My opponent will attack the plan, and try to disprove it. Here's my plan to eliminate poverty. Step One: Education Education is the most important tool to escape poverty. Obviously we must provide a higher quality education for impoverished children. UNICEF ranked the United States' educational system 22nd out of 30 developed nations. That is clearly failure. The school system is choked by bureaucracy and standardization. There is no accountability for schools. If they fail, they aren't hurt, if they succeed, they aren't rewarded. The solution is clear, a private school voucher system will improve education. A voucher system would create a market-style school system, if a public school fails, students zoned for it will go to private schools. In a way this competition already exists, but not to its full extent. In many cities the schools are failing. This is for a variety of reasons, most of which stem from the socialist model, but those who can afford to go to private schools go to private schools. Poorer children are left in the failing schools. They have no where to go. As long as the school has a captive student body, it has little incentive to improve, and the children who have to go there are left with a very poor quality education. Also, many low income students are stuck in bad schools, schools described by the Chicago Tribune as "An institutionalized case of child neglect." If these schools are failing, children need a way out. Vouchers provide a way out. Education used to be a child's ticket out of poverty, but now it is what keeps them impoverished. In Colombia, a nation with a fairly similar educational system, a voucher program was developed. Unfortunately, as Colombia is a poor nation, only 50% of those eligible for vouchers could get a voucher. Luckily for us, this allows us to compare the success of the vouchers to the traditional system. The Brookings Institution performed a study of this program and it found that there was an increase among voucher winners in those taking college entrance exams, voucher winners being about 9% more likely to do so, a 5-7% increase in high school graduation among winners, and winners were much less likely to fail a grade. The authors of the study said "On balance, our results suggest a substantial gain in both high school graduation rates and achievement as a result of the voucher program. Although the benefits of achievement gains per se are hard to quantify, there is a substantial economic return to high school graduation in Colombia." Also, in 1994, a conservative government in Sweden made a voucher system that was so successful that when the liberals took over, politically they could not end the system. The world has tried vouchers, and they have been a wild success. We need the best for our children. Vouchers have proven that they work best. Also the problem with public schools is not money. Public school systems spend an average of about $10000 on every student, whereas private schools spend substantially less. It is not money, it is how the money is spent, and private schools that by nature are forced to compete have shown they can spend the money better, it is better to let people make the choice to instill competition, than it is to consign people to failing schools that seem broken beyond repair. Money is not the issue. We save money with vouchers, and we get a much more educated populace. Step Two: Eliminating the Ghetto Ghettos place a lot of desperate people in one place. This leads to gang violence, drug abuse and other problems. The solution to that problem is clear. We must eliminate the ghetto. This can be easily done. The answer is to spread low income housing. If we put one low income household on every block, the low income families would be spread out, and would also be placed in areas that have affluent families ready to help out. Spreading them out eliminates urban slums, which increases urban real estate value, and it reduces gang violence by eliminating the need for a gang. Also, affluent neighborhoods tend to have access to better public services, which would also improve the quality of life for low income families. Step Three: Increasing Employment Opportunities The Brookings Institution writes "The decentralizing U.S. economy has, in many metropolitan areas, led to a spatial mismatch between where welfare recipients live and where jobs are available. In Milwaukee, for instance, nearly 90 percent of full-time entry-level job openings in May 2000 were located in the suburban/exurban parts of the metropolitan area. Only 4 percent of full-time and part-time entry-level job openings were located in the central Milwaukee neighborhoods where most W-2 (Wisconsin's welfare reform program) participants lived. An October 2001 survey showed that there were only 2,700 full- and part-time jobs available in central city Milwaukee for the 13,100 persons actively seeking work there." This problem has a number of solutions necessary. One important solution is the elimination of the ghetto, and the movement of low income families from the city to the suburbs. Also, welfare programs must focus on providing employment. This entails providing a car. Most low income families do not have an automobile. This prevents them from getting jobs far away from their residence. Providing an automobile would drastically increase employment.

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Okay, so what will happen is I will post a plan, that is a solution to a modern problem. My opponent will attack the plan, and try to disprove it. Here's my plan to eliminate poverty. Step One: Education Education is the most important tool to escape poverty. Obviously we must provide a higher quality education for impoverished children. UNICEF ranked the United States' educational system 22nd out of 30 developed nations. That is clearly failure. The school system is choked by bureaucracy and standardization. There is no accountability for schools. If they fail, they aren't hurt, if they succeed, they aren't rewarded. The solution is clear, a private school voucher system will improve education. A voucher system would create a market-style school system, if a public school fails, students zoned for it will go to private schools. In a way this competition already exists, but not to its full extent. In many cities the schools are failing. This is for a variety of reasons, most of which stem from the socialist model, but those who can afford to go to private schools go to private schools. Poorer children are left in the failing schools. They have no where to go. As long as the school has a captive student body, it has little incentive to improve, and the children who have to go there are left with a very poor quality education. Also, many low income students are stuck in bad schools, schools described by the Chicago Tribune as "An institutionalized case of child neglect." If these schools are failing, children need a way out. Vouchers provide a way out. Education used to be a child's ticket out of poverty, but now it is what keeps them impoverished. In Colombia, a nation with a fairly similar educational system, a voucher program was developed. Unfortunately, as Colombia is a poor nation, only 50% of those eligible for vouchers could get a voucher. Luckily for us, this allows us to compare the success of the vouchers to the traditional system. The Brookings Institution performed a study of this program and it found that there was an increase among voucher winners in those taking college entrance exams, voucher winners being about 9% more likely to do so, a 5-7% increase in high school graduation among winners, and winners were much less likely to fail a grade. The authors of the study said "On balance, our results suggest a substantial gain in both high school graduation rates and achievement as a result of the voucher program. Although the benefits of achievement gains per se are hard to quantify, there is a substantial economic return to high school graduation in Colombia." Also, in 1994, a conservative government in Sweden made a voucher system that was so successful that when the liberals took over, politically they could not end the system. The world has tried vouchers, and they have been a wild success. We need the best for our children. Vouchers have proven that they work best. Also the problem with public schools is not money. Public school systems spend an average of about $10000 on every student, whereas private schools spend substantially less. It is not money, it is how the money is spent, and private schools that by nature are forced to compete have shown they can spend the money better, it is better to let people make the choice to instill competition, than it is to consign people to failing schools that seem broken beyond repair. Money is not the issue. We save money with vouchers, and we get a much more educated populace. Step Two: Eliminating the Ghetto Ghettos place a lot of desperate people in one place. This leads to gang violence, drug abuse and other problems. The solution to that problem is clear. We must eliminate the ghetto. This can be easily done. The answer is to spread low income housing. If we put one low income household on every block, the low income families would be spread out, and would also be placed in areas that have affluent families ready to help out. Spreading them out eliminates urban slums, which increases urban real estate value, and it reduces gang violence by eliminating the need for a gang. Also, affluent neighborhoods tend to have access to better public services, which would also improve the quality of life for low income families. Step Three: Increasing Employment Opportunities The Brookings Institution writes "The decentralizing U.S. economy has, in many metropolitan areas, led to a spatial mismatch between where welfare recipients live and where jobs are available. In Milwaukee, for instance, nearly 90 percent of full-time entry-level job openings in May 2000 were located in the suburban/exurban parts of the metropolitan area. Only 4 percent of full-time and part-time entry-level job openings were located in the central Milwaukee neighborhoods where most W-2 (Wisconsin's welfare reform program) participants lived. An October 2001 survey showed that there were only 2,700 full- and part-time jobs available in central city Milwaukee for the 13,100 persons actively seeking work there." This problem has a number of solutions necessary. One important solution is the elimination of the ghetto, and the movement of low income families from the city to the suburbs. Also, welfare programs must focus on providing employment. This entails providing a car. Most low income families do not have an automobile. This prevents them from getting jobs far away from their residence. Providing an automobile would drastically increase employment.

Politics

A-debate-on-a-plan/1/

1. The reason I argue that education is essential is because looking at the education of people not below the poverty line, you see a vast number with a college education. Also, the amount of jobs available to college-educated people are certainly more numerous than those offered to high school graduates. 2. Here's some US data: "The Institute of Education Sciences (IES)study reported that nearly 90 percent of all students showed academic gains in reading. The IES also reported last year that there was an increase in math scores among the students. This program has helped the students gain the equivalent of two to four extra months of learning." That's in reference to the Washington DC voucher program, " And, Milwaukee, the country's oldest voucher system has led to success stories like this: "Messmer Catholic High School in Milwaukee is a voucher success story. Messmer is funded at the 80% level by voucher students. What are the statistics? The daily attendance rate is 95% and 90% of the students go on to a four-year college. This data is holding true every year. This does not include the students that go on to 2-year colleges." 3. That's not always true. Immigrants tend not to settle in the "bad areas" of cities, and the areas they end up in tend to have slightly better schools. And, if they do end up in a bad school, they are no more likely to escape poverty than someone whose family has been here since 1608. 4. We are not forcing them, we are simply moving where we build Section 8 housing. As of now, we build "projects" in the inner city. If we built Section 8 only in the suburbs, and in spread out areas, we wouldn't get ghettos. 5. Section 8 housing does not let people live wherever they choose to live, it lets them live in areas that are specially designated for Section 8 housing, and that creates ghettos. 6. It's a goal, but so is eliminating the ghetto, and improving education. 7. There will always be those unmotivated people. It is impossible to eliminate them. By poverty I meant widespread poverty, certainly some people will be lazy, unlucky, or stupid. I CANNOT treat them in any way. 8. "Evelyn Blumenberg, a professor of urban planning at UCLA, found that car-driving residents of the Watts section of Los Angeles have access to an astounding 59 times as many jobs as their neighbors dependent on public transit. Even more isolated are the car-less low-income families that now live in the suburbs--nearly half of all metropolitan poor." -Brookings Insitution Also "The lack of a car limits opportunities for America's poor in other ways too. It's never easy to be a working single parent, but it's infinitely harder without a car. When you spend three hours a day commuting to work by bus and train, then have to buy groceries and pick up your kids, there isn't much time for anything else--like helping with homework or after-school activities, taking yourself or your family to the doctor when necessary, or even finding a partner to help share the load. And lack of access to a car limits your housing options, making it even harder to move into safer neighborhoods, or ones with better schools." -Brookings Institution And..."But even for low- and middle-income workers who do own cars, purchase and operating costs take a significant bite out of their income--more than 20 percent of all household expenditures go for transportation, second only to housing. For the vast majority of households, those costs aren't optional--cars represent a fixed and non-negotiable expense. And every time the price of gas increases, it is in effect a tax on work." -Brookings Institution 9. Sure, there is some mobility, but not when you have a POS education, and everyone around you is miserable, on drugs, and will probably get killed by an angry gang member. Also, people will become impoverished, of course, that is unpreventable. I simply mean that one has to be able to easily escape poverty, and that is certainly not the case now, especially in inner city areas. 10. Again, no plan can address every problem, every situation. I just need to ensure mobility for all persons. 11. And a quality education helps people succeed. And again, I cannot force everyone to be motivated, no one can. I am creating as much mobility as possible. Vote Pro.

LR4N6FTW4EVA

1. The reason I argue that education is essential is because looking at the education of people not below the poverty line, you see a vast number with a college education. Also, the amount of jobs available to college-educated people are certainly more numerous than those offered to high school graduates. 2. Here's some US data: "The Institute of Education Sciences (IES)study reported that nearly 90 percent of all students showed academic gains in reading. The IES also reported last year that there was an increase in math scores among the students. This program has helped the students gain the equivalent of two to four extra months of learning." That's in reference to the Washington DC voucher program, " And, Milwaukee, the country's oldest voucher system has led to success stories like this: "Messmer Catholic High School in Milwaukee is a voucher success story. Messmer is funded at the 80% level by voucher students. What are the statistics? The daily attendance rate is 95% and 90% of the students go on to a four-year college. This data is holding true every year. This does not include the students that go on to 2-year colleges." 3. That's not always true. Immigrants tend not to settle in the "bad areas" of cities, and the areas they end up in tend to have slightly better schools. And, if they do end up in a bad school, they are no more likely to escape poverty than someone whose family has been here since 1608. 4. We are not forcing them, we are simply moving where we build Section 8 housing. As of now, we build "projects" in the inner city. If we built Section 8 only in the suburbs, and in spread out areas, we wouldn't get ghettos. 5. Section 8 housing does not let people live wherever they choose to live, it lets them live in areas that are specially designated for Section 8 housing, and that creates ghettos. 6. It's a goal, but so is eliminating the ghetto, and improving education. 7. There will always be those unmotivated people. It is impossible to eliminate them. By poverty I meant widespread poverty, certainly some people will be lazy, unlucky, or stupid. I CANNOT treat them in any way. 8. "Evelyn Blumenberg, a professor of urban planning at UCLA, found that car-driving residents of the Watts section of Los Angeles have access to an astounding 59 times as many jobs as their neighbors dependent on public transit. Even more isolated are the car-less low-income families that now live in the suburbs—nearly half of all metropolitan poor." -Brookings Insitution Also "The lack of a car limits opportunities for America's poor in other ways too. It's never easy to be a working single parent, but it's infinitely harder without a car. When you spend three hours a day commuting to work by bus and train, then have to buy groceries and pick up your kids, there isn't much time for anything else—like helping with homework or after-school activities, taking yourself or your family to the doctor when necessary, or even finding a partner to help share the load. And lack of access to a car limits your housing options, making it even harder to move into safer neighborhoods, or ones with better schools." -Brookings Institution And..."But even for low- and middle-income workers who do own cars, purchase and operating costs take a significant bite out of their income—more than 20 percent of all household expenditures go for transportation, second only to housing. For the vast majority of households, those costs aren't optional—cars represent a fixed and non-negotiable expense. And every time the price of gas increases, it is in effect a tax on work." -Brookings Institution 9. Sure, there is some mobility, but not when you have a POS education, and everyone around you is miserable, on drugs, and will probably get killed by an angry gang member. Also, people will become impoverished, of course, that is unpreventable. I simply mean that one has to be able to easily escape poverty, and that is certainly not the case now, especially in inner city areas. 10. Again, no plan can address every problem, every situation. I just need to ensure mobility for all persons. 11. And a quality education helps people succeed. And again, I cannot force everyone to be motivated, no one can. I am creating as much mobility as possible. Vote Pro.

Politics

A-debate-on-a-plan/1/

"1. Does increasing education eliminate poverty or does eliminating poverty increase education? Proponent showed only a correlation, not cause and effect. I gave the example of India, in which high educational levels did not eliminate, or even dramatically reduce, poverty. What dramatically reduced poverty in India was ending their ill-advised experiment in democratic socialism. Nonetheless, poverty still remains in India despite a good educational system. Another example is the economy of the Soviet Union, which crashed despite a good educational system." Certainly education causes wealth. Have you ever compared the salary of the cashier at McDonald's to a physician's? Education improves the job you can get. "The U.S. has both a free economy and a good educational system, but poverty remains. I grant that further improvements in education will make some improvement in reducing poverty, but the statistics Proponent offered showed that the probable improvement is at most 7%. Note also that the very high mobility also indicates that the educational system is not a major bar to moving out of poverty. However good or bad the education system, people move into and out of poverty in the US in one or two generations. The education system does not change that rapidly, so the main factors must lie outside of education." Our education was ranked by UNESCO as 22 in the world. That's not that great. Anyways, the modern problems of poverty tend to be relegated now to areas with horrible education (inner cities), and the mobility in those areas is much less present. "The data Proponent offers for the efficacy of vouchers is for a single Catholic school in Milwaukee, which was not even established to being attended predominantly by poor people. If highly motivated people have access to a better education system, I grant that they will get a better education. However, highly motivated people will escape poverty for the most part anyway. Proponent must demonstrate that improved education alone, independent of other factors, substantially reduces poverty on a statistical basis." First, it was established as being attended by poor students (85% of tuition from vouchers) and was chosen as a microcosm and a feel-good story. And furthermore, we want everyone to have an opportunity to climb the social ladder, we want the only slightly motivated people to be able to succeed as well. "The data Proponent offers for the efficacy of vouchers is for a single Catholic school in Milwaukee, which was not even established to being attended predominantly by poor people. If highly motivated people have access to a better education system, I grant that they will get a better education. However, highly motivated people will escape poverty for the most part anyway. Proponent must demonstrate that improved education alone, independent of other factors, substantially reduces poverty on a statistical basis." You accuse me of not providing statistics? I challenge you to do the same, you made the statement, prove it. "Most Section 8 housing is not built by the government, it is provided by the free market. The government provides rent subsides to the owners of the housing to make it affordable. Proponent has not shown that the free market has failed to provide sufficient Section 8 housing outside of inner cities, which he calls 'ghettos.' He assumes that to be true, and he proposes a government building program to provide more housing outside of cites. Housing outside of inner cities is in fact in oversupply, so how is building more of it going to help anything? The fact is that people could always relocate if they chose to, they simple choose not to. The reasons they choose not to include ties to family, community, and culture. Those who are in poverty due to problems with mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and inappropriate social values get better services in the central cities that elsewhere, so they will not be inclined to move." My opponent obviously does not understand the situation of Section 8. Builders do not want their houses to be Section 8 houses, as this decreases their profit. That leads to Section 8 housing being situated mainly in the inner city, where real estate is already lower than that level. Also, I do not propose building new houses, I propose purchasing houses from contractors and real estate companies to be used as low income housing. "Proponent asserts that 'Section 8 housing does not let people live wherever they choose to live, it lets them live in areas that are specially designated for Section 8 housing, and that creates ghettos.' This is false. Section 8 is a rent subsidy program that provides payment to private landlords to accommodate low income renters. It operates throughout the United States, and is as available in rural New Mexico as it is in urban Detroit. It is a voucher program. I remind Proponent of the virtues of voucher programs:" As I said, landlords choose if they will allow Section 8 subsidies, and most choose not to, because real estate value goes down if they do. "Proponent claimed his plan would eliminate poverty. He now grants that a certain part of poverty cannot be eliminated. This concedes that his plan will not work. The best he can do is to argue that poverty that is a result of mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and inappropriate social values (those values that lead to an unwillingness to work hard) are an insignificant part of total poverty. What statistics are there to prove that?" You place an insurmountable burden with your interpretation of my plan's goal. No plan can totally eliminate poverty. "The notion is clearly contradicted by the rapid escape from poverty of penniless immigrants who arrive in the US with very high motivation. A prime example are the middle class people expelled from Cuba by Castro, who have very rapidly succeeded in Florida. Refugees from rural Vietnam and Cambodia are another good example. In a society like the US that has many opportunities, motivation is the primary factor for success. This is true even if the opportunities are imperfect." Opponent does not support his claim that these immigrants are succeeding rapidly. "Professor Blumberg cites only the statistic that half the metropolitan poor live in suburbs. He gives no statistic on how many lack cars. We know that overall 75% of the poor have cars. To evaluate the effectiveness of providing cars we need to know how many people in poverty simultaneously (1) lack cars, (2) could use cars more effectively than public transportation, (3) are not disabled in such a way that they cannot drive, and (4) and are motivated to use a car to get a job. The upper limit is the 25% who lack cars. So what is the real number? Is it 5%? Proponent has made no argument that his plan would have a substantial effect." As I said, the statistic that 75% have cars is skewed. That means your data is false. ". Proponent grants that his plan will not end poverty. He makes no argument that it would even have a substantial impact. Therefore the proposition fails." The debate is about whether the proposition is good or not, not about whether it will totally end poverty (that would be pointless). As Con you must show it will not significantly reduce it.

LR4N6FTW4EVA

"1. Does increasing education eliminate poverty or does eliminating poverty increase education? Proponent showed only a correlation, not cause and effect. I gave the example of India, in which high educational levels did not eliminate, or even dramatically reduce, poverty. What dramatically reduced poverty in India was ending their ill-advised experiment in democratic socialism. Nonetheless, poverty still remains in India despite a good educational system. Another example is the economy of the Soviet Union, which crashed despite a good educational system." Certainly education causes wealth. Have you ever compared the salary of the cashier at McDonald's to a physician's? Education improves the job you can get. "The U.S. has both a free economy and a good educational system, but poverty remains. I grant that further improvements in education will make some improvement in reducing poverty, but the statistics Proponent offered showed that the probable improvement is at most 7%. Note also that the very high mobility also indicates that the educational system is not a major bar to moving out of poverty. However good or bad the education system, people move into and out of poverty in the US in one or two generations. The education system does not change that rapidly, so the main factors must lie outside of education." Our education was ranked by UNESCO as 22 in the world. That's not that great. Anyways, the modern problems of poverty tend to be relegated now to areas with horrible education (inner cities), and the mobility in those areas is much less present. "The data Proponent offers for the efficacy of vouchers is for a single Catholic school in Milwaukee, which was not even established to being attended predominantly by poor people. If highly motivated people have access to a better education system, I grant that they will get a better education. However, highly motivated people will escape poverty for the most part anyway. Proponent must demonstrate that improved education alone, independent of other factors, substantially reduces poverty on a statistical basis." First, it was established as being attended by poor students (85% of tuition from vouchers) and was chosen as a microcosm and a feel-good story. And furthermore, we want everyone to have an opportunity to climb the social ladder, we want the only slightly motivated people to be able to succeed as well. "The data Proponent offers for the efficacy of vouchers is for a single Catholic school in Milwaukee, which was not even established to being attended predominantly by poor people. If highly motivated people have access to a better education system, I grant that they will get a better education. However, highly motivated people will escape poverty for the most part anyway. Proponent must demonstrate that improved education alone, independent of other factors, substantially reduces poverty on a statistical basis." You accuse me of not providing statistics? I challenge you to do the same, you made the statement, prove it. "Most Section 8 housing is not built by the government, it is provided by the free market. The government provides rent subsides to the owners of the housing to make it affordable. Proponent has not shown that the free market has failed to provide sufficient Section 8 housing outside of inner cities, which he calls 'ghettos.' He assumes that to be true, and he proposes a government building program to provide more housing outside of cites. Housing outside of inner cities is in fact in oversupply, so how is building more of it going to help anything? The fact is that people could always relocate if they chose to, they simple choose not to. The reasons they choose not to include ties to family, community, and culture. Those who are in poverty due to problems with mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and inappropriate social values get better services in the central cities that elsewhere, so they will not be inclined to move." My opponent obviously does not understand the situation of Section 8. Builders do not want their houses to be Section 8 houses, as this decreases their profit. That leads to Section 8 housing being situated mainly in the inner city, where real estate is already lower than that level. Also, I do not propose building new houses, I propose purchasing houses from contractors and real estate companies to be used as low income housing. "Proponent asserts that 'Section 8 housing does not let people live wherever they choose to live, it lets them live in areas that are specially designated for Section 8 housing, and that creates ghettos.' This is false. Section 8 is a rent subsidy program that provides payment to private landlords to accommodate low income renters. It operates throughout the United States, and is as available in rural New Mexico as it is in urban Detroit. It is a voucher program. I remind Proponent of the virtues of voucher programs:" As I said, landlords choose if they will allow Section 8 subsidies, and most choose not to, because real estate value goes down if they do. "Proponent claimed his plan would eliminate poverty. He now grants that a certain part of poverty cannot be eliminated. This concedes that his plan will not work. The best he can do is to argue that poverty that is a result of mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and inappropriate social values (those values that lead to an unwillingness to work hard) are an insignificant part of total poverty. What statistics are there to prove that?" You place an insurmountable burden with your interpretation of my plan's goal. No plan can totally eliminate poverty. "The notion is clearly contradicted by the rapid escape from poverty of penniless immigrants who arrive in the US with very high motivation. A prime example are the middle class people expelled from Cuba by Castro, who have very rapidly succeeded in Florida. Refugees from rural Vietnam and Cambodia are another good example. In a society like the US that has many opportunities, motivation is the primary factor for success. This is true even if the opportunities are imperfect." Opponent does not support his claim that these immigrants are succeeding rapidly. "Professor Blumberg cites only the statistic that half the metropolitan poor live in suburbs. He gives no statistic on how many lack cars. We know that overall 75% of the poor have cars. To evaluate the effectiveness of providing cars we need to know how many people in poverty simultaneously (1) lack cars, (2) could use cars more effectively than public transportation, (3) are not disabled in such a way that they cannot drive, and (4) and are motivated to use a car to get a job. The upper limit is the 25% who lack cars. So what is the real number? Is it 5%? Proponent has made no argument that his plan would have a substantial effect." As I said, the statistic that 75% have cars is skewed. That means your data is false. ". Proponent grants that his plan will not end poverty. He makes no argument that it would even have a substantial impact. Therefore the proposition fails." The debate is about whether the proposition is good or not, not about whether it will totally end poverty (that would be pointless). As Con you must show it will not significantly reduce it.

Politics

A-debate-on-a-plan/1/

I will list three provocative topics. I am going to support the one of your choosing. So in your R1 post, tell me what you want to debate. 1. Cannibalism of non-diseased human carcasses is a superior alternative to cremation or burial. 2. The world would be better off with a capitalist anarchy. (If you don't know what I mean by that, I'll explain in my R2 post. Basically though, it means that corporations rule the world.) 3.Agriculture was a BIG mistake--that is, man should never have made the change from hunting and gathering to farming.

LR4N6FTW4EVA

I will list three provocative topics. I am going to support the one of your choosing. So in your R1 post, tell me what you want to debate. 1. Cannibalism of non-diseased human carcasses is a superior alternative to cremation or burial. 2. The world would be better off with a capitalist anarchy. (If you don't know what I mean by that, I'll explain in my R2 post. Basically though, it means that corporations rule the world.) 3.Agriculture was a BIG mistake--that is, man should never have made the change from hunting and gathering to farming.

Society

A-debate-on-a-provocative-topic./1/

Okay, I am in support of cannibalism for many reasons, but I'll just list a few. First, I would like to point out that cannibalism of already deceased human beings harms no one. It may be a little gross to some people, but it does not cause physical harm. In fact, there are even benefits gained from doing so. I will begin by listing the problems with burials and cremations. Burying your dead Grandma is problematic. First, it is expensive, as you have to purchase a burial plot and a tombstone, and second it is a waste of land that could otherwise have been used for housing the world's growing population. Cremation is just as bad. Humans are made out of mostly carbon. You all know what happens when you burn carbon right? You create CO2. This, by most accounts, is bad. Now, here are the benefits of cannibalism: First, as I mentioned earlier, it is harmless. Second, human flesh contains many of the nutrients that we need to survive, as the deceased member of the family ate those nutrients. Third, it is supposedly very tasty (some artist dude ate part of himself, and wrote an article on it). Fourth, it gives us more food. If we can supplement our diet with dead people, then there is more food for the starving children in Africa. Fifth, it's cheap. You already have the meat, you just need it butchered, which you really could do yourself. Sixth, it's fairly green. A fire is carbon neutral, as the wood it burns absorbed an equal amount of CO2 from the air in its lifetime, so burning wood from fallen trees and broken branches is green, and you can cook your loved one the old-fashioned way, over that green fire. Finally, the dude is dead, you wouldn't want the tragic event of his death to go to waste, would you? It's like the reduce, reuse, recycle concept. You reduce dead people by making them live longer, you reuse them by eating them, and you recycle by using the energy you gained from eating them to make more babies. In summation, burials are expensive wastes of land, and cremations are Co2 causing, but cannibalism is green, cheap, it's like recycling, it saves food for the kids in Africa, it is tasty, it is healthy, and it's harmless. Guess what? Cannibalism rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Okay, I am in support of cannibalism for many reasons, but I'll just list a few. First, I would like to point out that cannibalism of already deceased human beings harms no one. It may be a little gross to some people, but it does not cause physical harm. In fact, there are even benefits gained from doing so. I will begin by listing the problems with burials and cremations. Burying your dead Grandma is problematic. First, it is expensive, as you have to purchase a burial plot and a tombstone, and second it is a waste of land that could otherwise have been used for housing the world's growing population. Cremation is just as bad. Humans are made out of mostly carbon. You all know what happens when you burn carbon right? You create CO2. This, by most accounts, is bad. Now, here are the benefits of cannibalism: First, as I mentioned earlier, it is harmless. Second, human flesh contains many of the nutrients that we need to survive, as the deceased member of the family ate those nutrients. Third, it is supposedly very tasty (some artist dude ate part of himself, and wrote an article on it). Fourth, it gives us more food. If we can supplement our diet with dead people, then there is more food for the starving children in Africa. Fifth, it's cheap. You already have the meat, you just need it butchered, which you really could do yourself. Sixth, it's fairly green. A fire is carbon neutral, as the wood it burns absorbed an equal amount of CO2 from the air in its lifetime, so burning wood from fallen trees and broken branches is green, and you can cook your loved one the old-fashioned way, over that green fire. Finally, the dude is dead, you wouldn't want the tragic event of his death to go to waste, would you? It's like the reduce, reuse, recycle concept. You reduce dead people by making them live longer, you reuse them by eating them, and you recycle by using the energy you gained from eating them to make more babies. In summation, burials are expensive wastes of land, and cremations are Co2 causing, but cannibalism is green, cheap, it's like recycling, it saves food for the kids in Africa, it is tasty, it is healthy, and it's harmless. Guess what? Cannibalism rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Society

A-debate-on-a-provocative-topic./1/

V3=cool Clever response. Unfortunately, I am about to refute it. "I would like to point out that this does not include the term dead or deceased, and neither does the resolution. In fact, none of the definitions on dictionary.com include dead or something of the like." Alright, we'll do this your way. "The unalienable right to life gives each individual their right to not be eaten alive. This is the very first reason that I should win this round." Burial and cremation take away this right as well. The difference is that with cannibalism, we at least feed some hungry people while taking away their right to life. It is still bad, but it is less bad. Secondly, I could only take someone's leg. I don't have to eat the whole body. I would imagine that the head, chest, neck. and pelvic area would not be appetizing. I could theoretically just eat a leg. Burial and Cremation require that the person dies. So it is superior. "This proves that cannibalism isn't a better alternative, it is equal to these alternatives as they all violate the same right." But as I said, cannibalism feeds people, cremation/burial doesn't. And it doesn't necessarily kill, but burial and cremation do. "My third argument is that it is socially unacceptable to cremate or bury someone while they are still alive. In fact, I would posit that there are less than ten cases combined of this actually happening per year. I don't have actual statistics so if you can disprove this, please do. So if something is as rare as this, there need be no alternative, whether better or worse.' It is better that if one kills someone, they get put to at least some use. I don't have statistics either, but I can almost guarantee that live burials are slightly higher than 10 a year. "He then says that there are benefits from eating other people. He uses nutritional value as one. If we are looking for nutritional value, then there are much better alternatives that are much more humane. Yak being one of those alternatives. So there is no reason to eat humans as far as nutritional value goes because there are much better meats for you and your body." Burial and cremation have no nutritional value, although burial provides a good workout. I am not comparing it to yak, I am comparing it to burial/cremation. "Now let's talk about the expense part. You say that it is expensive to bury your dead grandma. My first point here is that it is also a good part of closure. When a love one dies, most of the living relatives need some sort of closure. When one is buried it allows for the family to have an event that talks affectionately about the deceased and allows them to further their grieving process and speeds up their recovery. Not only that, but a burial site allows for loved ones to visit it later on. This too helps with closure. Even if you were to have a ceremony before eating the deceased, it would defeat the purpose. You would finish telling stories of how much grandma meant to you, and then ask for a thigh cooked medium well? Doesn't help the grieving process.' That's a subjective argument. For me, I would find closure in that grandma would always be with me, literally. I have a little something of her in me. My opponent also forgets how well medium rare thigh helps the grieving process, although I wholeheartedly agree that medium well does not. "You also say that burning CO2 is bad for the environment. My first argument is that we have a lot of other worse things to worry about, so why spend our time on the small stuff? My second argument, is that plants turn CO2 into oxygen, and since most crematoriums are located on the cemetary premises which usually contain many plants, this doesn't play much of an impact on our environment at all." The cremation we speak of is illegal, as the subject is living. That means it must be done in secret, probably behind 7-11. 7-11 has little plants, so the CO2 emitted by the body does matter. "This just leaves the "green" effect of cannibalism. My first argument here is that burial and cremation aren't hazardous to the environment in the first place, so there need not be a green alternative. Secondly, most people aren't skilled in the art of butchering, or proper meat cooking techniques. When introducing a new meat to cook, it could bring in more diseases from improperly cooked meat.' It could do that, but that's speculation. Yak is new too.

LR4N6FTW4EVA

V3=cool Clever response. Unfortunately, I am about to refute it. "I would like to point out that this does not include the term dead or deceased, and neither does the resolution. In fact, none of the definitions on dictionary.com include dead or something of the like." Alright, we'll do this your way. "The unalienable right to life gives each individual their right to not be eaten alive. This is the very first reason that I should win this round." Burial and cremation take away this right as well. The difference is that with cannibalism, we at least feed some hungry people while taking away their right to life. It is still bad, but it is less bad. Secondly, I could only take someone's leg. I don't have to eat the whole body. I would imagine that the head, chest, neck. and pelvic area would not be appetizing. I could theoretically just eat a leg. Burial and Cremation require that the person dies. So it is superior. "This proves that cannibalism isn't a better alternative, it is equal to these alternatives as they all violate the same right." But as I said, cannibalism feeds people, cremation/burial doesn't. And it doesn't necessarily kill, but burial and cremation do. "My third argument is that it is socially unacceptable to cremate or bury someone while they are still alive. In fact, I would posit that there are less than ten cases combined of this actually happening per year. I don't have actual statistics so if you can disprove this, please do. So if something is as rare as this, there need be no alternative, whether better or worse.' It is better that if one kills someone, they get put to at least some use. I don't have statistics either, but I can almost guarantee that live burials are slightly higher than 10 a year. "He then says that there are benefits from eating other people. He uses nutritional value as one. If we are looking for nutritional value, then there are much better alternatives that are much more humane. Yak being one of those alternatives. So there is no reason to eat humans as far as nutritional value goes because there are much better meats for you and your body." Burial and cremation have no nutritional value, although burial provides a good workout. I am not comparing it to yak, I am comparing it to burial/cremation. "Now let's talk about the expense part. You say that it is expensive to bury your dead grandma. My first point here is that it is also a good part of closure. When a love one dies, most of the living relatives need some sort of closure. When one is buried it allows for the family to have an event that talks affectionately about the deceased and allows them to further their grieving process and speeds up their recovery. Not only that, but a burial site allows for loved ones to visit it later on. This too helps with closure. Even if you were to have a ceremony before eating the deceased, it would defeat the purpose. You would finish telling stories of how much grandma meant to you, and then ask for a thigh cooked medium well? Doesn't help the grieving process.' That's a subjective argument. For me, I would find closure in that grandma would always be with me, literally. I have a little something of her in me. My opponent also forgets how well medium rare thigh helps the grieving process, although I wholeheartedly agree that medium well does not. "You also say that burning CO2 is bad for the environment. My first argument is that we have a lot of other worse things to worry about, so why spend our time on the small stuff? My second argument, is that plants turn CO2 into oxygen, and since most crematoriums are located on the cemetary premises which usually contain many plants, this doesn't play much of an impact on our environment at all." The cremation we speak of is illegal, as the subject is living. That means it must be done in secret, probably behind 7-11. 7-11 has little plants, so the CO2 emitted by the body does matter. "This just leaves the "green" effect of cannibalism. My first argument here is that burial and cremation aren't hazardous to the environment in the first place, so there need not be a green alternative. Secondly, most people aren't skilled in the art of butchering, or proper meat cooking techniques. When introducing a new meat to cook, it could bring in more diseases from improperly cooked meat.' It could do that, but that's speculation. Yak is new too.

Society

A-debate-on-a-provocative-topic./1/

"To my esteemed opponent. I love this debate and give you many thanks for making this both extremely fun, and quite witty. I wish you luck...but not too much. Now let us begin." Luck? I don't need luck. But anyways... "Burial and cremation do NOT take away the right to life as their very definitions include the idea of death. Once again according to dictionary.com: Cremation: to reduce a dead body to ashes...or...to incinerate a corpse...or...the incineration of a dead body. Burial: the ritual placing of a corpse in the ground...or...an instance of burying a dead body in a grave. So by very definition, cremation and burial do not violate the right to life as they are inacted when a person no longer has life. So it isn't even equally bad as I originally thought. It is worse. You are eating someone who is alive compared to burying or burning someone who is already dead. But you say that you wouldn't eat the whole person. So now you are causing this person emotional trauma as I imagine it can't be too fun having your leg chopped off, but also physical trauma. You are also impairing them physically as I imagine isn't fun as well. I broke my leg and it sucked enough, but losing a leg can't be fun." Population growth estimates by the UN say conservatively that in 50 years, the world's population will be huge. By next century, it will have almost doubled. This will leave us with a problem, because we need more land to live on, which means there will be less farm land. This will not work, and many will starve. This is bad. Overcrowding may also mean that people must move out from the city into the countryside, and since we need so much farm land, they have to live on top of a cemetery. Have you ever seen the movie Poltergeist. That shows us what happens if we live on cemeteries. For those who haven't seen this movie (don't.) I'll tell you that it is not good. So, if we don't try to control our population, we will have starving people kidnapped by ghosts. We must control our population. Cannibalism not only takes out a few members of our population, it also provides the rest of us with food, making us healthier. Cremation and burials don't have this wonderful benefit. We need to eat each other in order to supply food and control population. If we do that we will all be happy, healthy, and not crowded. So let's see cannibalism: happy, healthy, uncrowded. Burial/cremation: Overcrowded, starving, kidnapped by ghosts. I'll take cannibalism please. "I again bring up the point that burial and cremation don't kill people, because they are already dead, so your next point is moot. You also say that it is better that someone get put to some use. But I already proved that there is no reason to be eating people, when it is much better to eat yak. Human serves no purpose. Yak is more nutritious. My entire point with the yak, is that we don't need to eat people for nutrition." We aren't face yak overpopulation are we? In fact yaks are listed as vulnerable to extinction ( <URL>... ). If we eat them, we'll run out of yaks, and have a huge, starving population. "Now you wouldn't have a little bit of granny in you always, as we are bound to digest granny and need to expose of her in some way. And if you thought grandma's perfume was bad, I can't imagine what a grandma turd would smell like, but it can't be any better. Tousche on the medium well/medum rare. If we were to eat people, medium rare probably would be better tasting. But the point is that it wouldn't help the grieving process to most people." You are wrong in fact. Granny's protein would contribute to muscle, ligament, and tendon growth. You would have her protein in your six pack abs. That would be pretty cool. "You say that it is illegal to burn people alive, and this is true. But cremation deals with dead people. Not live. And where I'm from, there are no seven elevens...(they are all kum and go's. I know, there are many sexual jokes at their expense.)" Ahh, yes, in most cases. However in some cultures, if a powerful man dies, he is cremated with one of his slaves. So if you're a modern Viking, 7-11 (or kum and go's) is your place of cremation. "1. He (my apologies if you are female) must prove that eating live people is better than both cremation of dead people and the burial of dead people. Mind you, if I prove that it isn't better than one of these, then I win the round. I have clearly done this as I have shown you the rights eating live people violates, compared to the benefits of cremation and burial." I did this. We need to address overpopulation. Cannibalism does this. "2. All of my opponent's arguments and claims have been disproved and countered by myself. His main reason for wanting to eat these people is nutritional value, but I have shown how yak is much more nutritious, and therefore eliminates the need to eat people." Yaks are endangered. People are overpopulated. "3. The grieving process cannot be completed if they are carved up and served for thanksgiving dinner. Plus, if you eat grandma, I can't imagine that she is too tender. I mean, eating old chickens is pretty rough, and they only live for a couple of years. But eating something that was living for eighty or ninety years has got to be rough.' There's a reason someone invented meat tenderizer. So pretty much you should vote PRO!!! "

LR4N6FTW4EVA

"To my esteemed opponent. I love this debate and give you many thanks for making this both extremely fun, and quite witty. I wish you luck...but not too much. Now let us begin." Luck? I don't need luck. But anyways... "Burial and cremation do NOT take away the right to life as their very definitions include the idea of death. Once again according to dictionary.com: Cremation: to reduce a dead body to ashes...or...to incinerate a corpse...or...the incineration of a dead body. Burial: the ritual placing of a corpse in the ground...or...an instance of burying a dead body in a grave. So by very definition, cremation and burial do not violate the right to life as they are inacted when a person no longer has life. So it isn't even equally bad as I originally thought. It is worse. You are eating someone who is alive compared to burying or burning someone who is already dead. But you say that you wouldn't eat the whole person. So now you are causing this person emotional trauma as I imagine it can't be too fun having your leg chopped off, but also physical trauma. You are also impairing them physically as I imagine isn't fun as well. I broke my leg and it sucked enough, but losing a leg can't be fun." Population growth estimates by the UN say conservatively that in 50 years, the world's population will be huge. By next century, it will have almost doubled. This will leave us with a problem, because we need more land to live on, which means there will be less farm land. This will not work, and many will starve. This is bad. Overcrowding may also mean that people must move out from the city into the countryside, and since we need so much farm land, they have to live on top of a cemetery. Have you ever seen the movie Poltergeist. That shows us what happens if we live on cemeteries. For those who haven't seen this movie (don't.) I'll tell you that it is not good. So, if we don't try to control our population, we will have starving people kidnapped by ghosts. We must control our population. Cannibalism not only takes out a few members of our population, it also provides the rest of us with food, making us healthier. Cremation and burials don't have this wonderful benefit. We need to eat each other in order to supply food and control population. If we do that we will all be happy, healthy, and not crowded. So let's see cannibalism: happy, healthy, uncrowded. Burial/cremation: Overcrowded, starving, kidnapped by ghosts. I'll take cannibalism please. "I again bring up the point that burial and cremation don't kill people, because they are already dead, so your next point is moot. You also say that it is better that someone get put to some use. But I already proved that there is no reason to be eating people, when it is much better to eat yak. Human serves no purpose. Yak is more nutritious. My entire point with the yak, is that we don't need to eat people for nutrition." We aren't face yak overpopulation are we? In fact yaks are listed as vulnerable to extinction ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). If we eat them, we'll run out of yaks, and have a huge, starving population. "Now you wouldn't have a little bit of granny in you always, as we are bound to digest granny and need to expose of her in some way. And if you thought grandma's perfume was bad, I can't imagine what a grandma turd would smell like, but it can't be any better. Tousche on the medium well/medum rare. If we were to eat people, medium rare probably would be better tasting. But the point is that it wouldn't help the grieving process to most people." You are wrong in fact. Granny's protein would contribute to muscle, ligament, and tendon growth. You would have her protein in your six pack abs. That would be pretty cool. "You say that it is illegal to burn people alive, and this is true. But cremation deals with dead people. Not live. And where I'm from, there are no seven elevens...(they are all kum and go's. I know, there are many sexual jokes at their expense.)" Ahh, yes, in most cases. However in some cultures, if a powerful man dies, he is cremated with one of his slaves. So if you're a modern Viking, 7-11 (or kum and go's) is your place of cremation. "1. He (my apologies if you are female) must prove that eating live people is better than both cremation of dead people and the burial of dead people. Mind you, if I prove that it isn't better than one of these, then I win the round. I have clearly done this as I have shown you the rights eating live people violates, compared to the benefits of cremation and burial." I did this. We need to address overpopulation. Cannibalism does this. "2. All of my opponent's arguments and claims have been disproved and countered by myself. His main reason for wanting to eat these people is nutritional value, but I have shown how yak is much more nutritious, and therefore eliminates the need to eat people." Yaks are endangered. People are overpopulated. "3. The grieving process cannot be completed if they are carved up and served for thanksgiving dinner. Plus, if you eat grandma, I can't imagine that she is too tender. I mean, eating old chickens is pretty rough, and they only live for a couple of years. But eating something that was living for eighty or ninety years has got to be rough.' There's a reason someone invented meat tenderizer. So pretty much you should vote PRO!!! "

Society

A-debate-on-a-provocative-topic./1/

"You say that the world's population is going to be huge in fifty years, conservatively. My first point here is that even if it is huge, you have yet to prove that this is going to be large enough to cause over population. I'm from wyoming. The fifth largest state in america, yet the lowest amount of population in america. Wyoming has only 500,000 people in the entire state. So right there is land to live on. Also, taking into account the fact that much of the arctic and tundra regions are also quite uninhabited for the most part, overpopulation is hardly a worry to most people. In fact, if you google overpopulation, you will find that most people believe that overpopulation has already occurred. If this were the case, then people would be dying off by the hundreds of thousands all over the world. This simply isn't the case. When we look to the example of fruit flies, we see that overpopulation happens when an organisms number has overstretched the ability to live off it's environment. When that happens, the organism dies off until it reaches a sustainable number. This means that even if overpopulation happens like you are saying, it's not the end of the world. People are going to die no matter what. Overpopulation solves itself." The amount of pain and suffering involved in the process of "overpopulation solving itself" will be horrendous. Although we may not be kidnapped by ghosts; starvation, malnutrition, land conflicts, and other nasty consequences would occur. Even though you allow for the fact that much of the world is unpopulated, you neglect that we would nonetheless need more farmland. Even with a almost total switch to rice we would still require massive use of farmland. We would need ALL of the arable land on earth to do it. If there is just one flood, one drought, we starve. Also, rice requires rather wet land, and a mild climate. I don't believe Wyoming or the Arctic tundra are conducive to that. All are dry and fairly cool. In order to prevent starvation and overpopulation we need to do something. Cannibalism, while very imperfect does something. Burial and cremation do not. "And your wikipedia article says that WILD yaks are vulnerable to extinction. If we were to begin eating yaks, it would be similair to how 'harvesting' cattle works. There would be places that raise yaks and then kill them and process them etc..." Yaks do not help prevent overpopulation, eating people does help this. Yaks are irrelevant.' "And if you can show me how many modern vikings there are then please be my guest. And you don't tell me which cultures burn slaves, so I can't really believe that until it is proven." Cremation is not going to prevent overpopulation. It just won't. Burning the dead does not help prevent overpopulation. "Cannibalism does not address overpopulation. You don't know how many people would eat other people. You don't know who would be chosen for eating. All of the semantics are gone out of your contentions." You have to kill someone to eat them, right? Killing them also prevents them from making more children. If just one person ate one other person each month for two years, at an average world birth rate of about 3 children per mother (UNESCO) he would have caused a net reduction of 48 over one generation. If we include the next generation, as 2050 is about two generations away, it would be 144 people. So if only 1% of the current population did this, we would reduce this by close to 900 million. That's with only 1%, with more, which is very possible if not probable, it would be even more. If everyone did this, we would get a net reduction of almost 90 billion. That is very significant. At current rates over two generations we get 21 billion more people. With cannibalism this number is significantly less. You must remember that if we all did this for the next 42 years we would actually have a net loss in population, which would improve the quality of life. Cannibalism would lead to the benefit of the many, although at the expense of the few. Cannibalism is probably immoral, but it is better than simply not doing anything about overpopulation. Burial and cremation do nothing. I thank my opponent for this interesting debate.

LR4N6FTW4EVA

"You say that the world's population is going to be huge in fifty years, conservatively. My first point here is that even if it is huge, you have yet to prove that this is going to be large enough to cause over population. I'm from wyoming. The fifth largest state in america, yet the lowest amount of population in america. Wyoming has only 500,000 people in the entire state. So right there is land to live on. Also, taking into account the fact that much of the arctic and tundra regions are also quite uninhabited for the most part, overpopulation is hardly a worry to most people. In fact, if you google overpopulation, you will find that most people believe that overpopulation has already occurred. If this were the case, then people would be dying off by the hundreds of thousands all over the world. This simply isn't the case. When we look to the example of fruit flies, we see that overpopulation happens when an organisms number has overstretched the ability to live off it's environment. When that happens, the organism dies off until it reaches a sustainable number. This means that even if overpopulation happens like you are saying, it's not the end of the world. People are going to die no matter what. Overpopulation solves itself." The amount of pain and suffering involved in the process of "overpopulation solving itself" will be horrendous. Although we may not be kidnapped by ghosts; starvation, malnutrition, land conflicts, and other nasty consequences would occur. Even though you allow for the fact that much of the world is unpopulated, you neglect that we would nonetheless need more farmland. Even with a almost total switch to rice we would still require massive use of farmland. We would need ALL of the arable land on earth to do it. If there is just one flood, one drought, we starve. Also, rice requires rather wet land, and a mild climate. I don't believe Wyoming or the Arctic tundra are conducive to that. All are dry and fairly cool. In order to prevent starvation and overpopulation we need to do something. Cannibalism, while very imperfect does something. Burial and cremation do not. "And your wikipedia article says that WILD yaks are vulnerable to extinction. If we were to begin eating yaks, it would be similair to how 'harvesting' cattle works. There would be places that raise yaks and then kill them and process them etc..." Yaks do not help prevent overpopulation, eating people does help this. Yaks are irrelevant.' "And if you can show me how many modern vikings there are then please be my guest. And you don't tell me which cultures burn slaves, so I can't really believe that until it is proven." Cremation is not going to prevent overpopulation. It just won't. Burning the dead does not help prevent overpopulation. "Cannibalism does not address overpopulation. You don't know how many people would eat other people. You don't know who would be chosen for eating. All of the semantics are gone out of your contentions." You have to kill someone to eat them, right? Killing them also prevents them from making more children. If just one person ate one other person each month for two years, at an average world birth rate of about 3 children per mother (UNESCO) he would have caused a net reduction of 48 over one generation. If we include the next generation, as 2050 is about two generations away, it would be 144 people. So if only 1% of the current population did this, we would reduce this by close to 900 million. That's with only 1%, with more, which is very possible if not probable, it would be even more. If everyone did this, we would get a net reduction of almost 90 billion. That is very significant. At current rates over two generations we get 21 billion more people. With cannibalism this number is significantly less. You must remember that if we all did this for the next 42 years we would actually have a net loss in population, which would improve the quality of life. Cannibalism would lead to the benefit of the many, although at the expense of the few. Cannibalism is probably immoral, but it is better than simply not doing anything about overpopulation. Burial and cremation do nothing. I thank my opponent for this interesting debate.

Society

A-debate-on-a-provocative-topic./1/

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but no, no gods will ever, and have never existed. Though there may be a chance there is a 'god' (I'm an agnostic atheist), religion has only caused trouble for the rest of us. Religion has caused hatred and war, what was meant to be a love one another sign, has now changed, upsetting many. If god wanted us to believe in him, he would exist, there are many flaws and mistakes in every religion, and even if there was a god, I wouldn't want to be part of one that spreads a message of hatred. Why must you pray to a god to make a wrong right (eg. war) does this deity not know of the wrong already, if your god is so good, why is there so many wrongs in this world, or is it just he/she/other doesn't care at all? I'm not sure what religion you believe but I would like to point out Christianity is the most flawed and the worst, and I know that because I used to believe in god. Please research your religion before committing to it, because religion is brain-washing.

ThatLoner

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but no, no gods will ever, and have never existed. Though there may be a chance there is a 'god' (I'm an agnostic atheist), religion has only caused trouble for the rest of us. Religion has caused hatred and war, what was meant to be a love one another sign, has now changed, upsetting many. If god wanted us to believe in him, he would exist, there are many flaws and mistakes in every religion, and even if there was a god, I wouldn't want to be part of one that spreads a message of hatred. Why must you pray to a god to make a wrong right (eg. war) does this deity not know of the wrong already, if your god is so good, why is there so many wrongs in this world, or is it just he/she/other doesn't care at all? I'm not sure what religion you believe but I would like to point out Christianity is the most flawed and the worst, and I know that because I used to believe in god. Please research your religion before committing to it, because religion is brain-washing.

Science

A-god-exists/4/

The definition of a god is 'a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.' I seriously doubt that the stars, planets and moons have have any supernatural force they may be worshiped but these are not real so called 'gods', if you wanted, you could call anything a god and therefore say this god exists. Eg. I could say this pencil is a god, but does that make it a god? Somewhat similar to the gods you have portrayed to me their, they may be seen as a 'god', but therefore anything could be seen as a god, which leads us to what is the actual definition of a god? As I stated before, the most common definition and is seen as most people as a supernatural being with power over nature. Even if people worship an animal or a 'god' it doesn't make it a god, and therefore a god does not exist.

ThatLoner

The definition of a god is 'a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.' I seriously doubt that the stars, planets and moons have have any supernatural force they may be worshiped but these are not real so called 'gods', if you wanted, you could call anything a god and therefore say this god exists. Eg. I could say this pencil is a god, but does that make it a god? Somewhat similar to the gods you have portrayed to me their, they may be seen as a 'god', but therefore anything could be seen as a god, which leads us to what is the actual definition of a god? As I stated before, the most common definition and is seen as most people as a supernatural being with power over nature. Even if people worship an animal or a 'god' it doesn't make it a god, and therefore a god does not exist.

Science

A-god-exists/4/

First of all, siting all you opinions does not make them right. The definition of a god is very vague, but if you are going to start telling me anything that is "...worshipped, idealized or followed." is immediately a god, then your argument has no point. I may idealize a celebrity but does that mean I think they're my god, no, of course not, only an idiot would say/think that but to me, that's what you're saying right now. Secondly, you start giving sources for pointless information, I could hardly understand your argument from lack of opinions and information, and most importantly, sense. Your argument makes no sense and you don't go on to explain your quotes, to me it seemed as if you were saying Micheal Jordan was "Black Jesus" but if you think one quote from a person makes that Micheal Jordan a god, then you need to get your facts straight. Moreover, there is a clear difference between, idealizing a celebrity and then saying they are a god, it's pure rubbish, like your argument. Yes, I do say a go MIGHT exist, and emphasize on the might, may I say, and so what?! I'm an agnostic atheist, a stupid person keeps a closed mind, a clever one is open to new ideas, this does no mean I'm gonna start making Micheal Jordan my god. If your saying, anyone can give anything the great title of a god, like a pencil, then I'm finding it pointless reasoning with you. A god, if there is such a thing, (remember the IF may I say so you don't start using this against me), is a high status, not to be given to pointless things such as a pencil. I watched half of <URL>... ... and am seriously questioning if your actually joking. I'm just confused, please explain your points because if you think that fat guy in a Jesus suit is actually a supernatural being, then please go to your nearest hospital, because your going mad. You can SEE the planks under the water and it's obvious the guy in the wheelchair is an actor, and a very bad one too.

ThatLoner

First of all, siting all you opinions does not make them right. The definition of a god is very vague, but if you are going to start telling me anything that is "...worshipped, idealized or followed." is immediately a god, then your argument has no point. I may idealize a celebrity but does that mean I think they're my god, no, of course not, only an idiot would say/think that but to me, that's what you're saying right now. Secondly, you start giving sources for pointless information, I could hardly understand your argument from lack of opinions and information, and most importantly, sense. Your argument makes no sense and you don't go on to explain your quotes, to me it seemed as if you were saying Micheal Jordan was "Black Jesus" but if you think one quote from a person makes that Micheal Jordan a god, then you need to get your facts straight. Moreover, there is a clear difference between, idealizing a celebrity and then saying they are a god, it's pure rubbish, like your argument. Yes, I do say a go MIGHT exist, and emphasize on the might, may I say, and so what?! I'm an agnostic atheist, a stupid person keeps a closed mind, a clever one is open to new ideas, this does no mean I'm gonna start making Micheal Jordan my god. If your saying, anyone can give anything the great title of a god, like a pencil, then I'm finding it pointless reasoning with you. A god, if there is such a thing, (remember the IF may I say so you don't start using this against me), is a high status, not to be given to pointless things such as a pencil. I watched half of http://youtu.be... ... and am seriously questioning if your actually joking. I'm just confused, please explain your points because if you think that fat guy in a Jesus suit is actually a supernatural being, then please go to your nearest hospital, because your going mad. You can SEE the planks under the water and it's obvious the guy in the wheelchair is an actor, and a very bad one too.

Science

A-god-exists/4/

My partner and I are debating this at school and are preparing for counterarguments. Cons, please either a) argue that a fetus becomes a person at 34 weeks (our opponet's stance) or b) negate our points/find flaws in them. Thank you! Stance: A human fetus has personhood at conception. Personhood- the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings. Reasons: - A child can survive outside the womb before the age of 34 weeks. Though survival may require outside aid, full-term babies as well as elderly persons can require the same things, and they are still considered people. - Many bodily functions happen before 34 weeks, including (but not limited to) a functioning nervous system, ability to move out of free will, and ability to feel pain. - A human fetus is a genetically unique individual from the time it is concieved (the moment the sperm and egg are fully joined). - The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 made it a crime to harm/kill a fetus in the course of other offenses, such as homicide, granting fetuses the rights of living people. - Conception is the only instantaneous moment in which one can difinitively say that there was no life, but now there is. It is impossible for humans to identify the exact moment a baby develops a certain bodily function, or to know the exact second which conception completed. Trying to define any other moment as a beginning of life is pointless, as it simply cannot be definitively measured. Please note that we are NOT debating abortion, though we are tiptoing around it. We are not discussing anything about women's right to choose, religion, or the like. Any such commentary is off-topic.

loliver456

My partner and I are debating this at school and are preparing for counterarguments. Cons, please either a) argue that a fetus becomes a person at 34 weeks (our opponet's stance) or b) negate our points/find flaws in them. Thank you! Stance: A human fetus has personhood at conception. Personhood- the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings. Reasons: - A child can survive outside the womb before the age of 34 weeks. Though survival may require outside aid, full-term babies as well as elderly persons can require the same things, and they are still considered people. - Many bodily functions happen before 34 weeks, including (but not limited to) a functioning nervous system, ability to move out of free will, and ability to feel pain. - A human fetus is a genetically unique individual from the time it is concieved (the moment the sperm and egg are fully joined). - The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 made it a crime to harm/kill a fetus in the course of other offenses, such as homicide, granting fetuses the rights of living people. - Conception is the only instantaneous moment in which one can difinitively say that there was no life, but now there is. It is impossible for humans to identify the exact moment a baby develops a certain bodily function, or to know the exact second which conception completed. Trying to define any other moment as a beginning of life is pointless, as it simply cannot be definitively measured. Please note that we are NOT debating abortion, though we are tiptoing around it. We are not discussing anything about women's right to choose, religion, or the like. Any such commentary is off-topic.

Philosophy

A-human-fetus-has-personhood-at-conception/1/

As per my opponent's request I will argue in order to simply negate the points which my opponent has brought forth. I look forward to an interesting debate seeing as the personhood aspect of pregnancy in the abortion argument is one that I tend to disregard in most debates on the subject. 1-Viability. My opponent argues that a foetus is a person in that it is viable outside the womb by the age of 34 weeks. It's an interesting point, considering it is entirely in my favor. The resolution which the Pro is defending is that person-hood begins at conception. But since my opponent uses viability as a requisite for person-hood, by their own admission the foetus is not a person until it is 34 weeks old. 2-Bodily Similarity. While the ability to feel pain is a general characteristics that one would generally ascribe to persons, this point runs into a problem. If pain is a requisites to person-hood, my opponent must support that people suffering from congenital analgesia (the inability to feel pain)[1] are not really persons. However, since this seems prima facie absurd, one must accept that there are some other features which are the requisites to person-hood other than pain sensors. On free will, it is still up for debate whether or not any humans actually possess such a thing[2]. On whether a functioning nervous system is relevant to person-hood, I challenge my opponent to show why it is actually relevant in this case and what defines a functioning nervous system. Must one's nervous system be in optimal condition or are nervous system disorders such as multiple sclerosis or locked-in syndrome within the still functioning spectrum? The word 'functioning' in this context is all too ambiguous. 3-Genetic Uniqueness. On whether being a genetically unique individual contributes to relevant person-hood, my opponent must realize that a zygote does not possess the characteristics relevant for person-hood in the same way that a seed does not contain the characteristics relevant to a full grown tree. For instance, persons as is generally conceived are rational, conscious, etc., characteristics which a human zygote is entirely lacking. A seed cannot be said to be a tree if it lacks the necessary characteristics of a tree (possessing a trunk, branches, leaves in most cases) and so likewise, a zygote cannot be said to have the relevant characteristics of person-hood. 4-Positive vs. Natural Rights. My opponent must realize that whether or not a foetus possesses the characteristics relevant for person-hood is not something to be determined by mere government edict. In reality, all that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 showed was that a good amount of people BELIEVE that a foetus is a person. It would be an argument ad populum (a formal fallacy) to argue that mere popular opinion changes the facts of reality and could actually be a deciding factor in whether a foetus is a person. 5-Life and No Life. My opponent here argues that conception is the only rational time one can observe a moment where life actually begins. I would remind my opponent that life and person-hood are not one and the same. Dogs are clearly alive but it is not clear whether they possess the relevant characteristics necessary for person-hood. Therefore when life actually begins is irrelevant to the debate at hand. The only thing that matters is when a foetus becomes an actual person and my opponent has not upheld this resolution. ===Sources=== [1] <URL>...

socialpinko

As per my opponent's request I will argue in order to simply negate the points which my opponent has brought forth. I look forward to an interesting debate seeing as the personhood aspect of pregnancy in the abortion argument is one that I tend to disregard in most debates on the subject. 1-Viability. My opponent argues that a foetus is a person in that it is viable outside the womb by the age of 34 weeks. It's an interesting point, considering it is entirely in my favor. The resolution which the Pro is defending is that person-hood begins at conception. But since my opponent uses viability as a requisite for person-hood, by their own admission the foetus is not a person until it is 34 weeks old. 2-Bodily Similarity. While the ability to feel pain is a general characteristics that one would generally ascribe to persons, this point runs into a problem. If pain is a requisites to person-hood, my opponent must support that people suffering from congenital analgesia (the inability to feel pain)[1] are not really persons. However, since this seems prima facie absurd, one must accept that there are some other features which are the requisites to person-hood other than pain sensors. On free will, it is still up for debate whether or not any humans actually possess such a thing[2]. On whether a functioning nervous system is relevant to person-hood, I challenge my opponent to show why it is actually relevant in this case and what defines a functioning nervous system. Must one's nervous system be in optimal condition or are nervous system disorders such as multiple sclerosis or locked-in syndrome within the still functioning spectrum? The word 'functioning' in this context is all too ambiguous. 3-Genetic Uniqueness. On whether being a genetically unique individual contributes to relevant person-hood, my opponent must realize that a zygote does not possess the characteristics relevant for person-hood in the same way that a seed does not contain the characteristics relevant to a full grown tree. For instance, persons as is generally conceived are rational, conscious, etc., characteristics which a human zygote is entirely lacking. A seed cannot be said to be a tree if it lacks the necessary characteristics of a tree (possessing a trunk, branches, leaves in most cases) and so likewise, a zygote cannot be said to have the relevant characteristics of person-hood. 4-Positive vs. Natural Rights. My opponent must realize that whether or not a foetus possesses the characteristics relevant for person-hood is not something to be determined by mere government edict. In reality, all that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 showed was that a good amount of people BELIEVE that a foetus is a person. It would be an argument ad populum (a formal fallacy) to argue that mere popular opinion changes the facts of reality and could actually be a deciding factor in whether a foetus is a person. 5-Life and No Life. My opponent here argues that conception is the only rational time one can observe a moment where life actually begins. I would remind my opponent that life and person-hood are not one and the same. Dogs are clearly alive but it is not clear whether they possess the relevant characteristics necessary for person-hood. Therefore when life actually begins is irrelevant to the debate at hand. The only thing that matters is when a foetus becomes an actual person and my opponent has not upheld this resolution. ===Sources=== [1] http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Philosophy

A-human-fetus-has-personhood-at-conception/1/

Extend arguments and refutations.

socialpinko

Extend arguments and refutations.

Philosophy

A-human-fetus-has-personhood-at-conception/1/

Extend arguments and refutations. Vote Con.

socialpinko

Extend arguments and refutations. Vote Con.

Philosophy

A-human-fetus-has-personhood-at-conception/1/

I accept this debate. I'll allow the instigator to make the opening arguments.

ScarletGhost4396

I accept this debate. I'll allow the instigator to make the opening arguments.

Health

A-just-government-should-provide-healthcare-to-its-citizens/1/

This is the round two debate of the Tournament of Champions. I thank my opponent for participating in this debate, the gracious judges for their time, and the host(s) of this tournament for creating a great forum for debate. Although this is an LD resolution, it will be debated in a more loose format. Definitions Just: acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good. Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another. (Merriam-Webster) Ought: Indicates moral obligation or duty. Death penalty: the killing of a person by judicial process. (Wikipedia) ======== What is a Just Society? A just society is not necessarily a society that is always morally right (otherwise there would be no need for punishment), but is instead a society that is committed to working towards moral uprightness. I contend that a society with the death penalty is not acting true to the commitment to justice. ======== Contention 1: The Right to Life Every person has a fundamental right to life. When the government executes a convicted criminal, it is revoking a human being's right to life. Criminal or not, no one may justifiably revoke such a fundamental right as this. Because of this, I have never understood the death penalty; why is it that people have their right to life revoked simply because they commit a crime? This logic does not follow. ======== Contention 2: The Costs of the Death Penalty The average cost of implementing the death penalty instead of a life sentence is about $100,000 ( <URL>... ). This additional expense is unnecessary; in addition, I contend that it is unjust to force the taxpayers to pay this additional cost when life imprisonment is just as effective as the death penalty. ======== Contention 3: The Execution of Innocents Usage of the death penalty runs the risk of executing innocents. 135 prisoners on death row were found to be innocent ( <URL>... ). Courts generally do not continue to investigate cases in which the convicted criminal was already executed, so there is no telling how many innocent have been wrongly put to death. In 1987 a study by Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet found that at least 23 innocents had been wrongly executed ( <URL>... ). This is too high a price to pay for a technique that is no more reliable than life imprisonment. ======== I thank my opponent for participating in this debate, and I eagerly await his response.

MTGandP

This is the round two debate of the Tournament of Champions. I thank my opponent for participating in this debate, the gracious judges for their time, and the host(s) of this tournament for creating a great forum for debate. Although this is an LD resolution, it will be debated in a more loose format. Definitions Just: acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good. Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another. (Merriam-Webster) Ought: Indicates moral obligation or duty. Death penalty: the killing of a person by judicial process. (Wikipedia) ======== What is a Just Society? A just society is not necessarily a society that is always morally right (otherwise there would be no need for punishment), but is instead a society that is committed to working towards moral uprightness. I contend that a society with the death penalty is not acting true to the commitment to justice. ======== Contention 1: The Right to Life Every person has a fundamental right to life. When the government executes a convicted criminal, it is revoking a human being's right to life. Criminal or not, no one may justifiably revoke such a fundamental right as this. Because of this, I have never understood the death penalty; why is it that people have their right to life revoked simply because they commit a crime? This logic does not follow. ======== Contention 2: The Costs of the Death Penalty The average cost of implementing the death penalty instead of a life sentence is about $100,000 ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... ). This additional expense is unnecessary; in addition, I contend that it is unjust to force the taxpayers to pay this additional cost when life imprisonment is just as effective as the death penalty. ======== Contention 3: The Execution of Innocents Usage of the death penalty runs the risk of executing innocents. 135 prisoners on death row were found to be innocent ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... ). Courts generally do not continue to investigate cases in which the convicted criminal was already executed, so there is no telling how many innocent have been wrongly put to death. In 1987 a study by Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet found that at least 23 innocents had been wrongly executed ( http://www.justicedenied.org... ). This is too high a price to pay for a technique that is no more reliable than life imprisonment. ======== I thank my opponent for participating in this debate, and I eagerly await his response.

Society

A-just-society-ought-not-use-the-death-penalty-as-a-form-of-punishment./3/

A society is not "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good" unless there are no criminals. But since there clearly are criminals (hence the resolution), my explanation will be accepted. If this is to be a point of further contention, I ask that my opponent explain why idealism is in this case superior to realism, or if there is even a distinction. ======== 1. The Right to Life A. My opponent has not given reason why it is just to revoke fundamental rights, but has only committed the bandwagon fallacy ( <URL>... ). To elaborate on my original point, I would argue that imprisonment, while unjust, is sometimes necessary for the protection of society. Life, being the most fundamental right, should not be revoked unless absolutely necessary for the wellbeing of society. Since life imprisonment still has the same effect on society as execution, I contend that a life sentence should always be administered instead of the death penalty. B. The topic sentence of this subcontention is a false assertion. Taking away the murderer's life because the murderer took away someone else's life will not help the murdered person in any way. As a great visionary once said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." My opponent is equivocating justice with revenge. Since Merriam-Webster defines justice as "the maintenance or administration of what is just", my opponent is claiming that murder is a morally upright response to murder. It may be state-sanctioned killing, but it is murder nonetheless. Punishment in terms of revoking rights is not only immoral, but unhelpful. The role of prison is not to deter crime; there are much more effective ways of doing that, such as torturing criminals. But what prison truly excels at is separating criminals from the external community, thus protecting society. Punishment is not an effective deterrent to crime ( <URL>... ). I do not see how the quote is relevant. ======== Contention 2: The Costs of the Death Penalty A. In a direct sense, my opponent is correct. But indirectly, it is unjust to spend taxpayers' money on a punishment that has not been shown to have any advantages over a less expensive alternative. B. I assert that life without parole is cheaper and more humane than the death penalty, so capital punishment is unnecessary. Furthermore, only about 0.5% of prisoners (and falling) escape, and even fewer escape from federal prisons -- out of 115,000 inmates, only one prisoner escaped from 1997 to 2001. ( <URL>... ) And either way, these are reparable flaws with the prison system and do not support use of capital punishment but instead vouch for improvements of the penitentiaries. I fail to see how it is just to kill a murderer. Will it give the victim his life back? I think not. My opponent's primitive sense of justice is disheartening. Also, my opponent seems to never have heard of solitary confinement. This can be utilized for prisoners who are especially dangerous. ======== Contention 3: Execution of Innocents A. No determination of guilt is infallible. Execution of an innocent is never acceptable. B. These types of evidence are not flawless, and my opponent has given no citation as to their accuracy. There will always be innocents who end up being executed, no matter the system. The only way to solve this is to get rid of the death penalty entirely.

MTGandP

A society is not "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good" unless there are no criminals. But since there clearly are criminals (hence the resolution), my explanation will be accepted. If this is to be a point of further contention, I ask that my opponent explain why idealism is in this case superior to realism, or if there is even a distinction. ======== 1. The Right to Life A. My opponent has not given reason why it is just to revoke fundamental rights, but has only committed the bandwagon fallacy ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org... ). To elaborate on my original point, I would argue that imprisonment, while unjust, is sometimes necessary for the protection of society. Life, being the most fundamental right, should not be revoked unless absolutely necessary for the wellbeing of society. Since life imprisonment still has the same effect on society as execution, I contend that a life sentence should always be administered instead of the death penalty. B. The topic sentence of this subcontention is a false assertion. Taking away the murderer's life because the murderer took away someone else's life will not help the murdered person in any way. As a great visionary once said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." My opponent is equivocating justice with revenge. Since Merriam-Webster defines justice as "the maintenance or administration of what is just", my opponent is claiming that murder is a morally upright response to murder. It may be state-sanctioned killing, but it is murder nonetheless. Punishment in terms of revoking rights is not only immoral, but unhelpful. The role of prison is not to deter crime; there are much more effective ways of doing that, such as torturing criminals. But what prison truly excels at is separating criminals from the external community, thus protecting society. Punishment is not an effective deterrent to crime ( http://www.slate.com... ). I do not see how the quote is relevant. ======== Contention 2: The Costs of the Death Penalty A. In a direct sense, my opponent is correct. But indirectly, it is unjust to spend taxpayers' money on a punishment that has not been shown to have any advantages over a less expensive alternative. B. I assert that life without parole is cheaper and more humane than the death penalty, so capital punishment is unnecessary. Furthermore, only about 0.5% of prisoners (and falling) escape, and even fewer escape from federal prisons -- out of 115,000 inmates, only one prisoner escaped from 1997 to 2001. ( http://www.slate.com... ) And either way, these are reparable flaws with the prison system and do not support use of capital punishment but instead vouch for improvements of the penitentiaries. I fail to see how it is just to kill a murderer. Will it give the victim his life back? I think not. My opponent's primitive sense of justice is disheartening. Also, my opponent seems to never have heard of solitary confinement. This can be utilized for prisoners who are especially dangerous. ======== Contention 3: Execution of Innocents A. No determination of guilt is infallible. Execution of an innocent is never acceptable. B. These types of evidence are not flawless, and my opponent has given no citation as to their accuracy. There will always be innocents who end up being executed, no matter the system. The only way to solve this is to get rid of the death penalty entirely.

Society

A-just-society-ought-not-use-the-death-penalty-as-a-form-of-punishment./3/

1. Rights A. "Notice how my opponent is claiming that the laws that we have that make criminals go to jail are UNJUST, that somehow imprisoning someone who is violent (for example) is somehow unjust. How could that possibly be unjust? Answer = It isn't." --My opponent is committing the fallacy of equivocation ( <URL>... ). Although justice was well-defined at the beginning of the debate, I was using the word more casually. I meant that imprisonment is unjust to the prisoner. Overall it is less unjust than allowing the prisoner to run free, so it is a good policy, but rehabilitation -- if mastered -- would be a far more just technique. While we are talking about punishment, though, prison is far more just than the death penalty. Equating "unjust" with "bad" requires an unwarranted overgeneralization. More importantly, my opponent has failed to refute the main point that capital punishment is more unjust than life imprisonment. "So what HAS to happen is that the guilty party has to have their right to liberty REVOKED (IF we are truly dealing with JUSTICE)." I support rehabilitation, and would rather eliminate punishment entirely. But that aside, it is enough to simply reduce the right to liberty. It is not even entirely removed: prisoners have many freedoms. But the death penalty is the ultimate revocation. It is simply not necessary for the protection of society. B. This is a completely irrelevant point. It only applies if the death penalty is shown to be more beneficial than life imprisonment, which it has not. It is morally upright or good to treat each citizen as well as possible; since imprisonment works at least as well as the death penalty, felons should be treated fairly and given imprisonment instead of execution. "And it is a benefit to the society if a convicted killer is prevented from ever murdering again with 100% certainty." True. But that extra fraction of a percentage of certainty that the death penalty holds over life imprisonment is not worth it. If a prisoner has a 0.5% chance of escaping and an even lower chance of killing someone, how is this not preferable choice to a 100% chance of killing a living human being with emotions and desires? ======== 2. Costs A. "The obvious advantage of capital punishment over life imprisonment is that it is 100% effective at preventing any additional murders." This is a very small benefit which is outweighed by the problems and injustices caused by capital punishment. B. "CON already pointed out last round that cost is irrelevant, and this was not disputed, extend my arguments." It was refuted. See 2A in round 2. I do not understand why my opponent has come back to mercy. I do not see its relevance. I see no arguments here, so I am unable to respond. "As far as solitary confinement being utilized for prisoners who are especially dangerous: why isn't it used today then for all convicted murderers?" I don't know. And this is not a legitimate argument. I may as well drop the point about solitary confinement, since it was just an example of a way to isolate murderers, and isolating murderers only has a very small effect in terms of protecting others. My original point stands. ======== 3. Innocents My points, while short, still effectively refuted my opponent's arguments. 1. "No determination of guilt is infallible." --> "No imprisonment system is infallible, there would always be a chance for a convicted murderer to murder again." --> The imprisonment system has a 99.5% accuracy rate. The court system, at least when it comes to murder, has closer to a 90% accuracy rate (see previous rounds for data). 2. "Execution of an innocent is never acceptable." --> "Murder of an innocent person in society by a previously convicted murderer is never acceptable." --> This is an unreasonable perspective, since compromises must always be made. However, my opponent has illuminated the fact that my own perspective was unreasonable. Point 1, though, still stands. Furthermore, the killing of a person, even a felon, is not a justified response to a minute chance of that person killing someone else. 3. "These types of evidence are not flawless, and my opponent has given no citation as to their accuracy." --> "Prisons are not flawless and CON has pointed out some of their shortcomings." --> I have given a number as to the prison escape rates (0.5% and dropping) while my opponent has offered no citation. 4. "There will always be innocents who end up being executed, no matter the system." --> "There will always be murderers with the chance to murder again, no matter the (prison) system." --> As I have said, the prison system is much more secure than the justice system. 5. "The only way to solve this is to get rid of the death penalty entirely." --> "The only way to solve this is to implement capital punishment in every single case, in this way NO convicted murderer will EVER kill again." --> And just to be safe, we should execute every person who even has the chance of ever murdering someone. "If we know they are guilty (confession etc.) then is capital punishment ok?" No. See contentions one and two. ======== Conclusion I have shown that the death penalty has minimal benefit, and comes at great cost. It is unjust to society and unjust to the individual to continue using capital punishment. Resolution affirmed. Vote Pro. I thank my opponent for participating, and I thank the judges for reading and reviewing this debate.

MTGandP

1. Rights A. "Notice how my opponent is claiming that the laws that we have that make criminals go to jail are UNJUST, that somehow imprisoning someone who is violent (for example) is somehow unjust. How could that possibly be unjust? Answer = It isn't." --My opponent is committing the fallacy of equivocation ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org... ). Although justice was well-defined at the beginning of the debate, I was using the word more casually. I meant that imprisonment is unjust to the prisoner. Overall it is less unjust than allowing the prisoner to run free, so it is a good policy, but rehabilitation -- if mastered -- would be a far more just technique. While we are talking about punishment, though, prison is far more just than the death penalty. Equating "unjust" with "bad" requires an unwarranted overgeneralization. More importantly, my opponent has failed to refute the main point that capital punishment is more unjust than life imprisonment. "So what HAS to happen is that the guilty party has to have their right to liberty REVOKED (IF we are truly dealing with JUSTICE)." I support rehabilitation, and would rather eliminate punishment entirely. But that aside, it is enough to simply reduce the right to liberty. It is not even entirely removed: prisoners have many freedoms. But the death penalty is the ultimate revocation. It is simply not necessary for the protection of society. B. This is a completely irrelevant point. It only applies if the death penalty is shown to be more beneficial than life imprisonment, which it has not. It is morally upright or good to treat each citizen as well as possible; since imprisonment works at least as well as the death penalty, felons should be treated fairly and given imprisonment instead of execution. "And it is a benefit to the society if a convicted killer is prevented from ever murdering again with 100% certainty." True. But that extra fraction of a percentage of certainty that the death penalty holds over life imprisonment is not worth it. If a prisoner has a 0.5% chance of escaping and an even lower chance of killing someone, how is this not preferable choice to a 100% chance of killing a living human being with emotions and desires? ======== 2. Costs A. "The obvious advantage of capital punishment over life imprisonment is that it is 100% effective at preventing any additional murders." This is a very small benefit which is outweighed by the problems and injustices caused by capital punishment. B. "CON already pointed out last round that cost is irrelevant, and this was not disputed, extend my arguments." It was refuted. See 2A in round 2. I do not understand why my opponent has come back to mercy. I do not see its relevance. I see no arguments here, so I am unable to respond. "As far as solitary confinement being utilized for prisoners who are especially dangerous: why isn't it used today then for all convicted murderers?" I don't know. And this is not a legitimate argument. I may as well drop the point about solitary confinement, since it was just an example of a way to isolate murderers, and isolating murderers only has a very small effect in terms of protecting others. My original point stands. ======== 3. Innocents My points, while short, still effectively refuted my opponent's arguments. 1. "No determination of guilt is infallible." --> "No imprisonment system is infallible, there would always be a chance for a convicted murderer to murder again." --> The imprisonment system has a 99.5% accuracy rate. The court system, at least when it comes to murder, has closer to a 90% accuracy rate (see previous rounds for data). 2. "Execution of an innocent is never acceptable." --> "Murder of an innocent person in society by a previously convicted murderer is never acceptable." --> This is an unreasonable perspective, since compromises must always be made. However, my opponent has illuminated the fact that my own perspective was unreasonable. Point 1, though, still stands. Furthermore, the killing of a person, even a felon, is not a justified response to a minute chance of that person killing someone else. 3. "These types of evidence are not flawless, and my opponent has given no citation as to their accuracy." --> "Prisons are not flawless and CON has pointed out some of their shortcomings." --> I have given a number as to the prison escape rates (0.5% and dropping) while my opponent has offered no citation. 4. "There will always be innocents who end up being executed, no matter the system." --> "There will always be murderers with the chance to murder again, no matter the (prison) system." --> As I have said, the prison system is much more secure than the justice system. 5. "The only way to solve this is to get rid of the death penalty entirely." --> "The only way to solve this is to implement capital punishment in every single case, in this way NO convicted murderer will EVER kill again." --> And just to be safe, we should execute every person who even has the chance of ever murdering someone. "If we know they are guilty (confession etc.) then is capital punishment ok?" No. See contentions one and two. ======== Conclusion I have shown that the death penalty has minimal benefit, and comes at great cost. It is unjust to society and unjust to the individual to continue using capital punishment. Resolution affirmed. Vote Pro. I thank my opponent for participating, and I thank the judges for reading and reviewing this debate.

Society

A-just-society-ought-not-use-the-death-penalty-as-a-form-of-punishment./3/

Capitalism is failing now like the former economic models, because it hasn't been applied in the correct way, because powerful people who take the lead have been acting in an abusive and selfish way, and no one has tell them nothing. Because the seven richest people control more richness that the combined GDP of the poorest 41 nations. Because just 20% of the global population consumes the 86% of the market products. This is unfair, but not because the system has failed, but because humans are not infallible, and we need to have authorities that apply rules to us, but in this case there is no one who can apply them to all, talking about the powerful class, is a shame that we talk about equality when we do not apply this concept at all. There is not an interest in the common well being. Now socialism tried in a past time to force us to be equal, but neither that is the solution, because then everybody loses freedom to control their own destiny, and is not fair either. I believe that being rich is not a sin, but having the means to help people, and when you see they are suffering, but you choose to ignore this and making more and exploiting more, then that's wrong.

erika.danart

Capitalism is failing now like the former economic models, because it hasn't been applied in the correct way, because powerful people who take the lead have been acting in an abusive and selfish way, and no one has tell them nothing. Because the seven richest people control more richness that the combined GDP of the poorest 41 nations. Because just 20% of the global population consumes the 86% of the market products. This is unfair, but not because the system has failed, but because humans are not infallible, and we need to have authorities that apply rules to us, but in this case there is no one who can apply them to all, talking about the powerful class, is a shame that we talk about equality when we do not apply this concept at all. There is not an interest in the common well being. Now socialism tried in a past time to force us to be equal, but neither that is the solution, because then everybody loses freedom to control their own destiny, and is not fair either. I believe that being rich is not a sin, but having the means to help people, and when you see they are suffering, but you choose to ignore this and making more and exploiting more, then that's wrong.

Economics

A-new-economic-model-which-exceeds-capitalism-and-socialism-failures/1/

I apologize if I didn't make myself clear. In 1930 the Great Depression happened, and this was overcome by capitalism, however government started to intervene in the economy and a new model was created: Keynesian Economics; where the Estate could take matters in their hands, because they were aware of the iniquities that could happen because of capitalism total freedom. Now apparently everything was fine, but in 1973 with the oil crisis the neoliberalists attacked the Keynesian politic. They argued that the budget for social well being was too exaggerated and so they didn't invest too much in the market, and that was the reason it didn't grow and thanks to that the crisis came. The consequences were: higher unemployment rate, because if more unemployed people more labor supply offer, that implies paying lower wages and more profit for the employer. Also the taxation for the employers decreased, and the privatization occurred. Many unions were destroyed and the budget for social programs was cut. This caused a very profound gap between rich and poor. That's why this is called economic Darwinism, because only the strongest survives. The powerful people set the rules and the majority risks everything, that is how it works. Unfortunately this is at global scale, and the same that happens with individuals happens with nations, in a phenomenon we called globalization, where the richest countries take advantage of poor nations, making trades that are designed for making profits just for them. Marx said that history was social class struggle, I just agree with him in this part, not in socialism. But if we want a stable economy we must make sure that the majority is in well state. There should be a strong balance, but the priority is to give liberty and security for people, not market. Taxes should be the same for everyone. An economy regulation must be made. We must de privatize everything that was of the common people and now is just of a few who can afford it. I'm not against market freedom, but you must put people first above all. And the government should regulate this, because at the end the government is not a politician, but an institute that represents people. We must be honest, capitalism right now is being treated as democratic, we should redirect it. "It's wrong to deprive someone else of a pleasure so that you can enjoy one yourself, but to deprive yourself of a pleasure so that you can add to someone else's enjoyment is an act of humanity by which you always gain more than you lose." -- Thomas More

erika.danart

I apologize if I didn't make myself clear. In 1930 the Great Depression happened, and this was overcome by capitalism, however government started to intervene in the economy and a new model was created: Keynesian Economics; where the Estate could take matters in their hands, because they were aware of the iniquities that could happen because of capitalism total freedom. Now apparently everything was fine, but in 1973 with the oil crisis the neoliberalists attacked the Keynesian politic. They argued that the budget for social well being was too exaggerated and so they didn't invest too much in the market, and that was the reason it didn't grow and thanks to that the crisis came. The consequences were: higher unemployment rate, because if more unemployed people more labor supply offer, that implies paying lower wages and more profit for the employer. Also the taxation for the employers decreased, and the privatization occurred. Many unions were destroyed and the budget for social programs was cut. This caused a very profound gap between rich and poor. That's why this is called economic Darwinism, because only the strongest survives. The powerful people set the rules and the majority risks everything, that is how it works. Unfortunately this is at global scale, and the same that happens with individuals happens with nations, in a phenomenon we called globalization, where the richest countries take advantage of poor nations, making trades that are designed for making profits just for them. Marx said that history was social class struggle, I just agree with him in this part, not in socialism. But if we want a stable economy we must make sure that the majority is in well state. There should be a strong balance, but the priority is to give liberty and security for people, not market. Taxes should be the same for everyone. An economy regulation must be made. We must de privatize everything that was of the common people and now is just of a few who can afford it. I'm not against market freedom, but you must put people first above all. And the government should regulate this, because at the end the government is not a politician, but an institute that represents people. We must be honest, capitalism right now is being treated as democratic, we should redirect it. "It's wrong to deprive someone else of a pleasure so that you can enjoy one yourself, but to deprive yourself of a pleasure so that you can add to someone else's enjoyment is an act of humanity by which you always gain more than you lose." ― Thomas More

Economics

A-new-economic-model-which-exceeds-capitalism-and-socialism-failures/1/

Aside from the fact that I don't believe Huckabee will actually win the election based on the nation's disgust with the Republican party and the recent partisan tide in congress.... I'll argue this point... Let's take a look at your first paragraph with one substitution: "It looks like DEMOCRATS will be overwhelmingly more likely to put an extremely religious man into power once again, who is aimed at sending our progress in civil rights, foreign policy, and environmental efforts back into pre-1980's levels." The substitution for Democrats represents Kucinich, who argued for bombing Mecca and Medina if there was another terrorist attack on US soil. The point I make here is that it is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans, but rather an issue of Christians vs. Non-Christians in political ideology. Most of the politicians in the United States are Christian (or claim to be - there are undoubtedly a number of closet atheists in Congress). So it would make sense that laws get passed that reflect a Christian ideology. The problem I believe you're trying to identify is that the Single Member Plurality District model we currently use disenfranchises the non-Christian members of the population. I identify 2 main points in your argument - first, that congress passes laws that are dependent on and reflect a Christian ideology, and second, that this constitutes the establishment of Christianity as a national religion. On the first point, the laws congress passes reflect the opinions and desires of the representative's constituents. It just so happens that these constituents are of a Christian PLURALITY - not majority necessarily, but still probably a majority. On top of that, these laws are not dependent on or reflective of Christian ideology - they simply agree with it in much the same was as "The enemy of the enemy is my friend." The laws I believe you argue against have to do with morality. Morality is not a religious construct - it arises out of biological tendencies and basic social contract theory. So in the end - the laws do not in and of themselves benefit a religion - they benefit society. On the second point, this by no means establishes a religion. It simply means that this is the most common religion. In a democracy, the laws will follow the will of the people. The United States is a majority Christian nation - thus, the laws reflect this. It is not establishment at all. In any event, the clause regarding the establishment of religion is to prevent religious persecution. So in order to use that clause in your argument, I think you need to show the persecution of a (major?) religious group before that's a valid argument. And by major, I mean that I don't consider the illegalization of marijuana to be a persecution of Rastafarianists. For your first disclaimer, I think you should provide an example of such a law before I attempt to figure out what you mean by that... As far as a religious president like Huckabee goes... I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing. Granted, I believe the best president for this country would be an atheist president... I would much rather see a religious president like Huckabee in office than a religious president like Kucinich. On average, I believe you could say that religious persons are generally good people. I would view a religious president as less likely to be involved in a scandal than a non-religious president. Historically, the United States has always had a religious president (again - or one who claimed to be). If you can honestly say that the past 43 (I think... 42, 44?) presidents have FORCED or COERCED the nation into a religious lifestyle, I challenge you to provide legislation that proves this. I believe the United States needs a religious president, but not necessarily Huckabee. Actually, from a religious view, I think Obama is a much better choice (even though I'm conservative) because it's hard in the international arena of religion and politics for the Arab world to demonize someone like Obama - he has an Arab name, Arab features, was raised partially Muslim, etc... But that's beside the point. Provide me some evidence that a Christian president is bad. Your move.

JustCallMeTarzan

Aside from the fact that I don't believe Huckabee will actually win the election based on the nation's disgust with the Republican party and the recent partisan tide in congress.... I'll argue this point... Let's take a look at your first paragraph with one substitution: "It looks like DEMOCRATS will be overwhelmingly more likely to put an extremely religious man into power once again, who is aimed at sending our progress in civil rights, foreign policy, and environmental efforts back into pre-1980's levels." The substitution for Democrats represents Kucinich, who argued for bombing Mecca and Medina if there was another terrorist attack on US soil. The point I make here is that it is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans, but rather an issue of Christians vs. Non-Christians in political ideology. Most of the politicians in the United States are Christian (or claim to be - there are undoubtedly a number of closet atheists in Congress). So it would make sense that laws get passed that reflect a Christian ideology. The problem I believe you're trying to identify is that the Single Member Plurality District model we currently use disenfranchises the non-Christian members of the population. I identify 2 main points in your argument - first, that congress passes laws that are dependent on and reflect a Christian ideology, and second, that this constitutes the establishment of Christianity as a national religion. On the first point, the laws congress passes reflect the opinions and desires of the representative's constituents. It just so happens that these constituents are of a Christian PLURALITY - not majority necessarily, but still probably a majority. On top of that, these laws are not dependent on or reflective of Christian ideology - they simply agree with it in much the same was as "The enemy of the enemy is my friend." The laws I believe you argue against have to do with morality. Morality is not a religious construct - it arises out of biological tendencies and basic social contract theory. So in the end - the laws do not in and of themselves benefit a religion - they benefit society. On the second point, this by no means establishes a religion. It simply means that this is the most common religion. In a democracy, the laws will follow the will of the people. The United States is a majority Christian nation - thus, the laws reflect this. It is not establishment at all. In any event, the clause regarding the establishment of religion is to prevent religious persecution. So in order to use that clause in your argument, I think you need to show the persecution of a (major?) religious group before that's a valid argument. And by major, I mean that I don't consider the illegalization of marijuana to be a persecution of Rastafarianists. For your first disclaimer, I think you should provide an example of such a law before I attempt to figure out what you mean by that... As far as a religious president like Huckabee goes... I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing. Granted, I believe the best president for this country would be an atheist president... I would much rather see a religious president like Huckabee in office than a religious president like Kucinich. On average, I believe you could say that religious persons are generally good people. I would view a religious president as less likely to be involved in a scandal than a non-religious president. Historically, the United States has always had a religious president (again - or one who claimed to be). If you can honestly say that the past 43 (I think... 42, 44?) presidents have FORCED or COERCED the nation into a religious lifestyle, I challenge you to provide legislation that proves this. I believe the United States needs a religious president, but not necessarily Huckabee. Actually, from a religious view, I think Obama is a much better choice (even though I'm conservative) because it's hard in the international arena of religion and politics for the Arab world to demonize someone like Obama - he has an Arab name, Arab features, was raised partially Muslim, etc... But that's beside the point. Provide me some evidence that a Christian president is bad. Your move.

Politics

A-religious-president-like-Huckabee-is-the-worst-thing-for-this-country-right-now./1/

I think we can dispense with your 1-4 at the beginning as us agreeing with each other. I simply substitute Kucinich because he's an example of a Democrat with overly religious ideas - it demolishes the argument as a D. vs R. one. I agree that all three branches of government should have equal bearing on the laws. However, the president himself doesn't wield as much power as the Legislative branch. The Judicial branch can only act if the law is challenged, which kind of puts the ball in the court of those who feel disenfranchised. I wouldn't put my argument against your point as you did (...most people in the US are Christians, then why is it so wrong that Christianity's mark is made on our legal system?) but rather as that the fact that Christianity's mark on the legal system is irremovable from basic human morals. It's not an issue of Christianity being responsible for the current system - it's more like Christianity was simply there for the ride. I'll accept your definition of morality for the purposes of debate. But I think it's important to draw another distinction for things that are socially acceptable. Neither category necessarily involves religion. Social acceptability differs greatly around the world, so I suggest we use the definition in the United States. In your case of sodomy, while this doesn't fall under immorality for non-minors (I hope we agree that sodomy concerning minors is immoral...). However, I believe it would fall under socially unacceptable. Even barring that, one could argue that actions like sodomy present a disrespectful image of dignity which isn't really a just state... Lets look at the laws you present... First - sodomy - I think I already made my point with sodomy. I haven't heard any strict definition like the one you mention, but then again, I haven't heard any really religious-based definition of it at all. I would agree, however, that laws against sodomy ARE unconstitutional. I'll concede the point here that laws against it are consistent with your argument. Second - gay marriage - I believe the main concern regarding gay marriage rests in tax law. Like the movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" it would be hard to enforce tax benefit laws if marriage is not defined as existing between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is becoming more acceptable in todays society, but I believe the majority of this nation would find open homosexuality (things like men kissing in public) to be socially unacceptable simply because it's not the model that they're accustomed to. The underlying problem here is that there hasn't been a law drafted to separate marriage from the religious meaning. Marriage is still a religious sacrament - the official legal binding is more like a civil union, which is really how it should be handled. As yet, though, there's no way to figure out who is actually a "couple" and who is just evading tax laws. Third - the war on drugs - I'm not sure what your point is with this one. Marijuana is illegal because of the potential for abuse and the actions that result from that abuse. People whose cognitive abilities are impaired by being high are generally a danger to society - not saying they ALL are... In this case, the man should be arrested - he's left evidence of illegal activity in a public place - the smell - and the officer certainly has probable cause to enter the house. It's exactly the same situation as if he walked by and heard a gunshot. (The Christian viewpoint concerning drugs would fall under respect of the self and the abuse of something (alcohol, food, drugs, etc...) - that's the best the bible can do to address this...) Fourth - the war on terror - I'll agree that most of the country is against the war, and at this point, I think the only thing really keeping us there is that we can't just LEAVE - that's not a moral action. Leaving a huge mess (albeit that we made) behind isn't just to the Iraqi people. The war is not a religious one per se. Hussein was a terrible dictator, perpetrating crimes against the Iraqi people. The war started under the pretense of WMD and possibly oil, but in a cover-you-a$$ movement, the government made it about removing a tyrant. Part of the justification for remaining there is the current instability of the Iraqi government and the fact that there are still members of the old regime capable of seizing power without the US presence. We are not overseas fighting Islam. We are fighting Muslims, yes, but we are not trying to destroy Islam. Radical Islam perhaps, because it IS dangerous - but then again, so is radical Christianity - as evidenced by (yes, him again, sorry) Kucinich's idea about bombing Mecca and Medina. I did not say that a religious president IS less likely to be involved in scandal - rather, that I would perceive one to be - as I think the majority of the population would (considering the majority is Christian...) Objectively, there probably isn't any real basis for supposing that other than social conditioning, but I believe it still holds for the majority of Americans. I feel like you are arguing that progress in environment, drugs, terror, and homosexuals is mutually exclusive to a religious president. These are important issues, yes, but they are not mutually exclusive with religion. Consider - we have made progress in these areas in the past, but we have always had religious presidents. Therefore, they cannot be entirely mutually exclusive. In politics there are necessarily two sets of people - winners and losers. In this case, I think what we're looking at is that Christianity has traditionally been the political winner, and non-Christians are generally the losers. But the United States is mostly Christian, so this makes perfect sense in the end. A Christian president might not HELP the country in the ares you mention - but I don't think it's a given that a Christian president will HURT the country either. To more directly answer your actual topic... I don't believe a religious president is the worst thing for this country - a president with extreme religious beliefs would be bad. But moderate religiosity is not an issue in the presidency - never has been historically, and probably never will.

JustCallMeTarzan

I think we can dispense with your 1-4 at the beginning as us agreeing with each other. I simply substitute Kucinich because he's an example of a Democrat with overly religious ideas - it demolishes the argument as a D. vs R. one. I agree that all three branches of government should have equal bearing on the laws. However, the president himself doesn't wield as much power as the Legislative branch. The Judicial branch can only act if the law is challenged, which kind of puts the ball in the court of those who feel disenfranchised. I wouldn't put my argument against your point as you did (...most people in the US are Christians, then why is it so wrong that Christianity's mark is made on our legal system?) but rather as that the fact that Christianity's mark on the legal system is irremovable from basic human morals. It's not an issue of Christianity being responsible for the current system - it's more like Christianity was simply there for the ride. I'll accept your definition of morality for the purposes of debate. But I think it's important to draw another distinction for things that are socially acceptable. Neither category necessarily involves religion. Social acceptability differs greatly around the world, so I suggest we use the definition in the United States. In your case of sodomy, while this doesn't fall under immorality for non-minors (I hope we agree that sodomy concerning minors is immoral...). However, I believe it would fall under socially unacceptable. Even barring that, one could argue that actions like sodomy present a disrespectful image of dignity which isn't really a just state... Lets look at the laws you present... First - sodomy - I think I already made my point with sodomy. I haven't heard any strict definition like the one you mention, but then again, I haven't heard any really religious-based definition of it at all. I would agree, however, that laws against sodomy ARE unconstitutional. I'll concede the point here that laws against it are consistent with your argument. Second - gay marriage - I believe the main concern regarding gay marriage rests in tax law. Like the movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" it would be hard to enforce tax benefit laws if marriage is not defined as existing between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is becoming more acceptable in todays society, but I believe the majority of this nation would find open homosexuality (things like men kissing in public) to be socially unacceptable simply because it's not the model that they're accustomed to. The underlying problem here is that there hasn't been a law drafted to separate marriage from the religious meaning. Marriage is still a religious sacrament - the official legal binding is more like a civil union, which is really how it should be handled. As yet, though, there's no way to figure out who is actually a "couple" and who is just evading tax laws. Third - the war on drugs - I'm not sure what your point is with this one. Marijuana is illegal because of the potential for abuse and the actions that result from that abuse. People whose cognitive abilities are impaired by being high are generally a danger to society - not saying they ALL are... In this case, the man should be arrested - he's left evidence of illegal activity in a public place - the smell - and the officer certainly has probable cause to enter the house. It's exactly the same situation as if he walked by and heard a gunshot. (The Christian viewpoint concerning drugs would fall under respect of the self and the abuse of something (alcohol, food, drugs, etc...) - that's the best the bible can do to address this...) Fourth - the war on terror - I'll agree that most of the country is against the war, and at this point, I think the only thing really keeping us there is that we can't just LEAVE - that's not a moral action. Leaving a huge mess (albeit that we made) behind isn't just to the Iraqi people. The war is not a religious one per se. Hussein was a terrible dictator, perpetrating crimes against the Iraqi people. The war started under the pretense of WMD and possibly oil, but in a cover-you-a$$ movement, the government made it about removing a tyrant. Part of the justification for remaining there is the current instability of the Iraqi government and the fact that there are still members of the old regime capable of seizing power without the US presence. We are not overseas fighting Islam. We are fighting Muslims, yes, but we are not trying to destroy Islam. Radical Islam perhaps, because it IS dangerous - but then again, so is radical Christianity - as evidenced by (yes, him again, sorry) Kucinich's idea about bombing Mecca and Medina. I did not say that a religious president IS less likely to be involved in scandal - rather, that I would perceive one to be - as I think the majority of the population would (considering the majority is Christian...) Objectively, there probably isn't any real basis for supposing that other than social conditioning, but I believe it still holds for the majority of Americans. I feel like you are arguing that progress in environment, drugs, terror, and homosexuals is mutually exclusive to a religious president. These are important issues, yes, but they are not mutually exclusive with religion. Consider - we have made progress in these areas in the past, but we have always had religious presidents. Therefore, they cannot be entirely mutually exclusive. In politics there are necessarily two sets of people - winners and losers. In this case, I think what we're looking at is that Christianity has traditionally been the political winner, and non-Christians are generally the losers. But the United States is mostly Christian, so this makes perfect sense in the end. A Christian president might not HELP the country in the ares you mention - but I don't think it's a given that a Christian president will HURT the country either. To more directly answer your actual topic... I don't believe a religious president is the worst thing for this country - a president with extreme religious beliefs would be bad. But moderate religiosity is not an issue in the presidency - never has been historically, and probably never will.

Politics

A-religious-president-like-Huckabee-is-the-worst-thing-for-this-country-right-now./1/

Perhaps it was an error on my part to try to provide social acceptability as another means of evaluating a situation. Let me put forth a situation that I believe better represents what I mean... The 2nd Amendment reads thus: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In the time that it was written, a militia would have been considered as such - "The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms." Which is indeed what was happening during the revolutionary war. Therefore, by the standards in place when the law was written, I am part of a militia. But let us suppose I am a member of the National Guard - a "well-regulated" militia. Therefore, there is NOTHING that can infringe my right to bear arms. By the terms of this law, I should be allowed to keep a nuclear bomb in my basement. This is, of course, socially unacceptable. By your definition, it would be immoral for me to be prohibited from keeping the bomb, because it would infringe my rights and create an unjust state of living. Now, it is unETHICAL for me to keep a bomb because of the fact that it could go off accidentally and destroy an entire city. I believe I have shown a distinction here between morality, ethics, and social acceptability. Morality being that which defines a just state, ethics being that which defines proper conduct, and social acceptability being that which defines a majority-accepted state - or social acceptability = social contract. 1) We shall dispense with the case of sodomy - we are in agreement in this case for the most part. I would favor the following definition of sodomy: "Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality." In this case, the same laws regarding sodomy would probably apply to bestiality - which is an entirely different debate concerning the animals' right to not be violated. (Baaa!!) 2) I think we agree here that a clear definition of both the tax law and what constitutes evasion is necessary. True, a man and a woman could do this, but I believe that is far less likely than for two members of the same sex. For example - take a man's point of view. I don't think the tax break is worth living with a woman who I don't love. But I would certainly apply for a tax break living with one of my current roommates. The point is that there's no way to tell if two people are LIVING the American Dream or CHEATING the American Dream. 3) The abuse of marijuana would refer (reefer?) to it's potential as a gateway drug. While you yourself might not abuse marijuana, it IS abused by some. Granted the historical reasons for illegalizing marijuana are not particularly compelling... However, the effects of marijuana make it dangerous if presented to society. Use of a gateway drug CAN (not does...) lead to the use of other, more dangerous drugs - heroin or cocaine are drugs that sometimes make a user a danger to others. If illegalizing marijuana creates fewer cocaine users (I really don't know if that's the case or not) then isn't that a benefit to society? A man would not be capable of safely driving a car while high. Should the officer in your example come into the man's home and take his keys until he isn't high anymore? The laws are not in place to unjustly punish people - they're in place to protect the rest of society. It's the same as the case where the one kid talks in class and gets recess taken away for everyone. Because the potential for societal harm exists, the society must protect itself, not the individual. This is the heart of social contract - and I believe that by your definition of morality, social contract can be found to be just. 4) By your own definition of morality - Hussein was immoral - how can the idea that laws in the US are unjust for things like smoking marijuana POSSIBLY be construed to mean that Hussein was not unjust in his laws and practices?!? His practices in Iraq weren't even socially acceptable as you misunderstood my definition to be (albeit my fault there...) - they were only acceptable to those with power, which was not society. I'm not sure where this comes from: "We are over there right now because we believe they have archaic religious beliefs and we need to police them! It's not much different than the guy smoking weed in his house, and the officer bursting in and hauling him off to jail." That's an assumption that I believe is not warranted - we would do the same thing if this situation of this scale were talking place among other Christians. In the case of the man in his house, when he takes place in an activity that is known to be potentially dangerous to society, he gives up some of his right to freedom to the judgment of society. "I will forget you mentioned that a Christian president will be less likely to be involved in a scandal." Here you are still twisting my words... I believe a religious president will be less likely TO BE PERCEIVED as possibly being in a scandal. As for Reagan... let's take a closer look at what he actually said... not that "trees cause pollution" - but that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do" - which, as it turns out is true - "Because the eminent Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg, Germany, has just reported in Nature magazine that plants, trees, forests, emit 10 to 30 percent of the methane gas into the atmosphere." So I think a more in-depth look at this is needed before presenting it in a debate about religious presidents... Huckabee is not inherently powerful because of his religious background. Actually, with him being Southern Baptist, we might expect much of his religious sway to be lost on a nation that is nearly 80% Christian, but where Baptists (general Baptist, not S. Baptist) compromise less than 25% of that. Baptists as a whole are less than 18% of the United States Population. Hardly a majority, or even a plurality. For religious views to have any weight at all, they must agree with a majority of the nation or else they will be shot down. I think the reference you made (or so I interpret it) to abortion in your closing paragraph is unfounded - seems to me that the current law making abortion legal in the US is contrary to Christian beliefs - why else would thousands of them gather in DC every year for the Right to Life March? People struggling with drug addiction? Again - where potential for societal harm exists (causing an unjust state to society) the individual must either sacrifice freedom to judgment by society or leave the society. There's nothing immoral with an island of druggies who are stoned 24/7 - I just don't want it in my backyard. Much of what you interpret as Christian influence may be the elitist NIMBY philosophy that the United States culture promotes - "We're too good for this - I won't have it - Not In My Back Yard." Homosexuals... this is a tough case - In principle, I would tend to agree that they should have the right to be happy and create a life together. In this case, I believe that the problem is not with Christianity and its influence, but rather a flaw in the governmental system. If there was no tax benefit from being married - and individuals simply got taxed differently on joint property, then this probably would not be an issue. Having a religious president for our 44th (?) president will not change things for the WORSE. It may not change them for the better either. I argue that there is nothing inherently bad about a religious president. We've had them in the past, and we're making progress - things used to be much worse from a religious persecution perspective (witch burning, racism, WASP philosophy, etc...). Our government is biased towards maintaining the status quo. And isn't that much better than a change for the WORSE? You decide.

JustCallMeTarzan

Perhaps it was an error on my part to try to provide social acceptability as another means of evaluating a situation. Let me put forth a situation that I believe better represents what I mean... The 2nd Amendment reads thus: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In the time that it was written, a militia would have been considered as such - "The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms." Which is indeed what was happening during the revolutionary war. Therefore, by the standards in place when the law was written, I am part of a militia. But let us suppose I am a member of the National Guard - a "well-regulated" militia. Therefore, there is NOTHING that can infringe my right to bear arms. By the terms of this law, I should be allowed to keep a nuclear bomb in my basement. This is, of course, socially unacceptable. By your definition, it would be immoral for me to be prohibited from keeping the bomb, because it would infringe my rights and create an unjust state of living. Now, it is unETHICAL for me to keep a bomb because of the fact that it could go off accidentally and destroy an entire city. I believe I have shown a distinction here between morality, ethics, and social acceptability. Morality being that which defines a just state, ethics being that which defines proper conduct, and social acceptability being that which defines a majority-accepted state - or social acceptability = social contract. 1) We shall dispense with the case of sodomy - we are in agreement in this case for the most part. I would favor the following definition of sodomy: "Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality." In this case, the same laws regarding sodomy would probably apply to bestiality - which is an entirely different debate concerning the animals' right to not be violated. (Baaa!!) 2) I think we agree here that a clear definition of both the tax law and what constitutes evasion is necessary. True, a man and a woman could do this, but I believe that is far less likely than for two members of the same sex. For example - take a man's point of view. I don't think the tax break is worth living with a woman who I don't love. But I would certainly apply for a tax break living with one of my current roommates. The point is that there's no way to tell if two people are LIVING the American Dream or CHEATING the American Dream. 3) The abuse of marijuana would refer (reefer?) to it's potential as a gateway drug. While you yourself might not abuse marijuana, it IS abused by some. Granted the historical reasons for illegalizing marijuana are not particularly compelling... However, the effects of marijuana make it dangerous if presented to society. Use of a gateway drug CAN (not does...) lead to the use of other, more dangerous drugs - heroin or cocaine are drugs that sometimes make a user a danger to others. If illegalizing marijuana creates fewer cocaine users (I really don't know if that's the case or not) then isn't that a benefit to society? A man would not be capable of safely driving a car while high. Should the officer in your example come into the man's home and take his keys until he isn't high anymore? The laws are not in place to unjustly punish people - they're in place to protect the rest of society. It's the same as the case where the one kid talks in class and gets recess taken away for everyone. Because the potential for societal harm exists, the society must protect itself, not the individual. This is the heart of social contract - and I believe that by your definition of morality, social contract can be found to be just. 4) By your own definition of morality - Hussein was immoral - how can the idea that laws in the US are unjust for things like smoking marijuana POSSIBLY be construed to mean that Hussein was not unjust in his laws and practices?!? His practices in Iraq weren't even socially acceptable as you misunderstood my definition to be (albeit my fault there...) - they were only acceptable to those with power, which was not society. I'm not sure where this comes from: "We are over there right now because we believe they have archaic religious beliefs and we need to police them! It's not much different than the guy smoking weed in his house, and the officer bursting in and hauling him off to jail." That's an assumption that I believe is not warranted - we would do the same thing if this situation of this scale were talking place among other Christians. In the case of the man in his house, when he takes place in an activity that is known to be potentially dangerous to society, he gives up some of his right to freedom to the judgment of society. "I will forget you mentioned that a Christian president will be less likely to be involved in a scandal." Here you are still twisting my words... I believe a religious president will be less likely TO BE PERCEIVED as possibly being in a scandal. As for Reagan... let's take a closer look at what he actually said... not that "trees cause pollution" - but that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do" - which, as it turns out is true - "Because the eminent Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg, Germany, has just reported in Nature magazine that plants, trees, forests, emit 10 to 30 percent of the methane gas into the atmosphere." So I think a more in-depth look at this is needed before presenting it in a debate about religious presidents... Huckabee is not inherently powerful because of his religious background. Actually, with him being Southern Baptist, we might expect much of his religious sway to be lost on a nation that is nearly 80% Christian, but where Baptists (general Baptist, not S. Baptist) compromise less than 25% of that. Baptists as a whole are less than 18% of the United States Population. Hardly a majority, or even a plurality. For religious views to have any weight at all, they must agree with a majority of the nation or else they will be shot down. I think the reference you made (or so I interpret it) to abortion in your closing paragraph is unfounded - seems to me that the current law making abortion legal in the US is contrary to Christian beliefs - why else would thousands of them gather in DC every year for the Right to Life March? People struggling with drug addiction? Again - where potential for societal harm exists (causing an unjust state to society) the individual must either sacrifice freedom to judgment by society or leave the society. There's nothing immoral with an island of druggies who are stoned 24/7 - I just don't want it in my backyard. Much of what you interpret as Christian influence may be the elitist NIMBY philosophy that the United States culture promotes - "We're too good for this - I won't have it - Not In My Back Yard." Homosexuals... this is a tough case - In principle, I would tend to agree that they should have the right to be happy and create a life together. In this case, I believe that the problem is not with Christianity and its influence, but rather a flaw in the governmental system. If there was no tax benefit from being married - and individuals simply got taxed differently on joint property, then this probably would not be an issue. Having a religious president for our 44th (?) president will not change things for the WORSE. It may not change them for the better either. I argue that there is nothing inherently bad about a religious president. We've had them in the past, and we're making progress - things used to be much worse from a religious persecution perspective (witch burning, racism, WASP philosophy, etc...). Our government is biased towards maintaining the status quo. And isn't that much better than a change for the WORSE? You decide.

Politics

A-religious-president-like-Huckabee-is-the-worst-thing-for-this-country-right-now./1/

Huckabee just took Iowa, and I am severely disappointed. It looks like Republicans will be overwhelmingly more likely to put an extremely religious man into power once again, who is aimed at sending our progress in civil rights, foreign policy, and environmental efforts back into pre-1980's levels. The constitution says that the government "shall not establish religion" for a good reason. Christians maintain that this should only be interpreted to mean that, as long as Christianity does not become the absolutely official religion, they can pass as many laws as they want that are completely and utterly dependant on a Christian ideology. I disagree. I will argue, in this debate, that by passing laws based on Christian ideals alone, they are in fact establishing Christianity as our official religion. Let me clarify a few points, because I know some of your mouths are watering to put me in my place without an adequate disclaimer. 1) If a policy is set, that agrees with Christian ideology, that does not mean it is unconstitutional. I am only concerned with laws that agree with Christian ideologies AND are generally immoral or unjust AND are not generally shared by non-Christians. 2) Christians are not inherently immoral. Individual practicing Christians are a very beautiful part of our culture, In my opinion, and I would like to see them continue to be a workable part of our community. My argument is with Christians who enter politics and gain power, and use that power to force non-Christians into a Christian life-stlye.

Rob1Billion

Huckabee just took Iowa, and I am severely disappointed. It looks like Republicans will be overwhelmingly more likely to put an extremely religious man into power once again, who is aimed at sending our progress in civil rights, foreign policy, and environmental efforts back into pre-1980's levels. The constitution says that the government "shall not establish religion" for a good reason. Christians maintain that this should only be interpreted to mean that, as long as Christianity does not become the absolutely official religion, they can pass as many laws as they want that are completely and utterly dependant on a Christian ideology. I disagree. I will argue, in this debate, that by passing laws based on Christian ideals alone, they are in fact establishing Christianity as our official religion. Let me clarify a few points, because I know some of your mouths are watering to put me in my place without an adequate disclaimer. 1) If a policy is set, that agrees with Christian ideology, that does not mean it is unconstitutional. I am only concerned with laws that agree with Christian ideologies AND are generally immoral or unjust AND are not generally shared by non-Christians. 2) Christians are not inherently immoral. Individual practicing Christians are a very beautiful part of our culture, In my opinion, and I would like to see them continue to be a workable part of our community. My argument is with Christians who enter politics and gain power, and use that power to force non-Christians into a Christian life-stlye.

Politics

A-religious-president-like-Huckabee-is-the-worst-thing-for-this-country-right-now./1/

Good arguments - I knew my logic was a little wobbly when I posted this debate, I guess it was an emotional response to seeing Huckabee with that smile on his face after winning Iowa. But nevertheless, I will further assert my points and refute yours. You have a lot of points, and I will deal with them systematically and logically. 1) I agree with you, that my assumption that Huckabee will pull through to the end is not a good one, and after listening to some political analysis on the subject, I see that was a premature posture. My main point, in this argument, is that a religious person like Huckabee for president is a bad idea, and that does nothing to weaken my stance. 2) I believe you have got me again. My candidate, Mike Gravel, is the ONLY one of our presidential nominees that is not somewhat religious. Since he is not going anywhere, I guess you could say the Democrats are ready to put a religious person in there as well. Again, my main argument is not affected by this, but my emotional ranting is getting me into trouble here. 3) I do not support Kucinich, and I have nothing to defend about him. I fail to see why you concentrate on him when all of the democrats have espoused religion save gravel, but that is beside the point I guess. 4) yes, there are many christians in our gov't and that would help explain why there are many laws based on christian ideology. My goal here is to show that Christianity's hold on our politics is very real and very strong, and we need to work on disentangling Christianity from politics, one law at a time. up until this point, I argue that my main points have not been addressed in any way, therefore my argument still stands. You DO address my main points ahead: "I identify 2 main points in your argument - first, that congress passes laws that are dependent on and reflect a Christian ideology, and second, that this constitutes the establishment of Christianity as a national religion." I will accept your paraphrasement of my main points, with a little bit of refinement. The executive and judicial branches are just as important as congress in this matter. You refute my first point by saying that, and correct me if I am wrong, since most people in the US are Christians, then why is it so wrong that Christianity's mark is made on our legal system? My answer is that, while majority rules is what our voting system is based on, our laws are meant to reflect justice, not religion, or anything else for that matter. Our constitution is a set of rules that must be followed in order for our legal system to remain just. If most of our citizens liked the color red, they could all vote to make it mandatory that the color red be worn at all times. This is similar to the logic I find with Christian politics: we christians believe sodomy is immoral (even though there is no inherent immorality involved), so let's make sodomy illegal and punish offenders with 20 years in prison. You next attempt to define morality. You say it is a result of biological tendencies, and rests upon social contract theory. If I refute this, then we will never get anywhere, because philosophers have been dealing with morality for thousands of years and you and I are not going to resolve it in two and a half rounds of online debate. I would ask that we settle on a general, impartial definition of morality: the state which is achieved by just actions. "just" simply means fair, there are no strings attached to my definition, and I will continue to use it unless you cannot accept it. You then say that our constitution is simply trying to prevent religious persecution, and that as long as we don't offend another religion, we are right to pass religious laws. I think this argument is as black and white as it can be. If you pass laws that reflect christian ideology, that are immoral, and that aren't shared by non-christians, then how are you NOT persecuting other religions? How is another religion supposed to be able to take hold if there are laws being passed by Christians that force them, at the end of a gun, to do things that are Christian? I believe that Christian politicians are ignoring the implications of their actions when they pass these laws. I will define some laws for you, and anyone else who at this point is in the dark as to what I mean by laws that are "based on Christian ideology, immoral, and generally not reflected among non-christians". 1) Sodomy laws - sodomy is practiced by incredibly large amounts of our population. Anyone of you reading this message, who has ever had oral sex, has performed sodomy. Strict religious interpretations, correct me if I am wrong, define sodomy as "any sexual position other than missionary". I am not 100% sure about that last sentence, but here is a Georgia statute, ruled unconstitutional in 2003 (I consider this too recent for comfort) - sodomy is defined as when the reproductive organs of one person touch the lips or anus of another person - sodomy shall be punishable by no less than, and no more than 20 years in prison 2) gay marriage laws - again, there is an incredible population of homosexuals in our country, and it is predominantly the Christians who stand in their way of equality. I understand that Christians are scared that homosexuality will continue to increase if they don't put it in check, but their is no way to address that concern without supreme injustice. 3)the War on Drugs - let me put a scenario to you. A man smokes marijuana, in the privacy of his own home. A police officer walks by, smells it, and enters his home with probable cause and arrests him. This scenario is completely unjust, and I believe it is predominantly Christians who stand in the way of our abilities to quell this situation. It is not a strictly Christian subject- there is probably no part of the bible that addresses it (I could be wrong), but it is not a conincidence that most people who are pro-drug war are also devout christians. 4) The war on terror - there are plenty of christians that are against the war. There would have to be, because most of our country IS against the war. But we are still in the war.... why is this? What is the most basic argument for us to stay in the war? WMD? no, that was determined to be a lie a long time ago. Oil? no, our economy has suffered greatly from this war, and there would be no reason to stay for Oil. Spreading freedom? well, if you are talking about Christian freedom I guess you could say yes. The reason we are over there is RELIGION. The only arguments left to stay there is that Islamic fundamentalists are evil and we should be taking it to them before they reach us. I argue that this is an essentially religious argument. I know I am going to get a comments section full of Christians refuting this paragraph, but before you post, please list why exactly we are in Iraq right now. I will successfully refute every one of your points, except one: Islamic terrorists. Islamic terrorism is a religious concern, they are over there fighting over religion, and we bring ours right in and get right in the middle. Why we are prolonging their civil war, I can't explain, but I know that it is predominantly Christian Republicans like Bush, Huckabee, Romney, and McCain that are fighting to keep us exactly where we are in this war. I think that their religious pride is telling them that since Islam is morally wrong, that we have the right to occupy their country and keep them oppressed. A religious president is less likely to be in a scandal? Please elaborate. I would love for you to tell me why... As for your final sentence, I simply believe that a Christian president will not help our country in terms of the environment, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on homosexuals.... these are issues that are important to me. Are they important to you?

Rob1Billion

Good arguments - I knew my logic was a little wobbly when I posted this debate, I guess it was an emotional response to seeing Huckabee with that smile on his face after winning Iowa. But nevertheless, I will further assert my points and refute yours. You have a lot of points, and I will deal with them systematically and logically. 1) I agree with you, that my assumption that Huckabee will pull through to the end is not a good one, and after listening to some political analysis on the subject, I see that was a premature posture. My main point, in this argument, is that a religious person like Huckabee for president is a bad idea, and that does nothing to weaken my stance. 2) I believe you have got me again. My candidate, Mike Gravel, is the ONLY one of our presidential nominees that is not somewhat religious. Since he is not going anywhere, I guess you could say the Democrats are ready to put a religious person in there as well. Again, my main argument is not affected by this, but my emotional ranting is getting me into trouble here. 3) I do not support Kucinich, and I have nothing to defend about him. I fail to see why you concentrate on him when all of the democrats have espoused religion save gravel, but that is beside the point I guess. 4) yes, there are many christians in our gov't and that would help explain why there are many laws based on christian ideology. My goal here is to show that Christianity's hold on our politics is very real and very strong, and we need to work on disentangling Christianity from politics, one law at a time. up until this point, I argue that my main points have not been addressed in any way, therefore my argument still stands. You DO address my main points ahead: "I identify 2 main points in your argument - first, that congress passes laws that are dependent on and reflect a Christian ideology, and second, that this constitutes the establishment of Christianity as a national religion." I will accept your paraphrasement of my main points, with a little bit of refinement. The executive and judicial branches are just as important as congress in this matter. You refute my first point by saying that, and correct me if I am wrong, since most people in the US are Christians, then why is it so wrong that Christianity's mark is made on our legal system? My answer is that, while majority rules is what our voting system is based on, our laws are meant to reflect justice, not religion, or anything else for that matter. Our constitution is a set of rules that must be followed in order for our legal system to remain just. If most of our citizens liked the color red, they could all vote to make it mandatory that the color red be worn at all times. This is similar to the logic I find with Christian politics: we christians believe sodomy is immoral (even though there is no inherent immorality involved), so let's make sodomy illegal and punish offenders with 20 years in prison. You next attempt to define morality. You say it is a result of biological tendencies, and rests upon social contract theory. If I refute this, then we will never get anywhere, because philosophers have been dealing with morality for thousands of years and you and I are not going to resolve it in two and a half rounds of online debate. I would ask that we settle on a general, impartial definition of morality: the state which is achieved by just actions. "just" simply means fair, there are no strings attached to my definition, and I will continue to use it unless you cannot accept it. You then say that our constitution is simply trying to prevent religious persecution, and that as long as we don't offend another religion, we are right to pass religious laws. I think this argument is as black and white as it can be. If you pass laws that reflect christian ideology, that are immoral, and that aren't shared by non-christians, then how are you NOT persecuting other religions? How is another religion supposed to be able to take hold if there are laws being passed by Christians that force them, at the end of a gun, to do things that are Christian? I believe that Christian politicians are ignoring the implications of their actions when they pass these laws. I will define some laws for you, and anyone else who at this point is in the dark as to what I mean by laws that are "based on Christian ideology, immoral, and generally not reflected among non-christians". 1) Sodomy laws - sodomy is practiced by incredibly large amounts of our population. Anyone of you reading this message, who has ever had oral sex, has performed sodomy. Strict religious interpretations, correct me if I am wrong, define sodomy as "any sexual position other than missionary". I am not 100% sure about that last sentence, but here is a Georgia statute, ruled unconstitutional in 2003 (I consider this too recent for comfort) - sodomy is defined as when the reproductive organs of one person touch the lips or anus of another person - sodomy shall be punishable by no less than, and no more than 20 years in prison 2) gay marriage laws - again, there is an incredible population of homosexuals in our country, and it is predominantly the Christians who stand in their way of equality. I understand that Christians are scared that homosexuality will continue to increase if they don't put it in check, but their is no way to address that concern without supreme injustice. 3)the War on Drugs - let me put a scenario to you. A man smokes marijuana, in the privacy of his own home. A police officer walks by, smells it, and enters his home with probable cause and arrests him. This scenario is completely unjust, and I believe it is predominantly Christians who stand in the way of our abilities to quell this situation. It is not a strictly Christian subject- there is probably no part of the bible that addresses it (I could be wrong), but it is not a conincidence that most people who are pro-drug war are also devout christians. 4) The war on terror - there are plenty of christians that are against the war. There would have to be, because most of our country IS against the war. But we are still in the war.... why is this? What is the most basic argument for us to stay in the war? WMD? no, that was determined to be a lie a long time ago. Oil? no, our economy has suffered greatly from this war, and there would be no reason to stay for Oil. Spreading freedom? well, if you are talking about Christian freedom I guess you could say yes. The reason we are over there is RELIGION. The only arguments left to stay there is that Islamic fundamentalists are evil and we should be taking it to them before they reach us. I argue that this is an essentially religious argument. I know I am going to get a comments section full of Christians refuting this paragraph, but before you post, please list why exactly we are in Iraq right now. I will successfully refute every one of your points, except one: Islamic terrorists. Islamic terrorism is a religious concern, they are over there fighting over religion, and we bring ours right in and get right in the middle. Why we are prolonging their civil war, I can't explain, but I know that it is predominantly Christian Republicans like Bush, Huckabee, Romney, and McCain that are fighting to keep us exactly where we are in this war. I think that their religious pride is telling them that since Islam is morally wrong, that we have the right to occupy their country and keep them oppressed. A religious president is less likely to be in a scandal? Please elaborate. I would love for you to tell me why... As for your final sentence, I simply believe that a Christian president will not help our country in terms of the environment, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on homosexuals.... these are issues that are important to me. Are they important to you?

Politics

A-religious-president-like-Huckabee-is-the-worst-thing-for-this-country-right-now./1/

So you want to link "social acceptability" with morality. Again, we are going to disagree on how we define this concept. I believe in absolute morality. In the past, especially in regards to superstitious religious beliefs, people were able to perform immorally in a socially justified way, simply because it was accepted by their religion. Witch burning, crusades, religious persecution, etc. were all justified socially, but are still inherently immoral. Your approach to morality is wrong in my eyes, because it depends on what other people think morality ought to be; I believe that something that is unjust is absolutely wrong no matter what other people think about it. In fact, with your definition, there is really no point in us having this discussion at all because you would just lay down and accept the norm. I, on the other hand, see injustice in our government and seek to change it. The four laws I presented last round are good examples of this. 1) you have conceded that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and that is good because so has our supreme court. These laws are not still in effect, but I point them out because they are INCREDIBLY unjust, and they have only very recently been dismantled. 2) gay marriage - yes, tax laws are a very good point. By civil unions/marriage not being defined as a man and a woman, it qould seem to open up the potential for abuse by people who seek to take advantage of the system. However, I don't see how the system is not already ripe for the taking as it is. A man and a woman can abuse the system in the same way that two men can. Furthermore, who do you define as "evading tax laws", and who do you define as not? How can you say that ANY two people who want to start a life/family and get a tax break to help them live the American dream is abusing the system? In strict Christian terms, people are in the wrong if they have premarital sex or marry a non-Christian, so obviously Christian concerns must be pushed to the side. This happens to be the case WHENEVER Christian values come into contradiction with law or science: THEY MUST BE DISCARDED, in the spirit of justice and morality. The Christian belief system is a great system to follow on a personal level, to achieve personal results, but you CANNOT FORCE IT ON THE POPULACE. This ALWAYS results in injustice. The fact is that religious politicians, like Huckabee, DISAGREE with me on these points. Huckabee says "I'm not trying to push my religion down anybody's throat..." that is complete nonsense. Huckabee is overwhelmingly likely to promote pro-Christian legislation that will negatively affect the civil rights of non-christians. I will provide an example in #3. 3) My point is that Christians are generally in favor of the war on drugs, and specifically, Huckabee has announced on youtube (type in "Huckabee marijuana" in the youtube search engine to see for yourself) that he will continue the raids on terminally ill cancer patients who smoke marijuana to ease their pain. Your arguments against marijuana are very weak. Potential to abuse marijuana? What in God's name do you mean by that? How can you "abuse" marijuana? I've smoked as much as anyone and I haven't found a way yet!! How can you tell me that laws that put marijuana users in jail are justified, based on this? You actually think that it is morally acceptable for the man in my example to go to jail? Maybe you will retract your argument, and say that you simply said it is the acceptably legal thing to do. It IS legal, and that is my whole point in this debate! It is legal, yet unjust! And Huckabee will absolutely continue this grave injustice, because Christian/Republican family values dictate that smoking weed is immoral and should remain illegal. This demonstrates my thesis with great momentum. You think that a man smoking weed in his house, who lets the smell get out, is equivalent to firing off a gun? I see that your definition of morality, based on social acceptance, is twisting your grip on the very essence of the word. I STRONGLY suggest that, in the future, you forget what "everybody else is doing", and concentrate on the pure meaning of morality. I can tell that you are smarter than this, and I hope you will take my advice. Again, I expect you to say "I only meant that it was illegal, which it IS". By saying this, you are providing evidence for my thesis, which is that "A religious president like Huckabee is the worst thing for this country right now." You equate smoking weed to firing off a gun, which is obviously not a good moral comparison, but only a legal comparison. The fact that you can make this legal comparison means something is wrong, and a president like Huckabee will only exacerbate the situation. 4) Hussein was a terrible dictator? Why? He HATED terrorists, and he would KILL them on sight! Now we have created a breeding ground for terrorism. What crimes did he perpetrate? Your definition of morality dictates that if it is socially acceptable, than it is OK! I'm sure Hussein was doing just fine then, if you factor in the laws and customs of his own country. Of course, my definition of morality would judge him differently, but that is not relevent here. Yes, we agree that the reasons leading in to Iraq were BS, but I recognize that the reasons for staying are the same BS. That civil war is going to be fought and for some reason we are not letting it happen. It sounds good to actually pretend like we care about the region erupting in war, but that is only a cover. We are over there right now because we believe they have archaic religous beliefs and we need to police them! It's not much different than the guy smoking weed in his house, and the officer bursting in and hauling him off to jail. In both cases, we have judged them to be morally wrong, from a Christian perspective, and have acted as if this perspective is absolute. We then take action, even though our constitution does not grant us the authority to do so, and create injustice in the process. Again, I believe Huckabee, being a powerful religious politician, will further exacerbate these situations. I will forget you mentioned that a Christian president will be less likely to be involved in a scandal. You are starting to slip up, at the end of your argument. Allow me to introduce you to a man called Ronald Reagan. Once upon a time, we had a very powerful environmental movement. It started gaining a lot of speed in the 1970's, until Reagan took power in 1980. Reagan took the progress we made in the seventies, and dismantled it piece by piece. In my Conservation of Natural Resources Class, Reagan was required reading because of the environmental policies that he destroyed. I will look for my textbook from the class and leave some more specific examples in the comments section below, as you probably are not aware of his legacy. At any rate, he was considered the worst president ever from an environmental perspective, and was once quoted as saying that "trees cause pollution". To conclude my argument, Mike Huckabee is a powerful religious politician. I recognize that he *just might* use his religion as a tool to mold his policy-maiking decisions, and I think that our society has sustained enough damage to civil rights by people who act in the best interests of Christianity, and not the best interests of society as a whole. In particular, I believe that people who are struggling with drug addictions, homosexuals, and pregnant women have seen their civil liberties jeopardized by religious politicians. My opponents argument asserts that, since most people in the US are Christian, then how can we be alarmed that there is so many laws in our books based on Christianity? I think that this is a good observation, that explains why things are the way they are, but it doesn't do anything to say why we shouldn't be holding our standards a little higher.

Rob1Billion

So you want to link "social acceptability" with morality. Again, we are going to disagree on how we define this concept. I believe in absolute morality. In the past, especially in regards to superstitious religious beliefs, people were able to perform immorally in a socially justified way, simply because it was accepted by their religion. Witch burning, crusades, religious persecution, etc. were all justified socially, but are still inherently immoral. Your approach to morality is wrong in my eyes, because it depends on what other people think morality ought to be; I believe that something that is unjust is absolutely wrong no matter what other people think about it. In fact, with your definition, there is really no point in us having this discussion at all because you would just lay down and accept the norm. I, on the other hand, see injustice in our government and seek to change it. The four laws I presented last round are good examples of this. 1) you have conceded that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and that is good because so has our supreme court. These laws are not still in effect, but I point them out because they are INCREDIBLY unjust, and they have only very recently been dismantled. 2) gay marriage - yes, tax laws are a very good point. By civil unions/marriage not being defined as a man and a woman, it qould seem to open up the potential for abuse by people who seek to take advantage of the system. However, I don't see how the system is not already ripe for the taking as it is. A man and a woman can abuse the system in the same way that two men can. Furthermore, who do you define as "evading tax laws", and who do you define as not? How can you say that ANY two people who want to start a life/family and get a tax break to help them live the American dream is abusing the system? In strict Christian terms, people are in the wrong if they have premarital sex or marry a non-Christian, so obviously Christian concerns must be pushed to the side. This happens to be the case WHENEVER Christian values come into contradiction with law or science: THEY MUST BE DISCARDED, in the spirit of justice and morality. The Christian belief system is a great system to follow on a personal level, to achieve personal results, but you CANNOT FORCE IT ON THE POPULACE. This ALWAYS results in injustice. The fact is that religious politicians, like Huckabee, DISAGREE with me on these points. Huckabee says "I'm not trying to push my religion down anybody's throat..." that is complete nonsense. Huckabee is overwhelmingly likely to promote pro-Christian legislation that will negatively affect the civil rights of non-christians. I will provide an example in #3. 3) My point is that Christians are generally in favor of the war on drugs, and specifically, Huckabee has announced on youtube (type in "Huckabee marijuana" in the youtube search engine to see for yourself) that he will continue the raids on terminally ill cancer patients who smoke marijuana to ease their pain. Your arguments against marijuana are very weak. Potential to abuse marijuana? What in God's name do you mean by that? How can you "abuse" marijuana? I've smoked as much as anyone and I haven't found a way yet!! How can you tell me that laws that put marijuana users in jail are justified, based on this? You actually think that it is morally acceptable for the man in my example to go to jail? Maybe you will retract your argument, and say that you simply said it is the acceptably legal thing to do. It IS legal, and that is my whole point in this debate! It is legal, yet unjust! And Huckabee will absolutely continue this grave injustice, because Christian/Republican family values dictate that smoking weed is immoral and should remain illegal. This demonstrates my thesis with great momentum. You think that a man smoking weed in his house, who lets the smell get out, is equivalent to firing off a gun? I see that your definition of morality, based on social acceptance, is twisting your grip on the very essence of the word. I STRONGLY suggest that, in the future, you forget what "everybody else is doing", and concentrate on the pure meaning of morality. I can tell that you are smarter than this, and I hope you will take my advice. Again, I expect you to say "I only meant that it was illegal, which it IS". By saying this, you are providing evidence for my thesis, which is that "A religious president like Huckabee is the worst thing for this country right now." You equate smoking weed to firing off a gun, which is obviously not a good moral comparison, but only a legal comparison. The fact that you can make this legal comparison means something is wrong, and a president like Huckabee will only exacerbate the situation. 4) Hussein was a terrible dictator? Why? He HATED terrorists, and he would KILL them on sight! Now we have created a breeding ground for terrorism. What crimes did he perpetrate? Your definition of morality dictates that if it is socially acceptable, than it is OK! I'm sure Hussein was doing just fine then, if you factor in the laws and customs of his own country. Of course, my definition of morality would judge him differently, but that is not relevent here. Yes, we agree that the reasons leading in to Iraq were BS, but I recognize that the reasons for staying are the same BS. That civil war is going to be fought and for some reason we are not letting it happen. It sounds good to actually pretend like we care about the region erupting in war, but that is only a cover. We are over there right now because we believe they have archaic religous beliefs and we need to police them! It's not much different than the guy smoking weed in his house, and the officer bursting in and hauling him off to jail. In both cases, we have judged them to be morally wrong, from a Christian perspective, and have acted as if this perspective is absolute. We then take action, even though our constitution does not grant us the authority to do so, and create injustice in the process. Again, I believe Huckabee, being a powerful religious politician, will further exacerbate these situations. I will forget you mentioned that a Christian president will be less likely to be involved in a scandal. You are starting to slip up, at the end of your argument. Allow me to introduce you to a man called Ronald Reagan. Once upon a time, we had a very powerful environmental movement. It started gaining a lot of speed in the 1970's, until Reagan took power in 1980. Reagan took the progress we made in the seventies, and dismantled it piece by piece. In my Conservation of Natural Resources Class, Reagan was required reading because of the environmental policies that he destroyed. I will look for my textbook from the class and leave some more specific examples in the comments section below, as you probably are not aware of his legacy. At any rate, he was considered the worst president ever from an environmental perspective, and was once quoted as saying that "trees cause pollution". To conclude my argument, Mike Huckabee is a powerful religious politician. I recognize that he *just might* use his religion as a tool to mold his policy-maiking decisions, and I think that our society has sustained enough damage to civil rights by people who act in the best interests of Christianity, and not the best interests of society as a whole. In particular, I believe that people who are struggling with drug addictions, homosexuals, and pregnant women have seen their civil liberties jeopardized by religious politicians. My opponents argument asserts that, since most people in the US are Christian, then how can we be alarmed that there is so many laws in our books based on Christianity? I think that this is a good observation, that explains why things are the way they are, but it doesn't do anything to say why we shouldn't be holding our standards a little higher.

Politics

A-religious-president-like-Huckabee-is-the-worst-thing-for-this-country-right-now./1/

I accept my opponent's definitions. Please note that I mlay forfeit a round or two because I had no idea this was 24 hours only. Anyways, let's DO THIS!!!

Viper-King

I accept my opponent's definitions. Please note that I mlay forfeit a round or two because I had no idea this was 24 hours only. Anyways, let's DO THIS!!!

Religion

A-saved-person-a-Christian-may-sin-in-such-a-way-as-to-be-eternally-lost./3/

1. I honestly do not know about his salvation status. I believe that only God can truly judge him and as the Bible said that no man may judge. 2. Both. It has happened before and can happen. 3. Yes. First of all, sin is a strong word. Sin is defined by my opponent as "believing or commiting acts contrary to God's law". However my opponent has a part that destroys her own case. It's the part that someone may sin that will make him or her go to hell. Choice is not sin. Choice is instead the freedom that God gives us to make decisions on our own. Saul chose to reject the Lord after he had accepted him. Rejecting God is not a sin. It is the choice that God gives us. The choice to reject God will ultimately make us reject God. So when my opponent says that King Saul is a primary example of a Christian sinning enough to go to hell, I'd say that King Saul wasn't a Christian because Jesus hadn't come yet and he didn't sin which made him eternally lost but his choice did. Therefore my opponent's first contention is invalid. The 2nd contention was that the behavior and consequence of Israel are types and shadows for our Christian example. My opponent goes on to prove what Israel did and what will happen for Christians. However, let me remind you that Israel chose to reject God. They did not sin badly enough to get punished. They were destroyed because they rejected God not because of their sin. My opponent's contention three is that salvation is conditional, I agree with this. It is conditional when you reject God. Rejecting God is not a sin because God gave us this choice. Therefore that choice to reject him is not a sin which means salvation is only conditional when we reject him. When my opponent has as her 4th contention is basically that the Bible confirms we can fall away. I absolutely agree with that. The only thing I need to say is that we fall away by rejecting God which is not sinning. The Bible says we fall away, it does not say we sin in such a way to fall away but instead reject Christ which is NOT a sin but choice. Therefore falling away is irrelevant. I have refuted all of my opponent's case. I'm sorry that they were not as good as I thought but it's really tough to write good arguments in a couple of hours. Thanks.

Viper-King

1. I honestly do not know about his salvation status. I believe that only God can truly judge him and as the Bible said that no man may judge. 2. Both. It has happened before and can happen. 3. Yes. First of all, sin is a strong word. Sin is defined by my opponent as "believing or commiting acts contrary to God's law". However my opponent has a part that destroys her own case. It's the part that someone may sin that will make him or her go to hell. Choice is not sin. Choice is instead the freedom that God gives us to make decisions on our own. Saul chose to reject the Lord after he had accepted him. Rejecting God is not a sin. It is the choice that God gives us. The choice to reject God will ultimately make us reject God. So when my opponent says that King Saul is a primary example of a Christian sinning enough to go to hell, I'd say that King Saul wasn't a Christian because Jesus hadn't come yet and he didn't sin which made him eternally lost but his choice did. Therefore my opponent's first contention is invalid. The 2nd contention was that the behavior and consequence of Israel are types and shadows for our Christian example. My opponent goes on to prove what Israel did and what will happen for Christians. However, let me remind you that Israel chose to reject God. They did not sin badly enough to get punished. They were destroyed because they rejected God not because of their sin. My opponent's contention three is that salvation is conditional, I agree with this. It is conditional when you reject God. Rejecting God is not a sin because God gave us this choice. Therefore that choice to reject him is not a sin which means salvation is only conditional when we reject him. When my opponent has as her 4th contention is basically that the Bible confirms we can fall away. I absolutely agree with that. The only thing I need to say is that we fall away by rejecting God which is not sinning. The Bible says we fall away, it does not say we sin in such a way to fall away but instead reject Christ which is NOT a sin but choice. Therefore falling away is irrelevant. I have refuted all of my opponent's case. I'm sorry that they were not as good as I thought but it's really tough to write good arguments in a couple of hours. Thanks.

Religion

A-saved-person-a-Christian-may-sin-in-such-a-way-as-to-be-eternally-lost./3/

1. Okay. He rejected God. 2. No, he will be eternally lost because of rejecting God. 3. No. Rejecting God is not a sin. The same idea does not mean they are the same thing. Forsaking is more of an abandonment issue. Rejecting is more of "I don't want or need you" kind of thing. The Bible says that this choice whether to serve him or not is not a sin. Rejection isn't a sin which means that one goes to hell not because of his/her sin but his/her choice to reject God. I don't think there should be any judgement against Saul and that only God knows if he was lost or not and that his case proves nothing becaue there was no Jesus and the basis of right and wrong were the conscience. I think that every move we make is a choice but rejecting God is not a sin since God gave us this choice. Free will is a choice God gives us and nowhere in the Bible can I find that the rejecting of God is a sin. So forsaking and rejecting are two separate things and carry different ideas though similar in ways. I agree with you on you're 7th point but that's because of rejecting God not because of sinning. Since they chose to reject God, and then sin, they got punished. They did not sin and get punished bad, they rejected God and got punished bad adding the sin, which made it worse. Also, most Christian books I've read find that the "Ultimate" choice is if you reject God or not. All the other sins are also choices but the ultimate choice is not a sin aince God presents it to us. Only the ultimate choice is truly what God gives us. "For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone who purports to be a Christian can say that rejecting Christ is not a sin", I think that you are not one to judge me and how God judges us is the most important. I think that's not right for you to judge me in a debate and that is unfair to all. Also rejecting God is not a sin, since God gives it to us. I don't care how many sins you list that God says will be eternally lost, it is the ultimate decision that will get you eternally lost and that is why you would do those sins. I also think I have made it clear that if you reject God will be eternally lost. I also made it clear that it is not you're sins that make you eternally lost, it is our ultimate choice that will cause it. Also thank you for this debate, I really wished it had a longer time limit because there's lots of pressure. Thanks.

Viper-King

1. Okay. He rejected God. 2. No, he will be eternally lost because of rejecting God. 3. No. Rejecting God is not a sin. The same idea does not mean they are the same thing. Forsaking is more of an abandonment issue. Rejecting is more of "I don't want or need you" kind of thing. The Bible says that this choice whether to serve him or not is not a sin. Rejection isn't a sin which means that one goes to hell not because of his/her sin but his/her choice to reject God. I don't think there should be any judgement against Saul and that only God knows if he was lost or not and that his case proves nothing becaue there was no Jesus and the basis of right and wrong were the conscience. I think that every move we make is a choice but rejecting God is not a sin since God gave us this choice. Free will is a choice God gives us and nowhere in the Bible can I find that the rejecting of God is a sin. So forsaking and rejecting are two separate things and carry different ideas though similar in ways. I agree with you on you're 7th point but that's because of rejecting God not because of sinning. Since they chose to reject God, and then sin, they got punished. They did not sin and get punished bad, they rejected God and got punished bad adding the sin, which made it worse. Also, most Christian books I've read find that the "Ultimate" choice is if you reject God or not. All the other sins are also choices but the ultimate choice is not a sin aince God presents it to us. Only the ultimate choice is truly what God gives us. "For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone who purports to be a Christian can say that rejecting Christ is not a sin", I think that you are not one to judge me and how God judges us is the most important. I think that's not right for you to judge me in a debate and that is unfair to all. Also rejecting God is not a sin, since God gives it to us. I don't care how many sins you list that God says will be eternally lost, it is the ultimate decision that will get you eternally lost and that is why you would do those sins. I also think I have made it clear that if you reject God will be eternally lost. I also made it clear that it is not you're sins that make you eternally lost, it is our ultimate choice that will cause it. Also thank you for this debate, I really wished it had a longer time limit because there's lots of pressure. Thanks.

Religion

A-saved-person-a-Christian-may-sin-in-such-a-way-as-to-be-eternally-lost./3/

1. He exercised his choice of rejecting God which is not a sin. I will say that no one can judge him so I don't know if he would be saved but since he has made the personal choice to reject God, only God can determine his salvation status. I obviously deny you're contention since I'm Con and my contention has been that the choice to ultimately reject God is what makes us eternally lost since the choice to reject God is not a sin. So my answer would be that no one can judge him and no one including me can tell if he was saved or not but I do believe that God is a good God and would judge fairly especially since choosing to accept or reject him isn't a sin. I think that since rejecting God is what makes you eternally lost, he would be eternally lost but no one can judge. 2. You put words in my mouth. The choice to reject God is not a sin but it is what makes you eternally lost. My resolution is "A saved person, a Christian, makes the ultimate choice whether to reject to accept God which will determin his salvation status." That is absolutely different. Again, no one can judge but according to my contention, the decision to reject God is what makes them eternally lost. Therefore this is not an affirmation but instead a totally different idea. 3. No. God gave us this freedom to ultimately choose if we reject him or not which is why it is not a sin. The exercising of this is a God-given right. 4. What is you're point. I showed that forsaking and rejecting are totally different things and you're refutation is that "The difference for our purposes, is the difference between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum." You have no refutation except saying without any back-up that they're the same thing as "tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum". I don't care if you forsake God and he forsakes you because it's a totally different thing than rejection. 5. The Law had many flaws and in the Bible, Jesus himself pointed it out that the Law if flawed because it was only the rules and restrictions without anything that could help you to do it. Today, the Holy Spirit empowers us to do so. The Law is flawed which means that the basis of right and wrong was flawed and "every man did as his own will". 6. No you haven't, you have failed to prove that the sins are what makes you eternally lost, however I have proven that it is rejecting God that will make you eternally lost and that choice is not a sin. 7. "You have already consented that believers, Christians, may sin and ultimately be lost." No, I have not. "Ok, if one simply exercises this choice to quit believing and becomes an atheist and dies an atheist - is he still saved?" Your answer is: "No." Well, then this saved person did SOMETHING and wound up lost, didn't he?" Yes!! Not because of his sin, but because of his choice to reject God and I have further proven that rejecting God is not a sin. "What are you debating anyway?" Obviously he is not sinning by rejecting God. I am debating that rejecting God is not a sin and that is what makes you eternally lost. 8. "As I said, and correct me if I'm wrong, your entire debate is not whether a child of God can be saved, then lost. You admit this is possible, then claim the person went from "saved" to "lost" and did not sin - or if he did, the sin didn't cause him to be lost. Well, what did, then?" The choice to reject God made him lost not his sins. That choice was not a sin as I've proven. "Actions are merely expressions of thoughts. What did you say about, ""But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt 5: 28)? Not one word. Why? Because the person merely THOUGHT about it, and Jesus is saying it is the SAME THING." So? What's you're point. This is one instance where God says that lusting is a sin. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that rejecting God is a sin. "This is that thinking about it According to you, thinking about it is no problem until you really get down to business and physically sin." I never said that. You're putting words into my mouth again. 9. You give a verse from the story of Noah's ark and they were evil. They rejected God. But the rejecting of God is not the thought of the heart. This was that they were sinning. They would go to hell for rejecting God but God decided to wipe them out because their sin was so great that the Lord couldn't stand it anymore. I would not say that rejecting God is evil. 10. Yes. Evil thoughts are sin but the rejecting of Christ is not because the Lord gave us this choice. 11. You are criticizing my position and saying that it is against the Lord's Word and sound logic when I have proven that the rejecting of God is what takes us to hell and that is not a sin. I have successfully refuted my opponent's attacks and have attacked her case successfully.

Viper-King

1. He exercised his choice of rejecting God which is not a sin. I will say that no one can judge him so I don't know if he would be saved but since he has made the personal choice to reject God, only God can determine his salvation status. I obviously deny you're contention since I'm Con and my contention has been that the choice to ultimately reject God is what makes us eternally lost since the choice to reject God is not a sin. So my answer would be that no one can judge him and no one including me can tell if he was saved or not but I do believe that God is a good God and would judge fairly especially since choosing to accept or reject him isn't a sin. I think that since rejecting God is what makes you eternally lost, he would be eternally lost but no one can judge. 2. You put words in my mouth. The choice to reject God is not a sin but it is what makes you eternally lost. My resolution is "A saved person, a Christian, makes the ultimate choice whether to reject to accept God which will determin his salvation status." That is absolutely different. Again, no one can judge but according to my contention, the decision to reject God is what makes them eternally lost. Therefore this is not an affirmation but instead a totally different idea. 3. No. God gave us this freedom to ultimately choose if we reject him or not which is why it is not a sin. The exercising of this is a God-given right. 4. What is you're point. I showed that forsaking and rejecting are totally different things and you're refutation is that "The difference for our purposes, is the difference between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum." You have no refutation except saying without any back-up that they're the same thing as "tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum". I don't care if you forsake God and he forsakes you because it's a totally different thing than rejection. 5. The Law had many flaws and in the Bible, Jesus himself pointed it out that the Law if flawed because it was only the rules and restrictions without anything that could help you to do it. Today, the Holy Spirit empowers us to do so. The Law is flawed which means that the basis of right and wrong was flawed and "every man did as his own will". 6. No you haven't, you have failed to prove that the sins are what makes you eternally lost, however I have proven that it is rejecting God that will make you eternally lost and that choice is not a sin. 7. "You have already consented that believers, Christians, may sin and ultimately be lost." No, I have not. "Ok, if one simply exercises this choice to quit believing and becomes an atheist and dies an atheist - is he still saved?" Your answer is: "No." Well, then this saved person did SOMETHING and wound up lost, didn't he?" Yes!! Not because of his sin, but because of his choice to reject God and I have further proven that rejecting God is not a sin. "What are you debating anyway?" Obviously he is not sinning by rejecting God. I am debating that rejecting God is not a sin and that is what makes you eternally lost. 8. "As I said, and correct me if I'm wrong, your entire debate is not whether a child of God can be saved, then lost. You admit this is possible, then claim the person went from "saved" to "lost" and did not sin - or if he did, the sin didn't cause him to be lost. Well, what did, then?" The choice to reject God made him lost not his sins. That choice was not a sin as I've proven. "Actions are merely expressions of thoughts. What did you say about, ""But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt 5: 28)? Not one word. Why? Because the person merely THOUGHT about it, and Jesus is saying it is the SAME THING." So? What's you're point. This is one instance where God says that lusting is a sin. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that rejecting God is a sin. "This is that thinking about it According to you, thinking about it is no problem until you really get down to business and physically sin." I never said that. You're putting words into my mouth again. 9. You give a verse from the story of Noah's ark and they were evil. They rejected God. But the rejecting of God is not the thought of the heart. This was that they were sinning. They would go to hell for rejecting God but God decided to wipe them out because their sin was so great that the Lord couldn't stand it anymore. I would not say that rejecting God is evil. 10. Yes. Evil thoughts are sin but the rejecting of Christ is not because the Lord gave us this choice. 11. You are criticizing my position and saying that it is against the Lord's Word and sound logic when I have proven that the rejecting of God is what takes us to hell and that is not a sin. I have successfully refuted my opponent's attacks and have attacked her case successfully.

Religion

A-saved-person-a-Christian-may-sin-in-such-a-way-as-to-be-eternally-lost./3/

1. I think that no one can judge him and I honestly don't know. I belive that there is no one that can judge his salvation status but for me, personally, I have no idea. I think that no one has a right to judge including you but I don't know if he was saved or not. 2. I have proved that God never said anything that was similar to rejecting God a sin. I have also proved that rejecting or accepting God is the ultimate choice in which God gives us the freedom to choose and rejecting God is what causes us to be eternally lost. Who are you to say that I am the only one who says that? You definitely are not anyone to say that especially since it's not true. 3-4. They are absolutely different. I have yet to bring up that my opponent brings up new arguments. At first, you say that rejecting and forsaking are not synonyms and now you say that you are? You have switched you're arguments in the last round which is absolutely wrong. My opponent brings up defection which has nothing to do with our argument and if anything it is a new argument. Also forsaking and rejecting are entirely different things as you admittedd to already and now you're changing you're story. First, just because rejection and forsaking are synonyms of defection does not mean that rejection and forsaking are synonyms. Both of them are not shades of the same idea but absolute different ideas. They are different as I've proved so. 5. The Law was flawed as it says in the New Testament. Also the Bible says many times that everybody did what they wanted according to their own will while since the basis of right and wrong was flawed, there was truly now law that could determine salvation. I will say that Jesus himself stated that it was not right and that we should instead follow his law. Why it was wrong was because it was rules and regulations without any empowerment to do what was right. Ex: There are two houses. 1 house has a "Don't throw rocks" Sign while the other is a normal house. Which house will have houses thrown onto it first? Obviously the house with the sign. The Law just made the aggression to sin stronger rather than a solution. 6. I have proven it. The theory is that God has never said it is a sin and I have shown that rejecting God is not a sin and I have said that rejecting God is not a sin. You're illustration is false since it has nothing in common. 7. Exactly. When did I say rejection is not an action? You're putting words in my mouth again. It is an action not a 3rd category. What do you submit I can't do? A 3rd category for rejection? I don't intend to do so. I have justified rejection is an action but not a sin. 8. I've said it! Where in the world have I said it is not an action? Rejection is the act of denying God from our lives. That's what it is. There is a distinction and you've admitted it several times. Just because they're both synonyms of something doesn't mean they're synonyms. It'd be like saying dropping a hammer is synonyms with kill because they're synonymns of shot. 9. Rape and murder are sins because the Bible says so. Also my reasoning is that God has never said we can't do so. It is a God-given choice and he gives us the libebrty to use it. No it doesn't because all of the things you've said are against the Bible. God gives us this choice because the Bible says nothing about it and in many cases has allowed/given them this particular freedom. 10. The Bible has not said that rejection from him is a sin and I have refuted all things that you believe are similar. Since God gave us the faith to reject him, we can which means we can do so. Rejecting God is not a sin. You are adding things to the Bible. I would say that this choice is a hard one. And who knows if it is good or bad? How do you define good? 11. Exactly. Sin doesn't cause eternal separation, the choice to reject God does. Sin is not what takes us to my hell, my friend. The choice to reject God does. 12. But the Bible is against adultery. I understand what you mean but instead it is "freedom to ultimately choose without being against the Bible = why it is not a sin". To summarize, I basically refuted my opponent's arguments successfuly and reiterated my arguments greatly. I thank my opponent for this debate.

Viper-King

1. I think that no one can judge him and I honestly don't know. I belive that there is no one that can judge his salvation status but for me, personally, I have no idea. I think that no one has a right to judge including you but I don't know if he was saved or not. 2. I have proved that God never said anything that was similar to rejecting God a sin. I have also proved that rejecting or accepting God is the ultimate choice in which God gives us the freedom to choose and rejecting God is what causes us to be eternally lost. Who are you to say that I am the only one who says that? You definitely are not anyone to say that especially since it's not true. 3-4. They are absolutely different. I have yet to bring up that my opponent brings up new arguments. At first, you say that rejecting and forsaking are not synonyms and now you say that you are? You have switched you're arguments in the last round which is absolutely wrong. My opponent brings up defection which has nothing to do with our argument and if anything it is a new argument. Also forsaking and rejecting are entirely different things as you admittedd to already and now you're changing you're story. First, just because rejection and forsaking are synonyms of defection does not mean that rejection and forsaking are synonyms. Both of them are not shades of the same idea but absolute different ideas. They are different as I've proved so. 5. The Law was flawed as it says in the New Testament. Also the Bible says many times that everybody did what they wanted according to their own will while since the basis of right and wrong was flawed, there was truly now law that could determine salvation. I will say that Jesus himself stated that it was not right and that we should instead follow his law. Why it was wrong was because it was rules and regulations without any empowerment to do what was right. Ex: There are two houses. 1 house has a "Don't throw rocks" Sign while the other is a normal house. Which house will have houses thrown onto it first? Obviously the house with the sign. The Law just made the aggression to sin stronger rather than a solution. 6. I have proven it. The theory is that God has never said it is a sin and I have shown that rejecting God is not a sin and I have said that rejecting God is not a sin. You're illustration is false since it has nothing in common. 7. Exactly. When did I say rejection is not an action? You're putting words in my mouth again. It is an action not a 3rd category. What do you submit I can't do? A 3rd category for rejection? I don't intend to do so. I have justified rejection is an action but not a sin. 8. I've said it! Where in the world have I said it is not an action? Rejection is the act of denying God from our lives. That's what it is. There is a distinction and you've admitted it several times. Just because they're both synonyms of something doesn't mean they're synonyms. It'd be like saying dropping a hammer is synonyms with kill because they're synonymns of shot. 9. Rape and murder are sins because the Bible says so. Also my reasoning is that God has never said we can't do so. It is a God-given choice and he gives us the libebrty to use it. No it doesn't because all of the things you've said are against the Bible. God gives us this choice because the Bible says nothing about it and in many cases has allowed/given them this particular freedom. 10. The Bible has not said that rejection from him is a sin and I have refuted all things that you believe are similar. Since God gave us the faith to reject him, we can which means we can do so. Rejecting God is not a sin. You are adding things to the Bible. I would say that this choice is a hard one. And who knows if it is good or bad? How do you define good? 11. Exactly. Sin doesn't cause eternal separation, the choice to reject God does. Sin is not what takes us to my hell, my friend. The choice to reject God does. 12. But the Bible is against adultery. I understand what you mean but instead it is "freedom to ultimately choose without being against the Bible = why it is not a sin". To summarize, I basically refuted my opponent's arguments successfuly and reiterated my arguments greatly. I thank my opponent for this debate.

Religion

A-saved-person-a-Christian-may-sin-in-such-a-way-as-to-be-eternally-lost./3/

Greetings! I will be happy to accept the Con side of this debate (though I'd be happier if debate.org's text editor didn't cut out a letter here and there all the time), and wish my opponent good luck in what is sure to be a more unique debate!

Aldric_Winterblade

Greetings! I will be happy to accept the Con side of this debate (though I'd be happier if debate.org's text editor didn't cut out a letter here and there all the time), and wish my opponent good luck in what is sure to be a more unique debate!

Politics

A-united-world-consting-of-a-democratic-goverment-that-rules-all/1/

(Ignore the YouTube video for now) My opponent's contention is that a one-world government would be good because: A) No nation could declare war on another B) Everything could be distributed fairly among the nations of the world C) Everyone would be "friends" and possibly speak the same language. I shall proceed in order with my responses to these contentions. A) No nation could declare war on another Response: What would stop them? In current society, we say "you can't steal," meaning it's illegal, but in reality, I am fully capable of stealing if I so please. There will only be consequences if I do. In a one-world government, nothing could stop one nation from declaring war on another. The world government could only declare consequences of waging war, such as being attacked, or having trade cut off. In the former case, war would be more destructive than ever for the nation which had declared war initially, and for its citizens, because the entire world would be attacking a single nation. In the latter case, the world government would have to declare that no nation may trade with that nation, which would, first, be an infringement on the rights of free trade, and, secondly, if any nation violated this embargo, what would the consequences be? It could become quite chaotic. B) Everything could be distributed fairly among the nations of the world How does voting decide what is fair? If the majority of world leaders arrange the distribution plan, and one nation doesn't like their part of the bargain, then you would have problems, possibly even wars of rebellion against the world government, or at least, much bickering and slow-moving government. However, that is rather speculative, so let us assume that it would work out, and such a plan could be put into effect: You are now infringing on the rights of everyone on Earth by declaring where each product shall be shipped and who shall get it. I contend that it is unjust to try and dictate to a nation of people how much they are permitted to have (because that is what you would be doing, because it would be necessary to take away a portion of what is produced in that nation and ship it to other nations). A good example is scare resources. The more scarce a resource is, the less each individual person can have - such as gold. By extension, the more widely distributed that gold is from one source, the less each individual can have, also. So, in a one-world government, any resource would be overall spread more thinly to everyone, because every source of any resource (it just gets more noticeable if it is a scare resource) is being forced to distribute to a much wider range of people than it previously did. By contrast, on a smaller scale, such as with individual nations working for their own good, that nation's water supply is only servicing that nation, so everyone there benefits more. If a nation which has very little water wishes to obtain water from another nation, then they can trade with them, in which case the water-rich nation receives direct compensation for the water they are giving up. It is their choice what they choose to receive as compensation, as opposed to being forced to give up a larger percentage of their water (because they're helping to service the whole world as opposed to just a single nation they actively chose to trade with) and being compensated, not by what they choose for themselves as adequate compensation, but by some resources chosen by the world government in which that particular nation has only one vote. C) Everyone would be "friends" and possibly speak the same language I disagree. Cross-cultural differences would continue to dominate, just as they always have. Observe, for example, "White flight," where White people regularly leave the cities and relocate to the country: <URL>... Also observe how different cultures treat life: (see YouTube video at upper right) And how we differ drastically on important issues: <URL>... To the Chinese, eating dogs is perfectly normal, but to most Americans, it is an act worthy of a shotgun blast to the head for the perpetrator (to which I agree; my one emotional "outburst" for the debate). Hence why we are two separate cultures and countries and why we will never live together and be the same. Also, if a person truly appreciates the variations in cultures of the world, how can they support multiculturalism? By mixing all the cultures together, you will only produce conflict, and, if you succeed in mixing all the cultures completely, you will end up with one world culture, or close to it, in which case you've lost "diversity." My contentions: C1) Competition is healthy for the growth of a species C2) Separate nations facilitate competition - Therefore, separate nations are a healthy practice C1) Competition is healthy for the growth of a species This is basic science. Without competition, a species will die out. For example: <URL>... Competition is used to ensure that the best and most intelligent survive to reproduce, thus strengthening the species. Humans have divided themselves into nations based on similarity of race, appearance, religion, culture etc., because, being such a diverse species, we find that cooperation with every human would fly quite in the face of Nature. For an example from the animal kingdom, take the various species capable of interbreeding that do not do so. A tiger and a lion *can* interbreed to produce a "liger," but they do not. Why? Because they are different. Observe: <URL>... And: <URL>... To summarize, all animals, including humans, gravitate towards those who are most similar to them and combine forces with them to successfully compete in Nature. Since Natural law is the supreme law, attempts at a one-world government would fail because it contradicts Nature's demands for separation of distinct groups. The only reason America exists as a nation is because of forced (1) multiculturalism, and we see that racial tensions are still high even here in America (2). I thank my opponent for his opening arguments, and await his rebuttals. (1) <URL>... - Soldiers forcing high school pupils to attend a racially integrated school in Little Rock, Arkansas (2) <URL>...

Aldric_Winterblade

(Ignore the YouTube video for now) My opponent's contention is that a one-world government would be good because: A) No nation could declare war on another B) Everything could be distributed fairly among the nations of the world C) Everyone would be "friends" and possibly speak the same language. I shall proceed in order with my responses to these contentions. A) No nation could declare war on another Response: What would stop them? In current society, we say "you can't steal," meaning it's illegal, but in reality, I am fully capable of stealing if I so please. There will only be consequences if I do. In a one-world government, nothing could stop one nation from declaring war on another. The world government could only declare consequences of waging war, such as being attacked, or having trade cut off. In the former case, war would be more destructive than ever for the nation which had declared war initially, and for its citizens, because the entire world would be attacking a single nation. In the latter case, the world government would have to declare that no nation may trade with that nation, which would, first, be an infringement on the rights of free trade, and, secondly, if any nation violated this embargo, what would the consequences be? It could become quite chaotic. B) Everything could be distributed fairly among the nations of the world How does voting decide what is fair? If the majority of world leaders arrange the distribution plan, and one nation doesn't like their part of the bargain, then you would have problems, possibly even wars of rebellion against the world government, or at least, much bickering and slow-moving government. However, that is rather speculative, so let us assume that it would work out, and such a plan could be put into effect: You are now infringing on the rights of everyone on Earth by declaring where each product shall be shipped and who shall get it. I contend that it is unjust to try and dictate to a nation of people how much they are permitted to have (because that is what you would be doing, because it would be necessary to take away a portion of what is produced in that nation and ship it to other nations). A good example is scare resources. The more scarce a resource is, the less each individual person can have - such as gold. By extension, the more widely distributed that gold is from one source, the less each individual can have, also. So, in a one-world government, any resource would be overall spread more thinly to everyone, because every source of any resource (it just gets more noticeable if it is a scare resource) is being forced to distribute to a much wider range of people than it previously did. By contrast, on a smaller scale, such as with individual nations working for their own good, that nation's water supply is only servicing that nation, so everyone there benefits more. If a nation which has very little water wishes to obtain water from another nation, then they can trade with them, in which case the water-rich nation receives direct compensation for the water they are giving up. It is their choice what they choose to receive as compensation, as opposed to being forced to give up a larger percentage of their water (because they're helping to service the whole world as opposed to just a single nation they actively chose to trade with) and being compensated, not by what they choose for themselves as adequate compensation, but by some resources chosen by the world government in which that particular nation has only one vote. C) Everyone would be "friends" and possibly speak the same language I disagree. Cross-cultural differences would continue to dominate, just as they always have. Observe, for example, "White flight," where White people regularly leave the cities and relocate to the country: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Also observe how different cultures treat life: (see YouTube video at upper right) And how we differ drastically on important issues: http://www.squidoo.com... To the Chinese, eating dogs is perfectly normal, but to most Americans, it is an act worthy of a shotgun blast to the head for the perpetrator (to which I agree; my one emotional "outburst" for the debate). Hence why we are two separate cultures and countries and why we will never live together and be the same. Also, if a person truly appreciates the variations in cultures of the world, how can they support multiculturalism? By mixing all the cultures together, you will only produce conflict, and, if you succeed in mixing all the cultures completely, you will end up with one world culture, or close to it, in which case you've lost "diversity." My contentions: C1) Competition is healthy for the growth of a species C2) Separate nations facilitate competition - Therefore, separate nations are a healthy practice C1) Competition is healthy for the growth of a species This is basic science. Without competition, a species will die out. For example: http://www.huppi.com... Competition is used to ensure that the best and most intelligent survive to reproduce, thus strengthening the species. Humans have divided themselves into nations based on similarity of race, appearance, religion, culture etc., because, being such a diverse species, we find that cooperation with every human would fly quite in the face of Nature. For an example from the animal kingdom, take the various species capable of interbreeding that do not do so. A tiger and a lion *can* interbreed to produce a "liger," but they do not. Why? Because they are different. Observe: http://animals.about.com... And: http://answers.yahoo.com... To summarize, all animals, including humans, gravitate towards those who are most similar to them and combine forces with them to successfully compete in Nature. Since Natural law is the supreme law, attempts at a one-world government would fail because it contradicts Nature's demands for separation of distinct groups. The only reason America exists as a nation is because of forced (1) multiculturalism, and we see that racial tensions are still high even here in America (2). I thank my opponent for his opening arguments, and await his rebuttals. (1) http://t3.gstatic.com... - Soldiers forcing high school pupils to attend a racially integrated school in Little Rock, Arkansas (2) http://www.blackpressusa.com...

Politics

A-united-world-consting-of-a-democratic-goverment-that-rules-all/1/

"All nations could share a equal amount of things with eachother" This does not answer what I previously postulated: If all nations producing water are required to share that water in such a way that everyone has the same amount, then most nations will end up with less water than they have now. I won't repost my entire previous argument, however. "ethnic and religion would be a major role in this play. The separate religions could teach eachother new ways of things, or make one mega religion that combines parts of every religion together. They could come up with ways of food to mix with eachother, like majority rules." A natural "mix-and-flow" of cultures through trade does this already, and is quite another thing from forcing everyone to live under the same flag and in the same land. "Every country could have the same amount of land, also creating new countries." This would go over very badly as it would mean many nations would have to give up land, something I doubt is going to happen easily. Also, some nations need more land than others, and thus it's perfectly right that their country should be bigger. A nation of 3 million obviously doesn't need and shouldn't have as much land as a land of 300 million, and that land of 300 million, already packed, shouldn't be forced to give up its territory, thus packing its population even tighter, just to give extra land to people who do not even need it. "Revolution wouldnt be necessary because people can have their say in what should happen." What about when people become unhappy with the decisions the world government is making for their country? All governments ultimately fall; nothing is permanent. "And every country will have their own seperate democratic leader. If one goes against it, they will get punished, taken out, and prosecuted." In other words, like all governments, a world government would keep its position of power by force. If a leader chose to go against the world government, they would remove him from power, meaning if he and his people resisted, there *would* be war. That is international totalitarianism. I contend that a world government would make the world even more war-prone than it already is, since, if everyone was involved in the governing of everyone else, it would be next to impossible for nations to mind their own business and leave others be. I await my opponent's closing remarks.

Aldric_Winterblade

"All nations could share a equal amount of things with eachother" This does not answer what I previously postulated: If all nations producing water are required to share that water in such a way that everyone has the same amount, then most nations will end up with less water than they have now. I won't repost my entire previous argument, however. "ethnic and religion would be a major role in this play. The separate religions could teach eachother new ways of things, or make one mega religion that combines parts of every religion together. They could come up with ways of food to mix with eachother, like majority rules." A natural "mix-and-flow" of cultures through trade does this already, and is quite another thing from forcing everyone to live under the same flag and in the same land. "Every country could have the same amount of land, also creating new countries." This would go over very badly as it would mean many nations would have to give up land, something I doubt is going to happen easily. Also, some nations need more land than others, and thus it's perfectly right that their country should be bigger. A nation of 3 million obviously doesn't need and shouldn't have as much land as a land of 300 million, and that land of 300 million, already packed, shouldn't be forced to give up its territory, thus packing its population even tighter, just to give extra land to people who do not even need it. "Revolution wouldnt be necessary because people can have their say in what should happen." What about when people become unhappy with the decisions the world government is making for their country? All governments ultimately fall; nothing is permanent. "And every country will have their own seperate democratic leader. If one goes against it, they will get punished, taken out, and prosecuted." In other words, like all governments, a world government would keep its position of power by force. If a leader chose to go against the world government, they would remove him from power, meaning if he and his people resisted, there *would* be war. That is international totalitarianism. I contend that a world government would make the world even more war-prone than it already is, since, if everyone was involved in the governing of everyone else, it would be next to impossible for nations to mind their own business and leave others be. I await my opponent's closing remarks.

Politics

A-united-world-consting-of-a-democratic-goverment-that-rules-all/1/

Why, thank you. I have to admit, that's quite an unexpected end to a debate, lol, but, it certainly did serve to make the debate even more unique than it already was! A pleasure debating you, sir. :)

Aldric_Winterblade

Why, thank you. I have to admit, that's quite an unexpected end to a debate, lol, but, it certainly did serve to make the debate even more unique than it already was! A pleasure debating you, sir. :)

Politics

A-united-world-consting-of-a-democratic-goverment-that-rules-all/1/

What would you think of a planet wich there is no nation that can declare war on antoher. Were the riches of the world is shared with each other. It could be like the USA were all nations are states and they elect a president.

PatCam

What would you think of a planet wich there is no nation that can declare war on antoher. Were the riches of the world is shared with each other. It could be like the USA were all nations are states and they elect a president.

Politics

A-united-world-consting-of-a-democratic-goverment-that-rules-all/1/

Can you give me a counter argument against this one What would you think of a planet which there is no nation that can declare war on another. Where the riches of the world is shared with each other. It could be like the USA where all nations are states and they elect a president. There would be no problems, which would make all fair to every land, and no need for a change, with everyone being friends and possibly speaking the same language.

PatCam

Can you give me a counter argument against this one What would you think of a planet which there is no nation that can declare war on another. Where the riches of the world is shared with each other. It could be like the USA where all nations are states and they elect a president. There would be no problems, which would make all fair to every land, and no need for a change, with everyone being friends and possibly speaking the same language.

Politics

A-united-world-consting-of-a-democratic-goverment-that-rules-all/1/

All nations could share a equal amount of things with eachother, and ethnic and religion would be a major role in this play. The seperate religions could teach eachother new ways of things, or make one mega religion that combines parts of every religion together. They could come up with ways of food to mix with eachother, like majority rules. Every country could have the same amount of land, also creating new countries. Revolution wouldnt be necessary because people can have their say in what should happen. And every country will have their own seperate democratic leader. If one goes against it, they will get punished, taken out, and prosecuted.

PatCam

All nations could share a equal amount of things with eachother, and ethnic and religion would be a major role in this play. The seperate religions could teach eachother new ways of things, or make one mega religion that combines parts of every religion together. They could come up with ways of food to mix with eachother, like majority rules. Every country could have the same amount of land, also creating new countries. Revolution wouldnt be necessary because people can have their say in what should happen. And every country will have their own seperate democratic leader. If one goes against it, they will get punished, taken out, and prosecuted.

Politics

A-united-world-consting-of-a-democratic-goverment-that-rules-all/1/

Ok. its the last round and im going to use this round to congratulate you. I think you deserve a win here. You did alot of research into this and see you was hihly interested. Good Job :)

PatCam

Ok. its the last round and im going to use this round to congratulate you. I think you deserve a win here. You did alot of research into this and see you was hihly interested. Good Job :)

Politics

A-united-world-consting-of-a-democratic-goverment-that-rules-all/1/

I would be interested in debating this topic with you, as this is an area in which I have a particular interest.

The_Gatherer

I would be interested in debating this topic with you, as this is an area in which I have a particular interest.

Politics

ANY-government-handout-is-freeloading./1/

The reason I have a particular interest in this subject is that I do a lot of work to help people who have been left homeless and starving as a result of being wrongly denied the support to which they have been entitled. This includes people with serious diseases such as terminal cancer, children and the elderly. In this debate, the burden of proof is on Pro to prove that anyone receiving any kind of Government assistance is a "freeloader". As Pro has failed to define what he means by "freeloader" and our views may be different, I will provide some definitions here which hopefully all Voters can agree sum up "freeloader": Definition 1: " A person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return." - From the Oxford English Dictionary [1] Definition 2: "slang, a person who habitually depends on the charity of others for food, shelter, etc" - From WordReference.com [2] We can see then that overall, credible sources seem to agree that to be a Freeloader, is to be someone who takes advantage of others, living of their resources without paying anything back, or having the intention of doing so. To move onto my case, I would like to point out the flaws with Pro's case for stating that ANY government handout is freeloading... I would like to start by addressing the points made by Pro, and putting my case for why these points are incorrect. 1) "Taking another man's earned income by Government force..." Any type of social security / welfare / benefits are NOT another person's earned income. The great majority of people who find themselves in the unfortunate circumstances of having to claim Government assistance have themselves paid taxes for a number of years. As such, they are entitled to help when they need it. The tax paid by that individual while they were working is supposed to act as a kind of 'insurance', so that if that person is ever out of work, they can get assistance until they find another job.The amount claimed by the person whilst unemployed is also usually only a tiny fraction of what the person has previously paid in tax. As such, this in no way can be described as "freeloading", as defined above. It is also worth noting that if all forms of Goverment assistance were ended, taxpayers would not as a result pay any less tax. The tax collected would simply be spent elsewhere by the Goverment. 2) "Government is not for meeting peoples needs.Government is to enforce contract law and to protect a persons right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". In order for the Government to protect the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is necessary to ensure that people have a civilised society in which to live. The provision of a safety net upon which people can rely during unfortunate times of unemployment is essential to ensuring that Western societies do not become like third world countries. This allows the maximum potential for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all citizens. 3)"... those who make choices that produce poverty, there are charities for that." I find it disturbing that Pro seems to believe that everyone who is impoverished has ended up in those circumstances due to their own 'bad choices'. This shows great ignorance on Pro's part, and I can only assume that Pro has lived a very privileged life. Most people however are working class, and rely solely on the ability to work in order to provide for even the most basic needs. Most people do not have any access to financial help from friends or family. Most people also do not have any control personally over macro factors such as the national or international economy, which at any time can lead to the closure of many workplaces and a very small number of available jobs. In addition to this, currently there are many graduates and others who have certainly made all of the "right choices" in their lives up until now, who are having to survive on unemployment benefits, through no fault of their own. Again, this is more an issue of politics over which normal people have no control, rather than anyone making "bad choices". If being impoverished or rich was merely a matter of making the correct choices in life, then everyone would be a millionaire by now. It is also worth mentioning in regards to disability (as Pro asserts that ANY Government handout is freeloading so this would include the welfare payments to people who are unable to work), that disability and serious illness is certainly NOT a choice or 'bad decision'. Many people are either born disabled or later develop an illness or disability after already having worked for many years or even decades. In a lot of cases, the illness or disability have been acquired as a result of the type of work previously undertaken by the claimant. To assert that people who are very ill, in some cases terminally, are "freeloading" is I hope everyone will agree, quite disgusting. Pro goes on to assert that certain people will vote for a particular political candidate based solely on how many "freebies" and "handouts" they can get. This does not need to be debunked as it is clearly just a ridiculous generalisation. Pro also asserts that there are charities to help people who are impoverished. To the best of my knowledge there are not charities enough to pay all of someone's living costs such as rent, bills, food as well as pay this for EVERY unemployed person in any given country. To assert that this is a realistic option is simply nonsense. Having addressed Pro's points, I would now like to move on to a few of my own, which I believe should be considered by Voters on this debate. 1) More welfare recipients than ever are actually WORKING PEOPLE. Due to economic factors which have caused the cost of living to be higher than ever, more working families than ever have been forced to claim some kind of Government assistance. These people can certainly not be described as Freeloaders. 2) Disabled and terminally ill people deserve the right to live, and the pursuit of happiness just like everyone else. If Pro asserts otherwise then that has worrying connotations of the Nazi variety. In order for disabled people to have these rights, there must be a way of providing an income and ensuring that their basic living costs are met. If a person is disabled to the extent that they cannot work, then why shouldn't they receive Govt assistance? To deny them this would be to infringe on their basic rights. As most disabled people (especially those who became ill or disabled at a later stage) would like to work, and wish they could work and indeed often do some work when they are able to, this is one group of people who certainly can not be described as Freeloaders. 3) Getting rid of 'handouts' would lead to more freeloading as well as more crime. The safety net exists in order that the basic living costs of people may be met whilst they search for a new job. Without this safety net people would be forced to turn to friends relatives or crime in order to have basic necessities for survival such as food or shelter. Clearly this would lead to people being unemployed for a longer time, as they would have to concentrate on survival rather than looking for jobs. The safety net therefore, is of benefit to everyone i society, not simply the unemployed. I could add more, however I do not have a lot of spare time right now. As I previously said, the burden of proof is on my opponant to prove his case that ALL Goverment 'handouts' can be described as 'freeloading' by the people who claim them. So far I do not believe that my opponent has managed to do this, and I have addressed above some of the reason why the points he has made are not only inaccurate but frankly ignorant of reality. I look forward to my opponents reply. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...

The_Gatherer

The reason I have a particular interest in this subject is that I do a lot of work to help people who have been left homeless and starving as a result of being wrongly denied the support to which they have been entitled. This includes people with serious diseases such as terminal cancer, children and the elderly. In this debate, the burden of proof is on Pro to prove that anyone receiving any kind of Government assistance is a "freeloader". As Pro has failed to define what he means by "freeloader" and our views may be different, I will provide some definitions here which hopefully all Voters can agree sum up "freeloader": Definition 1: " A person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return." - From the Oxford English Dictionary [1] Definition 2: "slang, a person who habitually depends on the charity of others for food, shelter, etc" - From WordReference.com [2] We can see then that overall, credible sources seem to agree that to be a Freeloader, is to be someone who takes advantage of others, living of their resources without paying anything back, or having the intention of doing so. To move onto my case, I would like to point out the flaws with Pro's case for stating that ANY government handout is freeloading... I would like to start by addressing the points made by Pro, and putting my case for why these points are incorrect. 1) "Taking another man's earned income by Government force..." Any type of social security / welfare / benefits are NOT another person's earned income. The great majority of people who find themselves in the unfortunate circumstances of having to claim Government assistance have themselves paid taxes for a number of years. As such, they are entitled to help when they need it. The tax paid by that individual while they were working is supposed to act as a kind of 'insurance', so that if that person is ever out of work, they can get assistance until they find another job.The amount claimed by the person whilst unemployed is also usually only a tiny fraction of what the person has previously paid in tax. As such, this in no way can be described as "freeloading", as defined above. It is also worth noting that if all forms of Goverment assistance were ended, taxpayers would not as a result pay any less tax. The tax collected would simply be spent elsewhere by the Goverment. 2) "Government is not for meeting peoples needs.Government is to enforce contract law and to protect a persons right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". In order for the Government to protect the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is necessary to ensure that people have a civilised society in which to live. The provision of a safety net upon which people can rely during unfortunate times of unemployment is essential to ensuring that Western societies do not become like third world countries. This allows the maximum potential for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all citizens. 3)"... those who make choices that produce poverty, there are charities for that." I find it disturbing that Pro seems to believe that everyone who is impoverished has ended up in those circumstances due to their own 'bad choices'. This shows great ignorance on Pro's part, and I can only assume that Pro has lived a very privileged life. Most people however are working class, and rely solely on the ability to work in order to provide for even the most basic needs. Most people do not have any access to financial help from friends or family. Most people also do not have any control personally over macro factors such as the national or international economy, which at any time can lead to the closure of many workplaces and a very small number of available jobs. In addition to this, currently there are many graduates and others who have certainly made all of the "right choices" in their lives up until now, who are having to survive on unemployment benefits, through no fault of their own. Again, this is more an issue of politics over which normal people have no control, rather than anyone making "bad choices". If being impoverished or rich was merely a matter of making the correct choices in life, then everyone would be a millionaire by now. It is also worth mentioning in regards to disability (as Pro asserts that ANY Government handout is freeloading so this would include the welfare payments to people who are unable to work), that disability and serious illness is certainly NOT a choice or 'bad decision'. Many people are either born disabled or later develop an illness or disability after already having worked for many years or even decades. In a lot of cases, the illness or disability have been acquired as a result of the type of work previously undertaken by the claimant. To assert that people who are very ill, in some cases terminally, are "freeloading" is I hope everyone will agree, quite disgusting. Pro goes on to assert that certain people will vote for a particular political candidate based solely on how many "freebies" and "handouts" they can get. This does not need to be debunked as it is clearly just a ridiculous generalisation. Pro also asserts that there are charities to help people who are impoverished. To the best of my knowledge there are not charities enough to pay all of someone's living costs such as rent, bills, food as well as pay this for EVERY unemployed person in any given country. To assert that this is a realistic option is simply nonsense. Having addressed Pro's points, I would now like to move on to a few of my own, which I believe should be considered by Voters on this debate. 1) More welfare recipients than ever are actually WORKING PEOPLE. Due to economic factors which have caused the cost of living to be higher than ever, more working families than ever have been forced to claim some kind of Government assistance. These people can certainly not be described as Freeloaders. 2) Disabled and terminally ill people deserve the right to live, and the pursuit of happiness just like everyone else. If Pro asserts otherwise then that has worrying connotations of the Nazi variety. In order for disabled people to have these rights, there must be a way of providing an income and ensuring that their basic living costs are met. If a person is disabled to the extent that they cannot work, then why shouldn't they receive Govt assistance? To deny them this would be to infringe on their basic rights. As most disabled people (especially those who became ill or disabled at a later stage) would like to work, and wish they could work and indeed often do some work when they are able to, this is one group of people who certainly can not be described as Freeloaders. 3) Getting rid of 'handouts' would lead to more freeloading as well as more crime. The safety net exists in order that the basic living costs of people may be met whilst they search for a new job. Without this safety net people would be forced to turn to friends relatives or crime in order to have basic necessities for survival such as food or shelter. Clearly this would lead to people being unemployed for a longer time, as they would have to concentrate on survival rather than looking for jobs. The safety net therefore, is of benefit to everyone i society, not simply the unemployed. I could add more, however I do not have a lot of spare time right now. As I previously said, the burden of proof is on my opponant to prove his case that ALL Goverment 'handouts' can be described as 'freeloading' by the people who claim them. So far I do not believe that my opponent has managed to do this, and I have addressed above some of the reason why the points he has made are not only inaccurate but frankly ignorant of reality. I look forward to my opponents reply. Sources: [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.wordreference.com...

Politics

ANY-government-handout-is-freeloading./1/

I thank my opponent for posting the debate and I assure him that I am no troll and I do not, nor have I ever, lived under a bridge. Let me begin by saying that torture, even under the most dire or extreme situations, is never just. My opponent's cost-benefit analysis of the situation is remarkably short-sighted. Assuming that Abdulmutallab has credible and unique information, and assuming that he is willing to provide it (stipulations that should not be taken lightly, as I'll expand upon later) there are grave and considerable ramifications if we were to allow the torture of this man. Forgive me if I dive too much into the generalities, as I promise to talk specifically of Abdulmutallab's case in the following rounds, but it must be recognize that if he is tortured, then credence and justification is lended to torture as a whole, which cannot be allowed. I will break my debate into three sections; -The logistical shortcomings of torture, or, 'Don't taze me bro!' -The international backlash, or, 'The Bush effect' -The moral and legal arguments against torture, or, 'The Geneva Convention and basic human rights.' --- I. While conventional wisdom tells us that inflicting pain on one implicated in crime will draw information about that person and their associates. Interrogators, however, tell us a different story, such as former FBI agent Ali Soufan who stated that torture was "ineffective, slow and unreliable and, as a result, harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaida." and went on to account that, "we got actionable intelligence from [Abu Zubaydah] in the first hour of interrogating him" which was -before- he was waterboarded. [1] This opinion was later expressed by Lt. General Jeff Kimmons when talking about the banning of enhanced interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, saying, "No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that. And moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, under--through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there." [2] Furthermore, a Georgetown study reported that "Torture does not yield reliable information and actually backfires in intelligence interrogations. This was the conclusion of seven research psychologists and four recently retired, senior U.S. Army interrogators" [3] These ideas resonate historically, as well, from Hitler's Germany to Midevil France, the evidence shows that torture was ineffective and generally a waste of time and a distraction from the much more fruitful practice of evidence gathering. Even using methods that would make a normal person spill their guts (literally and figuratively), sometimes as few 3% of the prisoners actually gave any information at all. [4] Quentin Tarintino's Reservoir Dogs sums this up in layman's terms; "If you ------- beat this ----- long enough, he'll tell you he started the ------ Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it ------ so! " You get the idea. So the fact remains that according to specialists; torture simply does not yield results. It forces detainees to give false information, it steals time away from more productive activities and it seriously harms the physical and mental state of the prisoners, burning bridges for future (legal) interrogation. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... --- II. Even if torture worked, which we've established it doesn't, then we must at least recognize what it would do to said country around the globe. The Western world is losing its stomach for torture which could compromise the mere ability of the United States to use enhanced interrogation techniques, not to mention a potential black-balling of foreign cooperation on terror investigations. Inter-European backlash is already taking place against those countries which aided U.S. efforts to kidnap and torture suspected terrorists, spearheaded by the Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, who have promised to suspend EU voting rights to any country implicated in operating the secret prisons that America relies so heavily on. [1] While losing international cooperation on terror investigations is problematic, it is considerably more worrisome to be lending ammunition to those who seek to carry out attacks on American soil. Considering the release of some 250 detainees from Guantanamo Bay alone [2] one has to consider the impact they will have once being freed. If an innocent and moderate man was locked into Guantanamo Bay, exposed to the radical teachings and subsequently tortured by American forces, one can only expect that he will start to see reason behind the anti-American rhetoric. The practice of torture is unequivocally lending to recruiting efforts by the exact groups that the United States are trying to defeat. A study from the Jamestown group says, "Explicit references to accounts of torture in the region by al-Qaeda and other militants helps sustain the narrative that Muslims and Islam as a whole are under siege by a hostile U.S.-led campaign..." and concludes, "the current trajectory of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East will continue to serve as a battle cry for militants to take up arms against the United States..." [3] [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... --- III. Finally, the legal structure of the Western world must be taken into account. On one hand, if the American government cannot respect the laws that it enforces, why should anyone? If my son were killed by gang warfare, why would I be disallowed from torturing gang members to find his killer? Governments -must- respect the laws they enforce. Furthermore, if the U.S. is fighting for nothing else overseas, is it not freedom? Is it not for the defense of the constitution that grants every person the right of trial by jury. This was not written into the constitution because the founding fathers were soft on crime, but rather because they certain unwavering beliefs about freedom. Just because one isn't an American citizen does not make them automatically guilty of a suspected crime, nor does it mean that they are unworthy of a fair trial. The best case study of this is Richard Reid, the Al Queada-connected man who tried to commit a very similar act of terror. John Ascroft, former U.S. justice attorney, said of his confession by legal means, "Richard Colvin Reid pled guilty to all counts in the indictment for attempting to ignite a bomb on American Airlines Flight 63, and to murder 197 passengers and crew. Today is a victory for justice and for the citizens who are vigilant in the pursuit of justice." [1] Furthermore, even though Mr. Reid was not caught before he tried to carry out his attack, he was under heavy surveillance that provided many other suspected terrorists, all without the use of torture. [2] What's more is that he cited the systemic use of torture by the U.S. government and its proxies as a justification for his failed attack. The report goes on to say, "Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi...is handed over to US authorities...Two FBI agents from New York are tasked with interrogating him...[one] spends more than 80 hours with al-Libi discussing religion and prayer in an effort to establish a close bond. It works, and al-Libi opens up...giving him information about Zacarias Moussaoui and...Richard Reid... But despite this progress, he will soon be transferred to Egypt and tortured there into making some false confessions" [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... Unfortunately, due to the word limit, I will leave my arguments there. I look forward to my opponent's response.

MistahKurtz

I thank my opponent for posting the debate and I assure him that I am no troll and I do not, nor have I ever, lived under a bridge. Let me begin by saying that torture, even under the most dire or extreme situations, is never just. My opponent's cost-benefit analysis of the situation is remarkably short-sighted. Assuming that Abdulmutallab has credible and unique information, and assuming that he is willing to provide it (stipulations that should not be taken lightly, as I'll expand upon later) there are grave and considerable ramifications if we were to allow the torture of this man. Forgive me if I dive too much into the generalities, as I promise to talk specifically of Abdulmutallab's case in the following rounds, but it must be recognize that if he is tortured, then credence and justification is lended to torture as a whole, which cannot be allowed. I will break my debate into three sections; -The logistical shortcomings of torture, or, 'Don't taze me bro!' -The international backlash, or, 'The Bush effect' -The moral and legal arguments against torture, or, 'The Geneva Convention and basic human rights.' --- I. While conventional wisdom tells us that inflicting pain on one implicated in crime will draw information about that person and their associates. Interrogators, however, tell us a different story, such as former FBI agent Ali Soufan who stated that torture was "ineffective, slow and unreliable and, as a result, harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaida." and went on to account that, "we got actionable intelligence from [Abu Zubaydah] in the first hour of interrogating him" which was -before- he was waterboarded. [1] This opinion was later expressed by Lt. General Jeff Kimmons when talking about the banning of enhanced interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, saying, "No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that. And moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, under—through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there." [2] Furthermore, a Georgetown study reported that "Torture does not yield reliable information and actually backfires in intelligence interrogations. This was the conclusion of seven research psychologists and four recently retired, senior U.S. Army interrogators" [3] These ideas resonate historically, as well, from Hitler's Germany to Midevil France, the evidence shows that torture was ineffective and generally a waste of time and a distraction from the much more fruitful practice of evidence gathering. Even using methods that would make a normal person spill their guts (literally and figuratively), sometimes as few 3% of the prisoners actually gave any information at all. [4] Quentin Tarintino's Reservoir Dogs sums this up in layman's terms; "If you ------- beat this ----- long enough, he'll tell you he started the ------ Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it ------ so! " You get the idea. So the fact remains that according to specialists; torture simply does not yield results. It forces detainees to give false information, it steals time away from more productive activities and it seriously harms the physical and mental state of the prisoners, burning bridges for future (legal) interrogation. [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly... --- II. Even if torture worked, which we've established it doesn't, then we must at least recognize what it would do to said country around the globe. The Western world is losing its stomach for torture which could compromise the mere ability of the United States to use enhanced interrogation techniques, not to mention a potential black-balling of foreign cooperation on terror investigations. Inter-European backlash is already taking place against those countries which aided U.S. efforts to kidnap and torture suspected terrorists, spearheaded by the Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, who have promised to suspend EU voting rights to any country implicated in operating the secret prisons that America relies so heavily on. [1] While losing international cooperation on terror investigations is problematic, it is considerably more worrisome to be lending ammunition to those who seek to carry out attacks on American soil. Considering the release of some 250 detainees from Guantanamo Bay alone [2] one has to consider the impact they will have once being freed. If an innocent and moderate man was locked into Guantanamo Bay, exposed to the radical teachings and subsequently tortured by American forces, one can only expect that he will start to see reason behind the anti-American rhetoric. The practice of torture is unequivocally lending to recruiting efforts by the exact groups that the United States are trying to defeat. A study from the Jamestown group says, "Explicit references to accounts of torture in the region by al-Qaeda and other militants helps sustain the narrative that Muslims and Islam as a whole are under siege by a hostile U.S.-led campaign..." and concludes, "the current trajectory of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East will continue to serve as a battle cry for militants to take up arms against the United States..." [3] [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... --- III. Finally, the legal structure of the Western world must be taken into account. On one hand, if the American government cannot respect the laws that it enforces, why should anyone? If my son were killed by gang warfare, why would I be disallowed from torturing gang members to find his killer? Governments -must- respect the laws they enforce. Furthermore, if the U.S. is fighting for nothing else overseas, is it not freedom? Is it not for the defense of the constitution that grants every person the right of trial by jury. This was not written into the constitution because the founding fathers were soft on crime, but rather because they certain unwavering beliefs about freedom. Just because one isn't an American citizen does not make them automatically guilty of a suspected crime, nor does it mean that they are unworthy of a fair trial. The best case study of this is Richard Reid, the Al Queada-connected man who tried to commit a very similar act of terror. John Ascroft, former U.S. justice attorney, said of his confession by legal means, "Richard Colvin Reid pled guilty to all counts in the indictment for attempting to ignite a bomb on American Airlines Flight 63, and to murder 197 passengers and crew. Today is a victory for justice and for the citizens who are vigilant in the pursuit of justice." [1] Furthermore, even though Mr. Reid was not caught before he tried to carry out his attack, he was under heavy surveillance that provided many other suspected terrorists, all without the use of torture. [2] What's more is that he cited the systemic use of torture by the U.S. government and its proxies as a justification for his failed attack. The report goes on to say, "Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi...is handed over to US authorities...Two FBI agents from New York are tasked with interrogating him...[one] spends more than 80 hours with al-Libi discussing religion and prayer in an effort to establish a close bond. It works, and al-Libi opens up...giving him information about Zacarias Moussaoui and...Richard Reid... But despite this progress, he will soon be transferred to Egypt and tortured there into making some false confessions" [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... Unfortunately, due to the word limit, I will leave my arguments there. I look forward to my opponent's response.

Politics

Abdulmutallab-should-be-interrogated./1/

My opponent seems to think I misunderstood the resolution, which is quite incorrect. Let me sum up the two points my opponent has made thus far; 1. Abdulmutallab should not be afforded a legal trial 2. Abdulmutallab should be interrogated by any means that results in information given, whether that be plain interrogation, or torture (waterboarding, etc.) Since my opponent has not defined torture, and has seemed to chide me for not doing so, I'll provide the U.N. definition; "...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." [1] This, of course, includes waterboarding and just about every other twisted method my opponent has in mind. My opponent has tried to soften his case and suggest that Abdulmutallab will only be asked questions, but two immediate faults arise with this; what happens when he doesn't talk and will he be given his Miranda rights, which my opponent has seem to decry thus far? If the first is true, then Abdulmutallab is tortured and a century of fighting for basic human rights is thrown away. If he is interrogated without his Miranda rights, then the justice system we have worked so hard to build and protect is nullified in one fell swoop. Heaven forbid he's ever actually tried after that, because any information received would be inadmissible. But let's look directly at my opponent's case, "Abdulmutallab was provided a lawyer a public expense and apparently afforded all the rights given to citizens charged with ordinary crimes ... Accordingly, he may choose to volunteer statements, but he has the right to refuse to talk to investigators from the FBI, CIA, or other government agencies having responsibility for national security." My opponent here is certainly lamenting Abdulmutallab's basic rights. He is suggesting that non-U.S. citizens should not receive the same legal rights as Americans receive while inside the country, which is a ludicrous suggestion. It is common knowledge that if a foreign national commits a crime within the United States, they are tried within the United States with full legal rights intact. If I am accused of shoplifting in New York, considering I am a Canadian citizen, will I be denied a lawyer? Evidently not. Furthermore, this sets up a hypocrisy in that the American government has always demanded the release of one its citizens when they are taken hostage in a foreign country. This is a case of American exceptionalism; it is acceptable for the American government to capture and detain whoever it pleases with no legal recourse, yet if any other country does the same, it is illegal. This sets a terrible precedent. "Therefore, he should be treated as an enemy combatant and not afforded the rights of a citizen charged with an ordinary crime." What my opponent is herein describing is synonymous with torture. If we look at the working definition of enemy combatant, this becomes immediately obvious, (It should also be noted that the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant has been transformed by the Bush administration so that every associate or member of Al-Queada or any related terrorist group is deemed 'unlawful', removing their eligibility of being a POW, such a Nazi war criminals.) "An 'enemy combatant' is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban....Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. " [2] So we see that even if my opponent isn't directly advocating torture, he is advocating the same breach in human rights, so the point is moot. The act itself is just one heinous cog in the machine, it is the systematic removal of basic human rights. If it was unacceptable for the Vietcong, it should be unacceptable for the American government. We must not become what we are fighting. So my opponent would like us to believe that he is merely advocating questioning Abdulmutallab, but it is not a black and white decision of asking him questions vs. not getting the information. As I have shown with the case of Mr. Reid, finding information legally is quite possible. But let's look at the case for merely asking Abdulmutallab questions, sans lawyer. First, it must be recognized that there is nothing Abdulmutallab will say that he won't say with his lawyer present. My opponent seems to think that if his lawyer is removed from the room, the answers will start flowing. And if they don't? You've already crossed the bridge of legal procedure, so you've screwed up any chance for a legal trial. Abdulmutallab must then absolutely be tried by tribunal, which is quick-fix if you ignoring someone's legal rights. I assume my opponent's next level is 4, which is secret military code for 'deprive them of food and water', which has be used in the past to forceful coerce answers from detainees, and is certainly a form of torture. So while my opponent seems to want to avoid torture, we see that by his reasoning, it is unavoidable. Secondly, removing Abdulmutallab from the legal system removes the prospect of a legal confession. Assuming Abdulmutallab has an intellect over that of a first grader, it can be assumed that he knows he is going to lose his case. My opponent agrees with this, but seems to come a different conclusion. For my opponent, knowing that he will be convicted somehow justifies skipping the legal process and trying to extract information in illegal ways. This is an incorrect analysis. Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Saajid Badat and Mohammed Ajmal Amir [3], all convicted of terrorism, confessed to their parts in the crimes. Would my opponent have their convictions thrown out for the sake of 'interrogation'? What does he think can be accomplished? If anything, I would argue that those detainees are more likely to confess in a legal setting, because they know, A. they have a chance of a reduced sentence or an improved prison and B, if they are interrogated in violation of their Miranda rights, they can petition the U.S. government and their native governments for release because their rights are being infringed upon. Whether it works is irrelevant; it will give them a sense of hope and prolong their confession. So, up until this point, I have heard no argument from my opponent in regards to why an illegal 'interrogation' is better than the legal aspect. He takes for granted that removing their rights will produce information, and he furthermore ignores that he is, by extension, arguing for waterboarding. If that is not the case, I would sure like to hear it as I imagine it would be a big relief for everyone reading the debate. Thank you [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>...

MistahKurtz

My opponent seems to think I misunderstood the resolution, which is quite incorrect. Let me sum up the two points my opponent has made thus far; 1. Abdulmutallab should not be afforded a legal trial 2. Abdulmutallab should be interrogated by any means that results in information given, whether that be plain interrogation, or torture (waterboarding, etc.) Since my opponent has not defined torture, and has seemed to chide me for not doing so, I'll provide the U.N. definition; "...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." [1] This, of course, includes waterboarding and just about every other twisted method my opponent has in mind. My opponent has tried to soften his case and suggest that Abdulmutallab will only be asked questions, but two immediate faults arise with this; what happens when he doesn't talk and will he be given his Miranda rights, which my opponent has seem to decry thus far? If the first is true, then Abdulmutallab is tortured and a century of fighting for basic human rights is thrown away. If he is interrogated without his Miranda rights, then the justice system we have worked so hard to build and protect is nullified in one fell swoop. Heaven forbid he's ever actually tried after that, because any information received would be inadmissible. But let's look directly at my opponent's case, "Abdulmutallab was provided a lawyer a public expense and apparently afforded all the rights given to citizens charged with ordinary crimes ... Accordingly, he may choose to volunteer statements, but he has the right to refuse to talk to investigators from the FBI, CIA, or other government agencies having responsibility for national security." My opponent here is certainly lamenting Abdulmutallab's basic rights. He is suggesting that non-U.S. citizens should not receive the same legal rights as Americans receive while inside the country, which is a ludicrous suggestion. It is common knowledge that if a foreign national commits a crime within the United States, they are tried within the United States with full legal rights intact. If I am accused of shoplifting in New York, considering I am a Canadian citizen, will I be denied a lawyer? Evidently not. Furthermore, this sets up a hypocrisy in that the American government has always demanded the release of one its citizens when they are taken hostage in a foreign country. This is a case of American exceptionalism; it is acceptable for the American government to capture and detain whoever it pleases with no legal recourse, yet if any other country does the same, it is illegal. This sets a terrible precedent. "Therefore, he should be treated as an enemy combatant and not afforded the rights of a citizen charged with an ordinary crime." What my opponent is herein describing is synonymous with torture. If we look at the working definition of enemy combatant, this becomes immediately obvious, (It should also be noted that the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant has been transformed by the Bush administration so that every associate or member of Al-Queada or any related terrorist group is deemed 'unlawful', removing their eligibility of being a POW, such a Nazi war criminals.) "An 'enemy combatant' is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban....Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. " [2] So we see that even if my opponent isn't directly advocating torture, he is advocating the same breach in human rights, so the point is moot. The act itself is just one heinous cog in the machine, it is the systematic removal of basic human rights. If it was unacceptable for the Vietcong, it should be unacceptable for the American government. We must not become what we are fighting. So my opponent would like us to believe that he is merely advocating questioning Abdulmutallab, but it is not a black and white decision of asking him questions vs. not getting the information. As I have shown with the case of Mr. Reid, finding information legally is quite possible. But let's look at the case for merely asking Abdulmutallab questions, sans lawyer. First, it must be recognized that there is nothing Abdulmutallab will say that he won't say with his lawyer present. My opponent seems to think that if his lawyer is removed from the room, the answers will start flowing. And if they don't? You've already crossed the bridge of legal procedure, so you've screwed up any chance for a legal trial. Abdulmutallab must then absolutely be tried by tribunal, which is quick-fix if you ignoring someone's legal rights. I assume my opponent's next level is 4, which is secret military code for 'deprive them of food and water', which has be used in the past to forceful coerce answers from detainees, and is certainly a form of torture. So while my opponent seems to want to avoid torture, we see that by his reasoning, it is unavoidable. Secondly, removing Abdulmutallab from the legal system removes the prospect of a legal confession. Assuming Abdulmutallab has an intellect over that of a first grader, it can be assumed that he knows he is going to lose his case. My opponent agrees with this, but seems to come a different conclusion. For my opponent, knowing that he will be convicted somehow justifies skipping the legal process and trying to extract information in illegal ways. This is an incorrect analysis. Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Saajid Badat and Mohammed Ajmal Amir [3], all convicted of terrorism, confessed to their parts in the crimes. Would my opponent have their convictions thrown out for the sake of 'interrogation'? What does he think can be accomplished? If anything, I would argue that those detainees are more likely to confess in a legal setting, because they know, A. they have a chance of a reduced sentence or an improved prison and B, if they are interrogated in violation of their Miranda rights, they can petition the U.S. government and their native governments for release because their rights are being infringed upon. Whether it works is irrelevant; it will give them a sense of hope and prolong their confession. So, up until this point, I have heard no argument from my opponent in regards to why an illegal 'interrogation' is better than the legal aspect. He takes for granted that removing their rights will produce information, and he furthermore ignores that he is, by extension, arguing for waterboarding. If that is not the case, I would sure like to hear it as I imagine it would be a big relief for everyone reading the debate. Thank you [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.cfr.org... [3] http://blog.taragana.com...

Politics

Abdulmutallab-should-be-interrogated./1/

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you; the propsition without a case. My opponent has brought forward a resolution with no clear definition, no conviction and that advocates nothing more than the status quo What did he initially argue for? An interrogation. He alluded to a possibility of a trial, be it military or otherwise, and to the possibility of torture. Of course, once that was pointed out my opponent quickly backtracked and stated he simply wanted Mr. Abdulmutallab questioned, which then brings us t the question; what does he think they're doing with him at preset? They are certainly not offering him crumpets and tea. But let's now, since my opponent has neglected to do it, define what we are talking about. He claims that I do not understand the differentiation between criminal and enemy combatant or between civilian and military courts. I understand these distinctions quite well and I would assert that it is my opponent who is confused. First, we must recognize where military tribunals are used. They are not merely a tool that we may employ whenever we feel like subverting civil liberties, rather, they are means of legally trying prisoners of war. This is immediately problematic, as we can see, because George Bush declared that Al Quedia forces are -not- prisoners of war but rather that they are a perverted definition of 'enemy combatant', so that he would not have to abide by the Geneva Convention. This, then, puts them in a legal limbo of human rights where they are barely considered people at all. My opponent was quite quick to bring up the example of German POWs, but he failed to recognize that those Nazis were given more rights than our current prisoners. I would argue that the Axis powers proved a much greater and more immediate threat to American lives than Al Queada, so why then were they afforded more rights than Mr. Abdulmutallab? Is Osama Bin Laden a more capable foe than Hitler? Hardly. So, then, my opponent wants Abdulmutallab treated as an enemy combatant, but he doesn't not want to afford the same rights to him as to previous POWs. So we can see that it is not merely an option of military vs. civilian trial, because to try Abdulmutallab in a military setting, he must first be declared as one with no rights, which is not an option for a civilian trial. My opponent merely takes for granted that the United States can and should absolve him of every right instilled by international and federal law. If he merely a despicable murderer, much in line with the Oaklahoma city bombers, the Unabomber or Richard Reid, then he should be tried with the full extent of the law but if he is truely a soldier of Al Queada and trying him in a military setting is worth the surrendering of the American way of life, then so be it. I, however, do not take such a decision as lightly as my opponent. Given historical fact, we know that the FBI/CIA likely already has extensive surveillance on Mr. Abdulmutallab, so what will get from him that we do not already know? Furthermore, how will we know if it's true? To focus too much on what he has to say vs. what he has done is not wise. Will the irrelevant evidence he may give us really supersede the basic fundamentals that the United States is founded on? Let's call it what it is; the proposed military tribunal, while legal under American law, is a gross violation of international law and human rights. It does nothing but obstruct legal efforts of American diplomacy and fuel the propaganda of the terrorists who seek to destroy order and justice in the West. I do not accept, nor has my opponent proven, that a military tribunal is worth it. But what my opponent would have us believe is that it is not a choice between civil and military trial, but of getting the information to save American lives vs. not having the information. This is a false choice. The truth is that Abdulmutallab is already being interrogated, and investigators are probing every possible lead to ensure that we receive every iota of evidence about his plan, contacts, method, etc. This is being done legally. He is being legally coerced to give information, much in the way any domestic terrorist would. To say that he is not worthy of rights is not a value judgment on the terrorist or the cause, but rather on the U.S. justice system. Say, for example, that an Irish national with IRA connections were responsible for the plot. Would that terrorist be declared an enemy combatant and have his human rights waived? No. Why then, would my opponent have you believe that the rights of an Arab are lesser than that of a European. We know that the American justice system is capable of investigating and trying terrorists, so why then would we risk international backlash and the compromising of fundamental values? It is merely not worth it. So we can clearly see that my opponent has no case. He is merely throwing terms around which translate to 'Abdulmuallab should be considered less than a human being.' While we are quick to agree with that from a moralistic standpoint, our rational selves should recognize the pitfalls of such vengeful actions. The truth is that the Western legal system is based on fact and logic, not on rash emotional decisions. We cannot set a precedent of off-the-cuff hatred, and we must not compromise our rational society for the hot-headed among us. We must proceed with caution because the decisions we make today will define our place in the world and our future legal precedents at home. Thank you.

MistahKurtz

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you; the propsition without a case. My opponent has brought forward a resolution with no clear definition, no conviction and that advocates nothing more than the status quo What did he initially argue for? An interrogation. He alluded to a possibility of a trial, be it military or otherwise, and to the possibility of torture. Of course, once that was pointed out my opponent quickly backtracked and stated he simply wanted Mr. Abdulmutallab questioned, which then brings us t the question; what does he think they're doing with him at preset? They are certainly not offering him crumpets and tea. But let's now, since my opponent has neglected to do it, define what we are talking about. He claims that I do not understand the differentiation between criminal and enemy combatant or between civilian and military courts. I understand these distinctions quite well and I would assert that it is my opponent who is confused. First, we must recognize where military tribunals are used. They are not merely a tool that we may employ whenever we feel like subverting civil liberties, rather, they are means of legally trying prisoners of war. This is immediately problematic, as we can see, because George Bush declared that Al Quedia forces are -not- prisoners of war but rather that they are a perverted definition of 'enemy combatant', so that he would not have to abide by the Geneva Convention. This, then, puts them in a legal limbo of human rights where they are barely considered people at all. My opponent was quite quick to bring up the example of German POWs, but he failed to recognize that those Nazis were given more rights than our current prisoners. I would argue that the Axis powers proved a much greater and more immediate threat to American lives than Al Queada, so why then were they afforded more rights than Mr. Abdulmutallab? Is Osama Bin Laden a more capable foe than Hitler? Hardly. So, then, my opponent wants Abdulmutallab treated as an enemy combatant, but he doesn't not want to afford the same rights to him as to previous POWs. So we can see that it is not merely an option of military vs. civilian trial, because to try Abdulmutallab in a military setting, he must first be declared as one with no rights, which is not an option for a civilian trial. My opponent merely takes for granted that the United States can and should absolve him of every right instilled by international and federal law. If he merely a despicable murderer, much in line with the Oaklahoma city bombers, the Unabomber or Richard Reid, then he should be tried with the full extent of the law but if he is truely a soldier of Al Queada and trying him in a military setting is worth the surrendering of the American way of life, then so be it. I, however, do not take such a decision as lightly as my opponent. Given historical fact, we know that the FBI/CIA likely already has extensive surveillance on Mr. Abdulmutallab, so what will get from him that we do not already know? Furthermore, how will we know if it's true? To focus too much on what he has to say vs. what he has done is not wise. Will the irrelevant evidence he may give us really supersede the basic fundamentals that the United States is founded on? Let's call it what it is; the proposed military tribunal, while legal under American law, is a gross violation of international law and human rights. It does nothing but obstruct legal efforts of American diplomacy and fuel the propaganda of the terrorists who seek to destroy order and justice in the West. I do not accept, nor has my opponent proven, that a military tribunal is worth it. But what my opponent would have us believe is that it is not a choice between civil and military trial, but of getting the information to save American lives vs. not having the information. This is a false choice. The truth is that Abdulmutallab is already being interrogated, and investigators are probing every possible lead to ensure that we receive every iota of evidence about his plan, contacts, method, etc. This is being done legally. He is being legally coerced to give information, much in the way any domestic terrorist would. To say that he is not worthy of rights is not a value judgment on the terrorist or the cause, but rather on the U.S. justice system. Say, for example, that an Irish national with IRA connections were responsible for the plot. Would that terrorist be declared an enemy combatant and have his human rights waived? No. Why then, would my opponent have you believe that the rights of an Arab are lesser than that of a European. We know that the American justice system is capable of investigating and trying terrorists, so why then would we risk international backlash and the compromising of fundamental values? It is merely not worth it. So we can clearly see that my opponent has no case. He is merely throwing terms around which translate to 'Abdulmuallab should be considered less than a human being.' While we are quick to agree with that from a moralistic standpoint, our rational selves should recognize the pitfalls of such vengeful actions. The truth is that the Western legal system is based on fact and logic, not on rash emotional decisions. We cannot set a precedent of off-the-cuff hatred, and we must not compromise our rational society for the hot-headed among us. We must proceed with caution because the decisions we make today will define our place in the world and our future legal precedents at home. Thank you.

Politics

Abdulmutallab-should-be-interrogated./1/

8000 characters 48 hours to respond Rounds: 1 is for acceptance 2 is opening arguments 3 is clarification and rebuttal 4 is closing statements The argument is over whether or not abortion should be illegal. For the sake of this debate lets leave out life of the mother. All other situations are fair game. I argue that abortion should be illegal. Let's not let this get into the practical of everything. This should remain about the principal rather than what to do in specific situations legally

Dmot

8000 characters 48 hours to respond Rounds: 1 is for acceptance 2 is opening arguments 3 is clarification and rebuttal 4 is closing statements The argument is over whether or not abortion should be illegal. For the sake of this debate lets leave out life of the mother. All other situations are fair game. I argue that abortion should be illegal. Let's not let this get into the practical of everything. This should remain about the principal rather than what to do in specific situations legally

Philosophy

Aboriton-should-remain-illegal/1/

TO ALL READING THIS: I apologize for the title. I should have said "Abortion should be illegal" not "remain." Obviously it is not illegal now (at least not entirely) and therefore it was a misuse in words. I don't think I can edit it now, but that is what was obviously meant. Okay, thankyou con for accepting this debate challenge. It is my argument that abortion should be illegal. I said we can leave out life of the mother because that is an extreme circumstance, it is very rare (actually direct abortion is never neceessary to save the life of the mother) and because we will get bogged down in technicalities. It is my argument however that in every other instance, abortion should be illegal. Here is my argument: 1) Abortion is the direct killing of the life in the womb. Given what the abortion procedure is, this should be obvious. Of course there are different types of procedures. Most involve in some way directly harming the fetus through poisoning or dismembering in some way. Obviously this is direct killing. By direct killing I mean doing something that by its very nature leads to the death of the fetus inevitably and purposely. Also, any procedure which ends a pregnancy directly (that is purposely and by its very nature...i.e. any true abortion) is murder because to directly deprive a life of the basic necessities and ordinary care that it needs is to directly kill that life---whatever kind of life it may be (and the fetus is obviously a living thing, no one objects to that). 2) The Life in the womb is a human being We could get more into this later. However for now, I will just offer some quotes: "Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos , yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being . The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote." Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects . "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)." Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology . <URL>... Some images on fetal development <URL>... Facts about fetal develpment. Is it human blood that is spilled in an abortion? Is it a human heart that stops beating? Is it a human embryo that is destroyed? Is it human arms and human legs that are torn off? You bet 3) The government has a duty to protect innocent human beings from being murdered Murder is terrible for society. A society that allows for murder of human beings is an unjust society. Once we say that the government does not need to protect human children...who does the government protect? You may say that this is a woman's choice between her and her doctor. But in reality, it is no more a woman's choice between her and her doctor than the choice to murder a 2-year old child. Innocent human beings need to be protected by the government against anyone who wishes to harm them. Once we admit this is false, you fall into the trap of saying that human beings may be murdered simply because they are incovneiant. Finally, I find it very difficult to defend a system that allows abortion but not the murder of 5-month olds. I don't see any objective and NON-arbitrary criterea that could make the two different. Because of this, I think that abortion is an implicit acceptance of all murder and all injustice into society. "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

Dmot

TO ALL READING THIS: I apologize for the title. I should have said "Abortion should be illegal" not "remain." Obviously it is not illegal now (at least not entirely) and therefore it was a misuse in words. I don't think I can edit it now, but that is what was obviously meant. Okay, thankyou con for accepting this debate challenge. It is my argument that abortion should be illegal. I said we can leave out life of the mother because that is an extreme circumstance, it is very rare (actually direct abortion is never neceessary to save the life of the mother) and because we will get bogged down in technicalities. It is my argument however that in every other instance, abortion should be illegal. Here is my argument: 1) Abortion is the direct killing of the life in the womb. Given what the abortion procedure is, this should be obvious. Of course there are different types of procedures. Most involve in some way directly harming the fetus through poisoning or dismembering in some way. Obviously this is direct killing. By direct killing I mean doing something that by its very nature leads to the death of the fetus inevitably and purposely. Also, any procedure which ends a pregnancy directly (that is purposely and by its very nature...i.e. any true abortion) is murder because to directly deprive a life of the basic necessities and ordinary care that it needs is to directly kill that life---whatever kind of life it may be (and the fetus is obviously a living thing, no one objects to that). 2) The Life in the womb is a human being We could get more into this later. However for now, I will just offer some quotes: "Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos , yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being . The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote." Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects . "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)." Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology . http://www.priestsforlife.org... Some images on fetal development http://prolifeaction.org... Facts about fetal develpment. Is it human blood that is spilled in an abortion? Is it a human heart that stops beating? Is it a human embryo that is destroyed? Is it human arms and human legs that are torn off? You bet 3) The government has a duty to protect innocent human beings from being murdered Murder is terrible for society. A society that allows for murder of human beings is an unjust society. Once we say that the government does not need to protect human children...who does the government protect? You may say that this is a woman's choice between her and her doctor. But in reality, it is no more a woman's choice between her and her doctor than the choice to murder a 2-year old child. Innocent human beings need to be protected by the government against anyone who wishes to harm them. Once we admit this is false, you fall into the trap of saying that human beings may be murdered simply because they are incovneiant. Finally, I find it very difficult to defend a system that allows abortion but not the murder of 5-month olds. I don't see any objective and NON-arbitrary criterea that could make the two different. Because of this, I think that abortion is an implicit acceptance of all murder and all injustice into society. "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

Philosophy

Aboriton-should-remain-illegal/1/

Thankyou Con Con's points will be in bold: Including rape? Or does this count as "life of mother" circumstances? Well, if you follow my 3 premises, it would seem as though rape is no excuse for abortion. That is not life of the mother necessarily because there is nothing about a baby concieved via rape that is especially physically unhealthy to the mother. Although it is certainly a tragic thing and something that merits emotional support and care for the mother in such a situation. Umm... Well, with the quote I provided it seems as though biology tells us that my statement that life begins at conception is correct. A zygote is a human being by nature because it is a human cell. But you may ask: How is it different from other human cells? What makes it a human being not part of another? A few things: first off, it has different and unique DNA from father and mother. Second, it is self-directed. Third, it is a complete integrated whole. All of its functions serve to grow, develop and reproduce--not to aid in the growth, development, reproduction, or survival of a greater organism (take the heart for example which clearly is not an organism but an organ) Fourth, it is the only point in human development which is not an arbitrary point to say the human being begins to exist. It is genetically human, and it functions like a complete organism, and there is no point after which there is a clear cut substantial change in the type of organism present. Therefore, these are short points, but they still serve to prove that a zygote is a human being. I'd also add that you didn't do anything to refute my point, all you said was "umm" What do the following questions have in common? They all have somehing extra to them. The heart may stop beating, but the human does not develope a heart until x time. Is the humans' arms and legs torn off? They don't develope arms and legs until x time. Although I have to add that "x time" is quite early on in human development. Even so, these things just serve to prove that since the time of conception the zygote is developing fast and will continue to develop all features of an adult human being. These are not the standards by which we judge human life. "Children" is a strong term. Is a clump of cells a child? What if it is only a clump of cells? We are all clumps of cells my friend...unless you believe in a soul of some sort. But that is an impossible question to answer in the scope of the debate and really irrelevant because if we have souls, zygotes might too, and in this case, a zygote is not merely a cell and neither are you. Taking it from the physical perspective however, we are all, 100% of us, clumps of cells. I don't get why pro-abortion people use this argument. Now, what is the difference between a 5-week-old zygote and a 5-month-old child? A heartbeat. Blood. Thought. Pain. Fingerprints. Everything that makes us human. Really? Are these what makes us human? So if thought makes us human, how much does are neurological capacity have to be in order to count as true "thought"? Maybe 3 year olds don't have enough of this thought. Why are fingerprints essential to human beings? Does someone who gets their hands cut off lose their humanity? Or a heart beat? sure most humans have heart beats, but how is this essential to a complete organism or to a human being, or to life. Many organisms lack hearts, there is nothing essential human-like about hearts, and cells are lives but do not have hearts. Hearts help us survive but are not an essential feature to what it means to be human. All of these features are arbitrary. There is nothing about them which gives us human value. I might as well say something horrible like "mental capacity has to exceed 130 IQ points" or "whiteness is the measure of human development" its all arbitrary and it leads to absurd, monstrous conclusions. 1) It may fall into a vegitated state. 2) It does not have parents. 3) It will go to an adoption home. 4) It may grow up in an abusive home. 5) The parents are too poor. 6) It may be disabled. 7) It might be ill. 8) It might be mentally ill. 9) They dont want a child. I guess if a child is disabled it does not have value? I personally take offense at the mentally ill comment because I actually have a close relative who is mentally ill and his life is of great value and that comment is just wrong. It doesn't matter if the parents dont want a child, that doesnt give them the right to kill him or her. Those viewing the debate: See how harsh and bigoted the pro-abortion position is? See how it values some people less than others? If zygotes cannot feel pain up until 8 weeks, why not have a law that, until 8 weeks, you can abort? Because the ability to feel pain is not the foundation for the right to life. The rigth to life is based on our human dignity, not our nervous system capactiy. But if you insist, would you be in favor of cutting back abortions after 8 weeks? That would be a big change and something I would support. Although It wouldn't be 100% in my favor, I would be happy to see it,. My points still stand, and con's arguments don't refute mine, but just illustrate what kind of conclusions we must draw if we deny the pro-life argument

Dmot

Thankyou Con Con's points will be in bold: Including rape? Or does this count as "life of mother" circumstances? Well, if you follow my 3 premises, it would seem as though rape is no excuse for abortion. That is not life of the mother necessarily because there is nothing about a baby concieved via rape that is especially physically unhealthy to the mother. Although it is certainly a tragic thing and something that merits emotional support and care for the mother in such a situation. Umm... Well, with the quote I provided it seems as though biology tells us that my statement that life begins at conception is correct. A zygote is a human being by nature because it is a human cell. But you may ask: How is it different from other human cells? What makes it a human being not part of another? A few things: first off, it has different and unique DNA from father and mother. Second, it is self-directed. Third, it is a complete integrated whole. All of its functions serve to grow, develop and reproduce--not to aid in the growth, development, reproduction, or survival of a greater organism (take the heart for example which clearly is not an organism but an organ) Fourth, it is the only point in human development which is not an arbitrary point to say the human being begins to exist. It is genetically human, and it functions like a complete organism, and there is no point after which there is a clear cut substantial change in the type of organism present. Therefore, these are short points, but they still serve to prove that a zygote is a human being. I'd also add that you didn't do anything to refute my point, all you said was "umm" What do the following questions have in common? They all have somehing extra to them. The heart may stop beating, but the human does not develope a heart until x time. Is the humans' arms and legs torn off? They don't develope arms and legs until x time. Although I have to add that "x time" is quite early on in human development. Even so, these things just serve to prove that since the time of conception the zygote is developing fast and will continue to develop all features of an adult human being. These are not the standards by which we judge human life. "Children" is a strong term. Is a clump of cells a child? What if it is only a clump of cells? We are all clumps of cells my friend...unless you believe in a soul of some sort. But that is an impossible question to answer in the scope of the debate and really irrelevant because if we have souls, zygotes might too, and in this case, a zygote is not merely a cell and neither are you. Taking it from the physical perspective however, we are all, 100% of us, clumps of cells. I don't get why pro-abortion people use this argument. Now, what is the difference between a 5-week-old zygote and a 5-month-old child? A heartbeat. Blood. Thought. Pain. Fingerprints. Everything that makes us human. Really? Are these what makes us human? So if thought makes us human, how much does are neurological capacity have to be in order to count as true "thought"? Maybe 3 year olds don't have enough of this thought. Why are fingerprints essential to human beings? Does someone who gets their hands cut off lose their humanity? Or a heart beat? sure most humans have heart beats, but how is this essential to a complete organism or to a human being, or to life. Many organisms lack hearts, there is nothing essential human-like about hearts, and cells are lives but do not have hearts. Hearts help us survive but are not an essential feature to what it means to be human. All of these features are arbitrary. There is nothing about them which gives us human value. I might as well say something horrible like "mental capacity has to exceed 130 IQ points" or "whiteness is the measure of human development" its all arbitrary and it leads to absurd, monstrous conclusions. 1) It may fall into a vegitated state. 2) It does not have parents. 3) It will go to an adoption home. 4) It may grow up in an abusive home. 5) The parents are too poor. 6) It may be disabled. 7) It might be ill. 8) It might be mentally ill. 9) They dont want a child. I guess if a child is disabled it does not have value? I personally take offense at the mentally ill comment because I actually have a close relative who is mentally ill and his life is of great value and that comment is just wrong. It doesn't matter if the parents dont want a child, that doesnt give them the right to kill him or her. Those viewing the debate: See how harsh and bigoted the pro-abortion position is? See how it values some people less than others? If zygotes cannot feel pain up until 8 weeks, why not have a law that, until 8 weeks, you can abort? Because the ability to feel pain is not the foundation for the right to life. The rigth to life is based on our human dignity, not our nervous system capactiy. But if you insist, would you be in favor of cutting back abortions after 8 weeks? That would be a big change and something I would support. Although It wouldn't be 100% in my favor, I would be happy to see it,. My points still stand, and con's arguments don't refute mine, but just illustrate what kind of conclusions we must draw if we deny the pro-life argument

Philosophy

Aboriton-should-remain-illegal/1/

Let's go through Con's points and see where he fails to rebut my argument. Then I will restate my argument. His comments in bold, mine are plain What I meant was: maybe, if the child will have an exceptionally hard life, it might be right to, as an act of mercy, abort the kid before he can feel pain. But the problem is this: Who are YOU or ANYONE ELSE to decide what lives are less valuable? If you say it is an act of mercy to kill, then it follows that the life is not valuable. No one deserves that! It isn't the babies fault, mind you, but why not abort it while it is nothing but clumps of cells, or is incapable of thought or brainwaves. YOU TOO are a clump of cells. Everyone is. That argument is completely absurd. We are all clumps of cells. I draw reference to vegatative states/long comas. In these instances, we sometimes let the people die. Aborting the baby is a similar thing. Aborting does not equal letting die. Tearing apart an infant from the uterus is not letting, its doing. These things are not inherently human, true. But humans require these things to live. If a human has none of these, is it really living? Most likely not? The zygote is a living cell. You say I have convinced you that it is human. It follows therefore that it is a living human. Very true. However, I was just reasoning that, if you can't feel pain, can't think, don't have a body etc., then it is possibly justified. Possibly is not the same as actually. This is life and death, we need more certainty. Even so, does that mean if you kill someone in their sleep painlessly it is justified? What do you mean don't have a body? Who said an embryo is not a body? I say it is a body, a human body, albeit a small one and one that needs to develop to become an ADULT body. I guess my opponent concedes that SOME abortions should be legal. Do I win? Absolutely not! I do not concede that. Please read my actual arguments. I ask you if YOU concede that some abortions should be made illegal. I explicitly stated that of course all abortions should remain illegal and all are bad. The point was that by your own logic you should admit that many abortions are wrong and should be illegal. That would be a compromise position for me, but a better one than the current situation. Now, on to my argument. It consists of 3 simple premises: 1) Abortion is the direct killing of life in the womb 2) The life in the womb is human 3) The government has the duty to protect humans from being murdered As for premise 1, this should be obvious. Any abortion procedure has as its direct goal the termination of the life in the womb. It is accomplished in ways that are explicitly designed to terminate the pregnancy usually by first killing the fetus and then expelling it. However, direct explusion even before killing it would be murder because it is the inducement of certain death of the unborn child for the sake of ending the pregnancy. How could anyone doubt that this is direct killing or at least has the same quality as direct killing of the life in the womb? Premise 2 is simple, you concede this point and I have defended it elsewhere: You have convinced me that these are indeed humans. Premise 3 should be relatively uncontraversial.

Dmot

Let's go through Con's points and see where he fails to rebut my argument. Then I will restate my argument. His comments in bold, mine are plain What I meant was: maybe, if the child will have an exceptionally hard life, it might be right to, as an act of mercy, abort the kid before he can feel pain. But the problem is this: Who are YOU or ANYONE ELSE to decide what lives are less valuable? If you say it is an act of mercy to kill, then it follows that the life is not valuable. No one deserves that! It isn't the babies fault, mind you, but why not abort it while it is nothing but clumps of cells, or is incapable of thought or brainwaves. YOU TOO are a clump of cells. Everyone is. That argument is completely absurd. We are all clumps of cells. I draw reference to vegatative states/long comas. In these instances, we sometimes let the people die. Aborting the baby is a similar thing. Aborting does not equal letting die. Tearing apart an infant from the uterus is not letting, its doing. These things are not inherently human, true. But humans require these things to live. If a human has none of these, is it really living? Most likely not? The zygote is a living cell. You say I have convinced you that it is human. It follows therefore that it is a living human. Very true. However, I was just reasoning that, if you can't feel pain, can't think, don't have a body etc., then it is possibly justified. Possibly is not the same as actually. This is life and death, we need more certainty. Even so, does that mean if you kill someone in their sleep painlessly it is justified? What do you mean don't have a body? Who said an embryo is not a body? I say it is a body, a human body, albeit a small one and one that needs to develop to become an ADULT body. I guess my opponent concedes that SOME abortions should be legal. Do I win? Absolutely not! I do not concede that. Please read my actual arguments. I ask you if YOU concede that some abortions should be made illegal. I explicitly stated that of course all abortions should remain illegal and all are bad. The point was that by your own logic you should admit that many abortions are wrong and should be illegal. That would be a compromise position for me, but a better one than the current situation. Now, on to my argument. It consists of 3 simple premises: 1) Abortion is the direct killing of life in the womb 2) The life in the womb is human 3) The government has the duty to protect humans from being murdered As for premise 1, this should be obvious. Any abortion procedure has as its direct goal the termination of the life in the womb. It is accomplished in ways that are explicitly designed to terminate the pregnancy usually by first killing the fetus and then expelling it. However, direct explusion even before killing it would be murder because it is the inducement of certain death of the unborn child for the sake of ending the pregnancy. How could anyone doubt that this is direct killing or at least has the same quality as direct killing of the life in the womb? Premise 2 is simple, you concede this point and I have defended it elsewhere: You have convinced me that these are indeed humans. Premise 3 should be relatively uncontraversial.

Philosophy

Aboriton-should-remain-illegal/1/

I HEARBY ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE! Good luck!

Kumquatodor

I HEARBY ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE! Good luck!

Philosophy

Aboriton-should-remain-illegal/1/

I shall rebut! It is my argument however that in every other instance, abortion should be illegal. Including rape? Or does this count as "life of mother" circumstances? We have 4 rounds, so we can debate that if it is deemed debatable. __________________________________________________________ Abortion is the direct killing of the life in the womb. Given. I agree that it is direct killing and deigned to kill. _______________________________________________ The Life in the womb is a human being Umm... Is it human blood that is spilled in an abortion? I'll say yes. Is it a human heart that stops beating? I'll say yes. Is it a human embryo that is destroyed? Is it human arms and human legs that are torn off? I'll say yes. What do the following questions have in common? They all have somehing extra to them. The heart may stop beating, but the human does not develope a heart until x time. Is the humans' arms and legs torn off? They don't develope arms and legs until x time. You see, the question up until x point, these cells are just that: cells. I concede that they are human cells, but so are the skin cells you kill when you sit down. Or scratch yourself. Or eat. ________________________________________________________________________ Once we say that the government does not need to protect human children...who does the government protect? "Children" is a strong term. Is a clump of cells a child? What if it is only a clump of cells? Finally, I find it very difficult to defend a system that allows abortion but not the murder of 5-month olds. I don't see any objective and NON-arbitrary criterea that could make the two different. Because of this, I think that abortion is an implicit acceptance of all murder and all injustice into society. I will show you. According to your OWN source, pain systems don't develope until 9 weeks of developent. Fingerprints don't develope until 14 weeks of developement. Brainwaves don't develope until 6 weeks. The heart doesn't develope until 18 days. Now, what is the difference between a 5-week-old zygote and a 5-month-old child? A heartbeat. Blood. Thought. Pain. Fingerprints. Everything that makes us human. _________________________________________________________ Now, I'll give examples where it might be MORE responsible to abort a child. 1) It may fall into a vegitated state. 2) It does not have parents. 3) It will go to an adoption home. 4) It may grow up in an abusive home. 5) The parents are too poor. 6) It may be disabled. 7) It might be ill. 8) It might be mentally ill. 9) They dont want a child. ______________________ If zygotes cannot feel pain up until 8 weeks, why not have a law that, until 8 weeks, you can abort? _____________________________________________________________________________________ Now: if we make abortion illegal, then all cases will become deadly. Untrained people will attempt to abort children, and this is very likely to kill the parent.

Kumquatodor

I shall rebut! It is my argument however that in every other instance, abortion should be illegal. Including rape? Or does this count as "life of mother" circumstances? We have 4 rounds, so we can debate that if it is deemed debatable. __________________________________________________________ Abortion is the direct killing of the life in the womb. Given. I agree that it is direct killing and deigned to kill. _______________________________________________ The Life in the womb is a human being Umm... Is it human blood that is spilled in an abortion? I'll say yes. Is it a human heart that stops beating? I'll say yes. Is it a human embryo that is destroyed? Is it human arms and human legs that are torn off? I'll say yes. What do the following questions have in common? They all have somehing extra to them. The heart may stop beating, but the human does not develope a heart until x time. Is the humans' arms and legs torn off? They don't develope arms and legs until x time. You see, the question up until x point, these cells are just that: cells. I concede that they are human cells, but so are the skin cells you kill when you sit down. Or scratch yourself. Or eat. ________________________________________________________________________ Once we say that the government does not need to protect human children...who does the government protect? "Children" is a strong term. Is a clump of cells a child? What if it is only a clump of cells? Finally, I find it very difficult to defend a system that allows abortion but not the murder of 5-month olds. I don't see any objective and NON-arbitrary criterea that could make the two different. Because of this, I think that abortion is an implicit acceptance of all murder and all injustice into society. I will show you. According to your OWN source, pain systems don't develope until 9 weeks of developent. Fingerprints don't develope until 14 weeks of developement. Brainwaves don't develope until 6 weeks. The heart doesn't develope until 18 days. Now, what is the difference between a 5-week-old zygote and a 5-month-old child? A heartbeat. Blood. Thought. Pain. Fingerprints. Everything that makes us human. _________________________________________________________ Now, I'll give examples where it might be MORE responsible to abort a child. 1) It may fall into a vegitated state. 2) It does not have parents. 3) It will go to an adoption home. 4) It may grow up in an abusive home. 5) The parents are too poor. 6) It may be disabled. 7) It might be ill. 8) It might be mentally ill. 9) They dont want a child. ______________________ If zygotes cannot feel pain up until 8 weeks, why not have a law that, until 8 weeks, you can abort? _____________________________________________________________________________________ Now: if we make abortion illegal, then all cases will become deadly. Untrained people will attempt to abort children, and this is very likely to kill the parent.

Philosophy

Aboriton-should-remain-illegal/1/

First, the most important matter: I personally take offense at the mentally ill comment because I actually have a close relative who is mentally ill and his life is of great value and that comment is just wrong. I did not mean it like that. My cousins' cousin is severely dissabled. One of my friends was both mentally ill and disabled. I myself am slightly disable with Mild Cerebral Palsy. I meant not to say that these people are of lower value. What I meant was: maybe, if the child will have an exceptionally hard life, it might be right to, as an act of mercy, abort the kid before he can feel pain. ________________________________________ Although it is certainly a tragic thing and something that merits emotional support and care for the mother in such a situation. Should a mother be forced to endure 18 years of raising a child that is a constant reminder of the tragic event. Should the mother have to change her ENTIRE life because one evil ***** decided to rape her? The mother might have to: 1. Have to drop out of school. 2. Stay home from work. 3. Stay home from friends. 4. Tell the grandparents. 5. Tell the child. 6. Get (expensive) therapy. 7. Explain to people (bosses, gov. workers, police, parents) how this baby spontaniously appeared in her uterous. No one deserves that! It isn't the babies fault, mind you, but why not abort it while it is nothing but clumps of cells, or is incapable of thought or brainwaves. What about the child? Should it be forced to live with the truth: that he was conceived by an act of violence that dramatically changed the mothers life, and that they'll never know their father, and that their existance was caused in a horrible event? ____________________________________________ Therefore, these are short points, but they still serve to prove that a zygote is a human being. You have convinced me that these are indeed humans. I draw reference to vegatative states/long comas. In these instances, we sometimes let the people die. Aborting the baby is a similar thing. A developing baby is very similar to a person in a these conditions: little to no brainwaves, inability to live without outside help. _____________________ These are not the standards by which we judge human life. It kind of is. Failure to meet these standards are how we justify termination of those in vegitative states and comas. ________________ Taking it from the physical perspective however, we are all, 100% of us, clumps of cells. I don't get why pro-abortion people use this argument. WE are humans. Our pets are dogs, cats, etc. Babies, at this time, are unable to feel pain. Or think. They do not have most of the fuctions that animals, much less humans, have. __________________________________________________________________ Many organisms lack hearts, there is nothing essential human-like about hearts, and cells are lives but do not have hearts. These things are not inherently human, true. But humans require these things to live. If a human has none of these, is it really living? Most likely not? _________________________________________ Because the ability to feel pain is not the foundation for the right to life. Very true. However, I was just reasoning that, if you can't feel pain, can't think, don't have a body etc., then it is possibly justified. ___________________________ But if you insist, would you be in favor of cutting back abortions after 8 weeks? I would be in favor of cutting abortions after 8 weeks, unless it were a "special" case (like rape, or lack of knoweledge of pregnancy, which is VERY rare, or if the baby would have a hard time in life, or if parents cannot care for the child well). Also, though this source isn't infallable, our own Skeptikitten claims that 60% of abortions occurr before 9 weeks. <URL>... ___________________________________ That would be a big change and something I would support. I guess my opponent concedes that SOME abortions should be legal. Do I win?

Kumquatodor

First, the most important matter: I personally take offense at the mentally ill comment because I actually have a close relative who is mentally ill and his life is of great value and that comment is just wrong. I did not mean it like that. My cousins' cousin is severely dissabled. One of my friends was both mentally ill and disabled. I myself am slightly disable with Mild Cerebral Palsy. I meant not to say that these people are of lower value. What I meant was: maybe, if the child will have an exceptionally hard life, it might be right to, as an act of mercy, abort the kid before he can feel pain. ________________________________________ Although it is certainly a tragic thing and something that merits emotional support and care for the mother in such a situation. Should a mother be forced to endure 18 years of raising a child that is a constant reminder of the tragic event. Should the mother have to change her ENTIRE life because one evil ***** decided to rape her? The mother might have to: 1. Have to drop out of school. 2. Stay home from work. 3. Stay home from friends. 4. Tell the grandparents. 5. Tell the child. 6. Get (expensive) therapy. 7. Explain to people (bosses, gov. workers, police, parents) how this baby spontaniously appeared in her uterous. No one deserves that! It isn't the babies fault, mind you, but why not abort it while it is nothing but clumps of cells, or is incapable of thought or brainwaves. What about the child? Should it be forced to live with the truth: that he was conceived by an act of violence that dramatically changed the mothers life, and that they'll never know their father, and that their existance was caused in a horrible event? ____________________________________________ Therefore, these are short points, but they still serve to prove that a zygote is a human being. You have convinced me that these are indeed humans. I draw reference to vegatative states/long comas. In these instances, we sometimes let the people die. Aborting the baby is a similar thing. A developing baby is very similar to a person in a these conditions: little to no brainwaves, inability to live without outside help. _____________________ These are not the standards by which we judge human life. It kind of is. Failure to meet these standards are how we justify termination of those in vegitative states and comas. ________________ Taking it from the physical perspective however, we are all, 100% of us, clumps of cells. I don't get why pro-abortion people use this argument. WE are humans. Our pets are dogs, cats, etc. Babies, at this time, are unable to feel pain. Or think. They do not have most of the fuctions that animals, much less humans, have. __________________________________________________________________ Many organisms lack hearts, there is nothing essential human-like about hearts, and cells are lives but do not have hearts. These things are not inherently human, true. But humans require these things to live. If a human has none of these, is it really living? Most likely not? _________________________________________ Because the ability to feel pain is not the foundation for the right to life. Very true. However, I was just reasoning that, if you can't feel pain, can't think, don't have a body etc., then it is possibly justified. ___________________________ But if you insist, would you be in favor of cutting back abortions after 8 weeks? I would be in favor of cutting abortions after 8 weeks, unless it were a "special" case (like rape, or lack of knoweledge of pregnancy, which is VERY rare, or if the baby would have a hard time in life, or if parents cannot care for the child well). Also, though this source isn't infallable, our own Skeptikitten claims that 60% of abortions occurr before 9 weeks. http://www.debate.org... ___________________________________ That would be a big change and something I would support. I guess my opponent concedes that SOME abortions should be legal. Do I win?

Philosophy

Aboriton-should-remain-illegal/1/

If you say it is an act of mercy to kill, then it follows that the life is not valuable. How so?! The act of mercy is performed in order to spare the child of the pain. There is NO drop in the value of life implied. Also, people don't live or die based "value" per se. If we did, then I am pretty certain that you and I and the homeless would all be dead! ___________________________ YOU TOO are a clump of cells. I can think. I can breath. I can reason. There is a clear difference. Unthinking zygote that doesn't feel pain OR a thinking, breathing person with friends that'll miss him. Do you see the difference. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Aborting does not equal letting die. These actions may have a similar purpose, though. Therein lies their similarities. They can both be for mercy, or for not wanting the person to be a bother anymore. These are both tragic events, but why should one be legal, and the other be illegal? ______________________________________________________________________ This is life and death, we need more certainty. Even so, does that mean if you kill someone in their sleep painlessly it is justified? Again: Zygotes do not feel pain for a long time. They do not breath or even have lungs. For most part, they don't have blood. They cannot think. There is a clear difference. _________________________ I ask you if YOU concede that some abortions should be made illegal. I would compromise by having some abortions become illegal. I would hate to hear of all the news of women and untrained doctors' attempts, but... Abortions being llegal is preferable, though. ____________________________________ I believe I have shown that there are substantial differences between us and zygotes, and that killing a zygote is far more justifiable then killing a developed human. _______________________________________________________ I had fun debating! Voters: Voter for whom who you will!

Kumquatodor

If you say it is an act of mercy to kill, then it follows that the life is not valuable. How so?! The act of mercy is performed in order to spare the child of the pain. There is NO drop in the value of life implied. Also, people don't live or die based "value" per se. If we did, then I am pretty certain that you and I and the homeless would all be dead! ___________________________ YOU TOO are a clump of cells. I can think. I can breath. I can reason. There is a clear difference. Unthinking zygote that doesn't feel pain OR a thinking, breathing person with friends that'll miss him. Do you see the difference. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Aborting does not equal letting die. These actions may have a similar purpose, though. Therein lies their similarities. They can both be for mercy, or for not wanting the person to be a bother anymore. These are both tragic events, but why should one be legal, and the other be illegal? ______________________________________________________________________ This is life and death, we need more certainty. Even so, does that mean if you kill someone in their sleep painlessly it is justified? Again: Zygotes do not feel pain for a long time. They do not breath or even have lungs. For most part, they don't have blood. They cannot think. There is a clear difference. _________________________ I ask you if YOU concede that some abortions should be made illegal. I would compromise by having some abortions become illegal. I would hate to hear of all the news of women and untrained doctors' attempts, but... Abortions being llegal is preferable, though. ____________________________________ I believe I have shown that there are substantial differences between us and zygotes, and that killing a zygote is far more justifiable then killing a developed human. _______________________________________________________ I had fun debating! Voters: Voter for whom who you will!

Philosophy

Aboriton-should-remain-illegal/1/

Abortion of course isnt the best way to go but sometimes can be good. If a mother is going to die in child birth or the baby is too it can be a good thing. Abortion is not murder it is a way out of a either unwanted OR unsafe pregnancy. What would you tell a 13 year-old girl who got pregnant who's parents would disown her if they found out? Yes, she shouldnt have gotten pregnant but it happened and the past can't be changed. But if she told her parents and they disowned her then what would she do? With a baby and not to mention the fact that she's 13. Abortion is a good thing. I would never have one but that is only because that isn't something that I would want done to MY body. Let's face it it's a mothers choice and most of the people who want it made illegal are men. They will never have to face that because they can't get pregnant. If men could have children I'm sure they would want a choice to. It's always a sad thing to have a unborn baby die but it IS the mothers choice overall!!

gonovice

Abortion of course isnt the best way to go but sometimes can be good. If a mother is going to die in child birth or the baby is too it can be a good thing. Abortion is not murder it is a way out of a either unwanted OR unsafe pregnancy. What would you tell a 13 year-old girl who got pregnant who's parents would disown her if they found out? Yes, she shouldnt have gotten pregnant but it happened and the past can't be changed. But if she told her parents and they disowned her then what would she do? With a baby and not to mention the fact that she's 13. Abortion is a good thing. I would never have one but that is only because that isn't something that I would want done to MY body. Let's face it it's a mothers choice and most of the people who want it made illegal are men. They will never have to face that because they can't get pregnant. If men could have children I'm sure they would want a choice to. It's always a sad thing to have a unborn baby die but it IS the mothers choice overall!!

Health

Abortion--Pro-choice-is-the-way-to-go/1/

I don't think you understand what abortion is. When the actual abortion takes place the baby is undeveloped and doesnt even resemble a human. The father should get a say but overall it should be the mothers decision. It is her body and it is happening to HER!! Okay lets pretend its a 16 year old does that number work better for you? She's going to be disowned then were will they go? Who will pay the bills? Where will they live? And a lot of fathers abandon their girlfriends and their babies because THEY didnt want them. So would you rather have a baby die when its undeveloped or of starvation. If it's killed during abortion it doesnt feel it, it isnt developed. But if it dies of starvation that is a long and painful death. It isn't murder it is a way for a unwanted baby to not be born. It isnt mutilated. Your being incredibly over dramatic. In your next argument you might want to try using your own words as well. And you've used enough statistics doesnt everyone think?

gonovice

I don't think you understand what abortion is. When the actual abortion takes place the baby is undeveloped and doesnt even resemble a human. The father should get a say but overall it should be the mothers decision. It is her body and it is happening to HER!! Okay lets pretend its a 16 year old does that number work better for you? She's going to be disowned then were will they go? Who will pay the bills? Where will they live? And a lot of fathers abandon their girlfriends and their babies because THEY didnt want them. So would you rather have a baby die when its undeveloped or of starvation. If it's killed during abortion it doesnt feel it, it isnt developed. But if it dies of starvation that is a long and painful death. It isn't murder it is a way for a unwanted baby to not be born. It isnt mutilated. Your being incredibly over dramatic. In your next argument you might want to try using your own words as well. And you've used enough statistics doesnt everyone think?

Health

Abortion--Pro-choice-is-the-way-to-go/1/

Abortion should be illegal in ALL cases; there are no exceptions. Yes it is sad to see few strangly cases of a pregnancy in a rape victim or incest case, but the majority of abortions are not in these cases. Only 1% of abortions take place in rape or incest victims, 6% occur because of other health problems, and an amazing 93% take place simply because the child is not wanted. In the United States alone, there are 1.37 million abortions each year. Why should kill that many babies when only 7% is related to rape, incest, or other health problems. As for that 13 year old girl who's parents would disown her, only 1.2% of girls under the age of 15 are getting abortions. That means all others are either not getting pregnant or facing their consequences by keeping the child, or giving up for adoption. Not all young girl vote murder. As for most of the people who want abortion made illegal being men, that would be like me saying most of the people who beleive in prochoice are republican and christian. There are equal numbers of men and women who want abortion to be illegal in all cases, that number being 21%. 23% of men and 24% of women want it illegal in most cases. And for the religious people, 37.4% of all abortions are by protestants and 31.3% are by catholics. As of now abortion is the mother's choice. It should also be influenced by the father since the child being mutilated and killed is half his. Overall abortion is a choice. The choice, however, should not be there at all and should be incapable of being made.

qtpi2008

Abortion should be illegal in ALL cases; there are no exceptions. Yes it is sad to see few strangly cases of a pregnancy in a rape victim or incest case, but the majority of abortions are not in these cases. Only 1% of abortions take place in rape or incest victims, 6% occur because of other health problems, and an amazing 93% take place simply because the child is not wanted. In the United States alone, there are 1.37 million abortions each year. Why should kill that many babies when only 7% is related to rape, incest, or other health problems. As for that 13 year old girl who's parents would disown her, only 1.2% of girls under the age of 15 are getting abortions. That means all others are either not getting pregnant or facing their consequences by keeping the child, or giving up for adoption. Not all young girl vote murder. As for most of the people who want abortion made illegal being men, that would be like me saying most of the people who beleive in prochoice are republican and christian. There are equal numbers of men and women who want abortion to be illegal in all cases, that number being 21%. 23% of men and 24% of women want it illegal in most cases. And for the religious people, 37.4% of all abortions are by protestants and 31.3% are by catholics. As of now abortion is the mother's choice. It should also be influenced by the father since the child being mutilated and killed is half his. Overall abortion is a choice. The choice, however, should not be there at all and should be incapable of being made.

Health

Abortion--Pro-choice-is-the-way-to-go/1/

Resolution Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible In this debate I will defend the view that it is generally morally impermissible to deliberately terminate the pregnancy two weeks after the moment of fertilization; until the presence of the primitive streak one might argue that the zygote is not definitely an individual -- in that period it is yet able to split into twins. In this debate I will not argue on religious grounds. In this debate I will not argue whether or not abortion is allowable in rare instances. These rare exceptions consist of spontaneous abortions ,cases of anencephaly, rape, incest and when the health or life of the woman is endangered. This debate will thus cover around 92 percent of all abortions.[1] This debate does not consider the legality or politics of abortion, but is constraint to the morality of abortion. Definitions Abortion: the deliberate removal (or deliberate action to cause the expulsion) of a fetus from the womb of a human female, at the request of or through the agency of the mother, so as in fact to result in the death of the fetus.[2] Generally: in a way that is not detailed or specific; in most cases.[3] Morally: concerning or relating to principles of right and wrong in human behavior.[4] Reprehensible: deserving of reproof, rebuke, or censure; blameworthy, impermissible, very bad: deserving very strong criticism.[5,6] Fetus: The unborn child, 2 weeks - birth. Burden of proof Pro will present the case for the pro-life position, while con present the case for the pro-choice position, in regard to abortion. The preponderance of the arguments shall point to the winner of the debate. To potential voters I advise discretion when evaluating this debate, considering the highly biased nature of the topic. Argumentation Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Furthering arguments, rebuttals. Round 4: Closing statements. No new arguments allowed. Rules No use of semantics. My opponent is allowed to contest any given definition in Round 1, provided that he has good reasons to do so. A forfeit is not allowed. All arguments and sources must be within the character limit. Videos are not allowed. Sources [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>...

Fox-McCloud

Resolution Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible In this debate I will defend the view that it is generally morally impermissible to deliberately terminate the pregnancy two weeks after the moment of fertilization; until the presence of the primitive streak one might argue that the zygote is not definitely an individual — in that period it is yet able to split into twins. In this debate I will not argue on religious grounds. In this debate I will not argue whether or not abortion is allowable in rare instances. These rare exceptions consist of spontaneous abortions ,cases of anencephaly, rape, incest and when the health or life of the woman is endangered. This debate will thus cover around 92 percent of all abortions.[1] This debate does not consider the legality or politics of abortion, but is constraint to the morality of abortion. Definitions Abortion: the deliberate removal (or deliberate action to cause the expulsion) of a fetus from the womb of a human female, at the request of or through the agency of the mother, so as in fact to result in the death of the fetus.[2] Generally: in a way that is not detailed or specific; in most cases.[3] Morally: concerning or relating to principles of right and wrong in human behavior.[4] Reprehensible: deserving of reproof, rebuke, or censure; blameworthy, impermissible, very bad: deserving very strong criticism.[5,6] Fetus: The unborn child, 2 weeks – birth. Burden of proof Pro will present the case for the pro-life position, while con present the case for the pro-choice position, in regard to abortion. The preponderance of the arguments shall point to the winner of the debate. To potential voters I advise discretion when evaluating this debate, considering the highly biased nature of the topic. Argumentation Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Furthering arguments, rebuttals. Round 4: Closing statements. No new arguments allowed. Rules No use of semantics. My opponent is allowed to contest any given definition in Round 1, provided that he has good reasons to do so. A forfeit is not allowed. All arguments and sources must be within the character limit. Videos are not allowed. Sources [1] http://www.guttmacher.org... [2] http://www.csus.edu... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Generally-Morally-Reprehensible/1/

Introduction Let me first thank my esteemed opponent for his participation in the debate. I look forward to a stirring and thought-provoking interaction. Before we can even begin to answer the question whether abortion is wrong or not, we have to have an understanding of why the killing of innocent human adults is wrong in most cases, assuming it is wrong. In this debate I will defend the 'Future-Like-Ours' (FLO) argument, put forth by Donald Marquis. [6] Which, in the form of a syllogism, goes like this: P1: What makes killing adults and children prima facie wrong is that it deprives us of our future of value. P2: Fetuses have futures like ours. C: Therefore, abortion is prima facie wrong. Argumentation: The future like ours theory The act of killing is to end the life of a human, animal or plant. [7] Killing human beings is now universally considered as contrary to justice, goodness and equity. As Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence says: we hold the right to life to be self-evident and undeniable. [8] But, simply describing it as the loss of one's biological life is misleading, because the change in one's biological state does not by itself make killing wrong. One might argue it is only wrong to kill any living organism that has mentation. However, we do not believe that it is seriously wrong to kill, e.g. an ant. Furthermore, this criterion does not allow much, if any, abortion, because of the early development of the brain. It may then be argued that is it only wrong to kill rational, sentient agents. This explanation too faces major problems. It would be to narrow, for it now excludes the newborn, the temporary unconscious and the mentally retarded. Moreover, we are not told much is needed and how we can measure it. As Marquis analyzes, the best account of the wrongness of killing is the effect on the victim; the loss of all thing in life he values now or will come to value in the future.The misfortune of a premature death deprives one of all the "experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments" which would otherwise have constituted one's future. This establishes the property, namely the infliction of this loss, what ultimately what makes killing wrong. Applying the FLO theory to abortion Scientifically speaking, human life begins at the moment of conception. [9] The killing of a prenatal human being is morally wrong for the same reason as postnatal human beings; it deprives the victim of a valuable future like ours. The fetus and the adult human belong to the same moral category; notto the category of personhood, but to the category of having a valuable future like ours. The future like ours theory is an inference to the best explanation. The account generates conclusions that are consistent with our moral intuitions, avoids the personhood question; the problem of connecting morality to biological or psychological characteristics, does not necessary entail the wrongness of euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, does not derive an ought from an is, does not rely on the invalid potentiality inference and does not limit itself to biological humanity. It further best explains why we regard killing as one of the worst crimes, our attitudes of dying and unlike the personhood view it directly entails the wrongness of killing of infants and people with episodic loss of consciousness, without ad hoc reasoning. This account provides the sufficient condition why killing is wrong. If my opponent wants to refute this argument, he has the burden to provide us with a viable alternative of the wrongness of killing, with a greater explanatory power and with a necessary condition for the wrongness of killing in order to generate a pro-choice conclusion on abortion. Contention 1: Bodily rights are not generally sufficient to justify abortion The mother holds natural self-ownership of her own body, thus it may be argued that, even if granted that the fetus has a right to life, it is not entitled to the body of the mother for life support. The fetus is considered an intruder, therefore the mother has no moral requirement to allow the fetus the use of her body and may therefore be evicted from the womb. Death as result is then qualified as merely an unfortunate side effect. I will grant that sometimes death as a side effect is morally permissible. For example, when one's life is in danger, one may use self-defense to protect oneself, where no other means available. It is also true that most women would not object were the fetus to survive. But, most of the time abortion is intentional killing. The fetus is the sole object of abortion, mostly in order to avoid the condition of pregnancy and parenthood. It is not merely withholding life support, but rather acting directly against the bodily integrity of the fetus. Indeed, the abortion only succeeds if the fetus dies. [10] A preponderance of moral considerations seems needed to justify this irrevocable intervention. Where the wish of the woman has only morally trivial or no support, abortion will be unjustified. [11] One might thus object that a woman's right to use her own body does not entail her right to end someone else's life in order to do what she wants with her body. The right to life trumps the bodily right, because the loss of the life forever is a seemingly greater loss than the loss of the right to control one's own body in one respect for nine months. [12] Another forceful objection is the responsibility objection, maintaining that if the woman voluntarily initiates the causal chain by engaging in voluntary sexual intercourse, which leads to someone else ending up on her property, the latter one cannot be considered an aggressor. Therefore the woman has a special obligation to render support for its survival, yielding a positive right to life against the mother. [13] For example, if one accidentally nudges a bystander into the water, he has the special obligation to save the drowning person. In both cases, if X refuses to aid F, resulting in the death of F, then the act by which X caused the need for aid will be worse. [14] Abortion would be like dragging your unconscious companion onboard your plane and then, when the plane is up in the air, order him to jump out because he is trespassing on your property. [15] According to the parental obligation objection we are naturally obligated to take care for our children, even when the pregnancy was not consciously planned. This obligation is not based strictly on biology or explicit consent, but rather on philosophical anthropology; it arises from our role as parents as members of a community. We hold it prima facie immoral for the mother to refuse to breastfeed the infant given no alternatives are available, resulting in its death. By causing the child to be, we hold the parents responsible for the child's support. Just like the infant has the right to assistance from both the father and mother for providing child support postnatally, so does the fetus from the mother for carrying the child prenatally. Birth is morally insignificant since it is after all just a change in spatial location. [16] Sources [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>... [10] <URL>... [11] <URL>... [12] <URL>... [13] <URL>... [14] <URL>... [15] <URL>... [16] <URL>...

Fox-McCloud

Introduction Let me first thank my esteemed opponent for his participation in the debate. I look forward to a stirring and thought-provoking interaction. Before we can even begin to answer the question whether abortion is wrong or not, we have to have an understanding of why the killing of innocent human adults is wrong in most cases, assuming it is wrong. In this debate I will defend the ‘Future-Like-Ours’ (FLO) argument, put forth by Donald Marquis. [6] Which, in the form of a syllogism, goes like this: P1: What makes killing adults and children prima facie wrong is that it deprives us of our future of value. P2: Fetuses have futures like ours. C: Therefore, abortion is prima facie wrong. Argumentation: The future like ours theory The act of killing is to end the life of a human, animal or plant. [7] Killing human beings is now universally considered as contrary to justice, goodness and equity. As Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence says: we hold the right to life to be self-evident and undeniable. [8] But, simply describing it as the loss of one’s biological life is misleading, because the change in one’s biological state does not by itself make killing wrong. One might argue it is only wrong to kill any living organism that has mentation. However, we do not believe that it is seriously wrong to kill, e.g. an ant. Furthermore, this criterion does not allow much, if any, abortion, because of the early development of the brain. It may then be argued that is it only wrong to kill rational, sentient agents. This explanation too faces major problems. It would be to narrow, for it now excludes the newborn, the temporary unconscious and the mentally retarded. Moreover, we are not told much is needed and how we can measure it. As Marquis analyzes, the best account of the wrongness of killing is the effect on the victim; the loss of all thing in life he values now or will come to value in the future.The misfortune of a premature death deprives one of all the “experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments” which would otherwise have constituted one’s future. This establishes the property, namely the infliction of this loss, what ultimately what makes killing wrong. Applying the FLO theory to abortion Scientifically speaking, human life begins at the moment of conception. [9] The killing of a prenatal human being is morally wrong for the same reason as postnatal human beings; it deprives the victim of a valuable future like ours. The fetus and the adult human belong to the same moral category; notto the category of personhood, but to the category of having a valuable future like ours. The future like ours theory is an inference to the best explanation. The account generates conclusions that are consistent with our moral intuitions, avoids the personhood question; the problem of connecting morality to biological or psychological characteristics, does not necessary entail the wrongness of euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, does not derive an ought from an is, does not rely on the invalid potentiality inference and does not limit itself to biological humanity. It further best explains why we regard killing as one of the worst crimes, our attitudes of dying and unlike the personhood view it directly entails the wrongness of killing of infants and people with episodic loss of consciousness, without ad hoc reasoning. This account provides the sufficient condition why killing is wrong. If my opponent wants to refute this argument, he has the burden to provide us with a viable alternative of the wrongness of killing, with a greater explanatory power and with a necessary condition for the wrongness of killing in order to generate a pro-choice conclusion on abortion. Contention 1: Bodily rights are not generally sufficient to justify abortion The mother holds natural self-ownership of her own body, thus it may be argued that, even if granted that the fetus has a right to life, it is not entitled to the body of the mother for life support. The fetus is considered an intruder, therefore the mother has no moral requirement to allow the fetus the use of her body and may therefore be evicted from the womb. Death as result is then qualified as merely an unfortunate side effect. I will grant that sometimes death as a side effect is morally permissible. For example, when one’s life is in danger, one may use self-defense to protect oneself, where no other means available. It is also true that most women would not object were the fetus to survive. But, most of the time abortion is intentional killing. The fetus is the sole object of abortion, mostly in order to avoid the condition of pregnancy and parenthood. It is not merely withholding life support, but rather acting directly against the bodily integrity of the fetus. Indeed, the abortion only succeeds if the fetus dies. [10] A preponderance of moral considerations seems needed to justify this irrevocable intervention. Where the wish of the woman has only morally trivial or no support, abortion will be unjustified. [11] One might thus object that a woman’s right to use her own body does not entail her right to end someone else’s life in order to do what she wants with her body. The right to life trumps the bodily right, because the loss of the life forever is a seemingly greater loss than the loss of the right to control one’s own body in one respect for nine months. [12] Another forceful objection is the responsibility objection, maintaining that if the woman voluntarily initiates the causal chain by engaging in voluntary sexual intercourse, which leads to someone else ending up on her property, the latter one cannot be considered an aggressor. Therefore the woman has a special obligation to render support for its survival, yielding a positive right to life against the mother. [13] For example, if one accidentally nudges a bystander into the water, he has the special obligation to save the drowning person. In both cases, if X refuses to aid F, resulting in the death of F, then the act by which X caused the need for aid will be worse. [14] Abortion would be like dragging your unconscious companion onboard your plane and then, when the plane is up in the air, order him to jump out because he is trespassing on your property. [15] According to the parental obligation objection we are naturally obligated to take care for our children, even when the pregnancy was not consciously planned. This obligation is not based strictly on biology or explicit consent, but rather on philosophical anthropology; it arises from our role as parents as members of a community. We hold it prima facie immoral for the mother to refuse to breastfeed the infant given no alternatives are available, resulting in its death. By causing the child to be, we hold the parents responsible for the child’s support. Just like the infant has the right to assistance from both the father and mother for providing child support postnatally, so does the fetus from the mother for carrying the child prenatally. Birth is morally insignificant since it is after all just a change in spatial location. [16] Sources [6] http://faculty.polytechnic.org... [7] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [8] http://www.archives.gov... [9] http://www.westchesterinstitute.net... [10] http://www.public.iastate.edu... [11] http://www.jstor.org... [12] http://books.google.nl... [13] http://www.academia.edu... [14] http://www.vmi.edu... [15] http://libertarianpapers.org... [16] https://bearspace.baylor.edu...

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Generally-Morally-Reprehensible/1/

Introduction I want to thank my opponent for putting up such a well presented and rigorous defended case. However, I am surprised to see that he is mistaken on what the resolution asks for, thus rendering most of his points irrelevant to the debate. In this round I will give my criticisms thereby showing that his points are either fallacious or do not lead to negation of the resolution. Rebuttal: Shifting the goalposts The resolution of the debate is: 'Abortion is generally morally reprehensible'. In other words: abortion is in most cases immoral. The word 'generally' applies unambiguously to abortion; it is there to stipulate that abortion is referred to in a way that is 'not detailed or specific'. In Round 1 I said that in this debate I will defend the view that it is generally morally impermissible to deliberately terminate the pregnancy two weeks after the moment of fertilization; I further specified which cases should be excluded. Somehow my opponent misinterpreted the resolution as though it meant something like: 'Most people in the world regard abortion as generally morally reprehensible'. He thus straw manned my position so that I would be defending the view that most people think abortion is morally impermissible, and asks of me to provide even more "substantial evidence", but that of course makes no sense. In no way does the resolution imply that the moral majority is in favor of prohibiting abortion. Yet, most of my opponent's case rests upon this mistaken assumption, rendering most of his claims moot. His case further rests upon some logical fallacies making it so that his premises do not lead to his conclusion. Appeal to law fallacy [18] Throughout his affirmative case my opponent frequently engages in an equivocation between legality with morality. He claims: "I will only have to provide evidence that in most of or the majority of cases, the act of abortion is permissible. " Appeal to law fallacy is where one believes an act is either immoral or moral based on the laws or lack of laws in reference to the act. My opponent argues that abortion is moral because there is no law against it. This is like arguing that when it was illegal for a slave to escape, it was immoral for him to escape. Or like, because marijuana is illegal it is therefore immoral. Because my opponent's argument relies on fallacious reasoning, his argument can be dismissed. My opponent seems to subscribe to legal positivism , i.e. the controversial view that law and morality are essentially the same. Under this view there is no such thing as an unjust law, which seems rather absurd. My opponent needs to defend this proposition, instead of simply asserting it. Just because the law is this way does not mean it should be that way. And I made an excellent argument, indeed I gave actual reasons, why I think the law is mistaken on the subject of abortion. My opponent is talking about legal rights, while the resolution asks him to address moral rights. The fatal flaw in my opponent's premise is that he does not establish that abortion is morally justified; he has given us no reason why we should think that abortion is morally permissible . My argument thus greatly outweighs my opponent's unsupported assertion. Argumentum ad populum [19] My opponent argues along the line of the following when he claims that the immorality does not reflect reality: P1: If most people approve of abortion then abortion is not immoral. P2: Most people approve of abortion. C: Therefore, abortion is not immoral. CP1: My opponent argues abortion is not immoral simply because most other people approve of it. It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. At one time most people approved of slavery, evidently this does not mean that slavery then was not immoral. Since my opponent offers no further support to affirm that abortion is not immoral, his reasoning is fallacious. CP2: My opponent claims: "Anti-abortion sentiment is espoused by some who hold various strangely constructed moralities not held by most other people." But is this actually true? If we take the USA as reference, a majority of 50% to 41% is actually pro-life! So his claim is flat-out false . [20] If we take the US to be loosely representative of global attitude, then I have shown that there absolutely is a lack of consensus and that abortion is still controversial, for a good reason I would say. As I have argued earlier, nobody has to surrender the right to life, simply because value preferences' are allegedly not shared by the majority. Therefore, my opponent has practically conceded his loss when he claimed: ""If abortion was morally reprehensible then most people would think so." One possible explanation of why abortion is legal in the US is that only one in six registered voters (17%) say they will vote only for candidates for major office who share their own views on abortion. [21] Hereby I have shown that the law does not necessarily represent the moral majority on abortion. But do not blame my opponent, actually most Americans misjudge U.S. abortion views, thinking that the pro-choice position dominates. [22] Furthermore, recall that we are talking about abortion in general, so when we exclude the 'hard' cases we see that only a small minority of 39% is favor of complete legality of abortion and that the actual majority of 57% is in favor of only in a few circumstances! [23] So, not only have I invalidated my opponent's argument, but moreover his claims are based on falsehood. Therefore his argument can be disregarded. Appeal to Common Practice [19] My opponent claims: "Acts that are generally morally reprehensible do not take place this generally". His reasoning is as follows: Most people do X, therefore X is morally correct. This is a non sequitur. Analogous to abortion, if everyone stole things that did not belong to them, then it does not logically follow that stealing would be acceptable. My opponent offers no further support for his claim so it is a non-argument. Straw man fallacy My opponent claims that I argue that "people who have abortions or approve of abortions should be harassed". I have no idea where he gets this idea from. In fact, I despise the radical pro-life movement that resorts to violence. We should only 'rebuke, censure or strongly criticize' by engaging in civil moral discourse, informed by reason. Also, nowhere did I argue for the legal prohibition of abortion, because it is irrelevant to the debate. Again, my opponent failed to show that the fetus lacks the right to life, therefore my affirming argument stands undisputed, urging a vote for the affirmative. Conclusion In summary then, I have argued that the fetus and normal human children and adults are morally equivalent. As we can conclude, my opponent has failed to show otherwise. Therefore if killing postnatal human beings is morally reprehensible, than so is killing fetuses. In this round I have shown that my opponent has not met his burden of proof in any reasonable way. His case relies on appeals to law, popularity and common practice rather than moral analysis. He failed to point to a moral significant difference between the fetus and mature humans. My opponent has to show that the 'Future-Like-Ours' theory and all my objections are invalid or unsound. Thereafter, he needs to rebuild his own case that affirms that abortion is morally permissible. Until and unless he does so, I think we can conclude that abortion is generally morally reprehensible. Sources [18] <URL>... [19] <URL>... ; [20] <URL>... [21] <URL>... [22] <URL>... [23] <URL>...

Fox-McCloud

Introduction I want to thank my opponent for putting up such a well presented and rigorous defended case. However, I am surprised to see that he is mistaken on what the resolution asks for, thus rendering most of his points irrelevant to the debate. In this round I will give my criticisms thereby showing that his points are either fallacious or do not lead to negation of the resolution. Rebuttal: Shifting the goalposts The resolution of the debate is: ‘Abortion is generally morally reprehensible’. In other words: abortion is in most cases immoral. The word ‘generally’ applies unambiguously to abortion; it is there to stipulate that abortion is referred to in a way that is ‘not detailed or specific’. In Round 1 I said that in this debate I will defend the view that it is generally morally impermissible to deliberately terminate the pregnancy two weeks after the moment of fertilization; I further specified which cases should be excluded. Somehow my opponent misinterpreted the resolution as though it meant something like: ‘Most people in the world regard abortion as generally morally reprehensible’. He thus straw manned my position so that I would be defending the view that most people think abortion is morally impermissible, and asks of me to provide even more “substantial evidence”, but that of course makes no sense. In no way does the resolution imply that the moral majority is in favor of prohibiting abortion. Yet, most of my opponent’s case rests upon this mistaken assumption, rendering most of his claims moot. His case further rests upon some logical fallacies making it so that his premises do not lead to his conclusion. Appeal to law fallacy [18] Throughout his affirmative case my opponent frequently engages in an equivocation between legality with morality. He claims: “I will only have to provide evidence that in most of or the majority of cases, the act of abortion is permissible. ” Appeal to law fallacy is where one believes an act is either immoral or moral based on the laws or lack of laws in reference to the act. My opponent argues that abortion is moral because there is no law against it. This is like arguing that when it was illegal for a slave to escape, it was immoral for him to escape. Or like, because marijuana is illegal it is therefore immoral. Because my opponent’s argument relies on fallacious reasoning, his argument can be dismissed. My opponent seems to subscribe to legal positivism , i.e. the controversial view that law and morality are essentially the same. Under this view there is no such thing as an unjust law, which seems rather absurd. My opponent needs to defend this proposition, instead of simply asserting it. Just because the law is this way does not mean it should be that way. And I made an excellent argument, indeed I gave actual reasons, why I think the law is mistaken on the subject of abortion. My opponent is talking about legal rights, while the resolution asks him to address moral rights. The fatal flaw in my opponent’s premise is that he does not establish that abortion is morally justified; he has given us no reason why we should think that abortion is morally permissible . My argument thus greatly outweighs my opponent’s unsupported assertion. Argumentum ad populum [19] My opponent argues along the line of the following when he claims that the immorality does not reflect reality: P1: If most people approve of abortion then abortion is not immoral. P2: Most people approve of abortion. C: Therefore, abortion is not immoral. CP1: My opponent argues abortion is not immoral simply because most other people approve of it. It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. At one time most people approved of slavery, evidently this does not mean that slavery then was not immoral. Since my opponent offers no further support to affirm that abortion is not immoral, his reasoning is fallacious. CP2: My opponent claims: “Anti-abortion sentiment is espoused by some who hold various strangely constructed moralities not held by most other people.” But is this actually true? If we take the USA as reference, a majority of 50% to 41% is actually pro-life! So his claim is flat-out false . [20] If we take the US to be loosely representative of global attitude, then I have shown that there absolutely is a lack of consensus and that abortion is still controversial, for a good reason I would say. As I have argued earlier, nobody has to surrender the right to life, simply because value preferences’ are allegedly not shared by the majority. Therefore, my opponent has practically conceded his loss when he claimed: ““If abortion was morally reprehensible then most people would think so.” One possible explanation of why abortion is legal in the US is that only one in six registered voters (17%) say they will vote only for candidates for major office who share their own views on abortion. [21] Hereby I have shown that the law does not necessarily represent the moral majority on abortion. But do not blame my opponent, actually most Americans misjudge U.S. abortion views, thinking that the pro-choice position dominates. [22] Furthermore, recall that we are talking about abortion in general, so when we exclude the ‘hard’ cases we see that only a small minority of 39% is favor of complete legality of abortion and that the actual majority of 57% is in favor of only in a few circumstances! [23] So, not only have I invalidated my opponent's argument, but moreover his claims are based on falsehood. Therefore his argument can be disregarded. Appeal to Common Practice [19] My opponent claims: “Acts that are generally morally reprehensible do not take place this generally”. His reasoning is as follows: Most people do X, therefore X is morally correct. This is a non sequitur. Analogous to abortion, if everyone stole things that did not belong to them, then it does not logically follow that stealing would be acceptable. My opponent offers no further support for his claim so it is a non-argument. Straw man fallacy My opponent claims that I argue that “people who have abortions or approve of abortions should be harassed”. I have no idea where he gets this idea from. In fact, I despise the radical pro-life movement that resorts to violence. We should only ‘rebuke, censure or strongly criticize’ by engaging in civil moral discourse, informed by reason. Also, nowhere did I argue for the legal prohibition of abortion, because it is irrelevant to the debate. Again, my opponent failed to show that the fetus lacks the right to life, therefore my affirming argument stands undisputed, urging a vote for the affirmative. Conclusion In summary then, I have argued that the fetus and normal human children and adults are morally equivalent. As we can conclude, my opponent has failed to show otherwise. Therefore if killing postnatal human beings is morally reprehensible, than so is killing fetuses. In this round I have shown that my opponent has not met his burden of proof in any reasonable way. His case relies on appeals to law, popularity and common practice rather than moral analysis. He failed to point to a moral significant difference between the fetus and mature humans. My opponent has to show that the ‘Future-Like-Ours’ theory and all my objections are invalid or unsound. Thereafter, he needs to rebuild his own case that affirms that abortion is morally permissible. Until and unless he does so, I think we can conclude that abortion is generally morally reprehensible. Sources [18] http://logical-critical-thinking.com... [19] http://www.nizkor.org... ; [20] http://www.gallup.com... [21] http://www.gallup.com... [22] http://www.gallup.com... [23] http://www.gallup.com...

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Generally-Morally-Reprehensible/1/

Introduction I want to thank lit.wakefield for this wonderful debate. It was not exactly what I was hoping for, but I certainly enjoyed it. In this last round I will defend my opening argument and address my opponent's rebuttals and explain why they utterly fail. Rebuttal: On morality My opponent claims that I did not provide a moral standard in this debate. If this claim was not so grotesque, I would rather be tempted to laugh. I have spent my entire opening putting forth a moral framework, which was thereafter entirely ignored by my opponent! To recapitulate, I started out with the unproblematic assumption that killing people is wrong. Thereafter I defended the explanation that it is wrong because it harms them R2; the misfortune of a premature death deprives them of their future of value! Because the fetus has a 'future like ours', killing fetuses is also wrong. If the human fetus is intrinsically something it is presumptively seriously wrong to kill, then abortion is morally reprehensible. My opponent failed to refute this argument; in fact, he did not even try it. Therefore, my conclusion is successfully upheld. The only thing my opponent said is that my argument is invalid because it is a matter of opinion. This is deceptively tricky, as everything is in some sense a matter of opinion, because any argument starts out with an axiomatic principle. The right to life may be described as 'natural' and 'absolute in the sense that reason demands its recognition if men are to live together in society, that no law can oblige a man to abandon it. [25] I regard morality as subjective in the sense that it is mind-dependent. We always have to start at a common principle which cannot be proved. I take the wrongness of harming as such an axiom. This is in principle essential to a utilitarian consequentialist theory, a well-established ethical theory. [26] My opponent is right, I do consider myself a moral anti-realist. His demand for an " objective, absolute, and the only possible standard for morality " is simply ridiculous. The mind-dependence relation embodied in a subjectivist theory may give rise to a relation-designating account of moral truth. [27] I have the freedom to condemn everything what I regard as immoral and to convince others to adopt my view, informed by reason. The legal view, however widely held, does not invalidate my argument in defense of the resolution whatsoever. I have argued that the alleged moral majority is mistaken -- that there exists no difference, in the relevant moral sense, between the fetus and infant. Those who defend the pro-choice view can argue that the fetus lacks the right to life or that the fetus does not have the right to use the body. My opponent failed to do both. Instead he assumed moral relativism, by reasserting his position when he goes on to argue that the majority decides what is morally permissible. Again he commits the same logical fallacy, but earlier I explained why this is fallacious and, though not necessary, refuted both premises. On legality The gist of my opponent's argument is: "Things that are generally determined to be morally reprehensible are made illegal ". From this follows that that the law and morality are the same, i.e. he claims that what seems immoral to most people is made illegal, so there is no such thing as an unjust law , thus everything that is moral is not illegal. He may deny it all he want, but again, my opponent assumes legal positivism , committing the appeal to law fallacy! I have shown that the law can be wrong, which my opponent did not refute, and in this debate I have argued that the law is wrong on the issue of abortion. Notice that I do not argue that abortion should be outlawed. The answer to the ethical dilemma of abortion is not at all self-evident so it takes moral argumentation, because either side lacks consensus, m y opponent has utterly failed to do this. He is wrong that my BoP is that I "must show that the opinions of the entire world are generally in tune with his and that these opinions are also reflected in regard to what is not permitted". If this was true, which it is not , then the opposite is true for my opponent, because recall that the BoP is shared . M y opponent has presented evidence that in many countries abortion is legally permitted, I was aware of this. But abortion is generally illegal in most countries of the world, namely 126 to 73! [28] I further gave evidence that the law does not necessarily represent the moral majority as is the case in the USA. This has gone unrefuted as well. So my opponent's argument does not lead to negations of the resolution. On the burden of proof My opponent claims: "Unless my opponent can provide an absolute basis for his standards of morality or show that they are generally held AND practiced by most people..." This is really frustrating, because this is utter nonsense ! As I argued earlier; both sides lack consensus, and that is exactly why I gave a moral reasons to think abortion is morally reprehensible in the n ontherapeutic, non-eugenic and typical statistical (92%) context. Again my opponent commits the argumentum ad populum and appeal to common practice fallacy. His objections are moot. Closing Statements: Defense of the 'Future Like Ours' theory In my opening I laid out my affirming case that if it is morally reprehensible to kill children and adults, than so is killing a fetus. I offered an inference to the best explanation for the wrongness of killing. This account generates the conclusion that postnatal human beings are morally equivalent to prenatal human beings, because they share the property that best explains the wrongness of killing. Having this feature is sufficient to generate the strong presumption that killing them is immoral.[6]It is no refutation of a theory to say that it is subjective and opinion based. I was looking forward to my opponent's rebuttal, yet this was all my opponent had to say on the FLO theory. If my opponent wanted to refute this argument, he had to provide us with a viable alternative in order to generate a pro-choice conclusion on abortion. However he did or could not, thus he failed to refute the FLO theory. Therefore, I urge a vote for Pro. Defense of Right to Life I further explained why the fetus has a positive right to life and the right to be cared for by its parents. My opponent did not even address the responsibility and parental obligation arguments, which was highly disappointing. He claims: " The positive, unqualified (and implicitly absolute) claim that fetuses have a "right to life" must be defended; the burden of proof is entirely on my opponent". I find this claim outrageous. My opponent entirely neglected that, in my opening, I argued in minute detail why the fetus has a right to life. Therefore, because my opponent failed to point to a moral distinction between us and the fetus, my argument is successfully defended. Conclusion The difference between my case and my opponent's case is that only I actually gave moral reasons, that generated a Pro-Life conclusion, thus I find it quite ironic that my opponent repeatedly claims that I have a misunderstanding of morality, considering this. My argument was valid, so my opponent had to show one, or both, of my premises to be false. He failed to do so. I conclude that I have met my burden of proof as my opponent has utterly failed to address, let alone refute, my initial case affirming the Pro-Life position. On the other hand I have soundly refuted my opponent's case, showing that he relies solely on bare assertions and logical fallacies, instead of moral analysis. I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution. I urge a vote for Pro. Sources [25] <URL>... [26] <URL>... [27] <URL>... [28] <URL>... ;

Fox-McCloud

Introduction I want to thank lit.wakefield for this wonderful debate. It was not exactly what I was hoping for, but I certainly enjoyed it. In this last round I will defend my opening argument and address my opponent’s rebuttals and explain why they utterly fail. Rebuttal: On morality My opponent claims that I did not provide a moral standard in this debate. If this claim was not so grotesque, I would rather be tempted to laugh. I have spent my entire opening putting forth a moral framework, which was thereafter entirely ignored by my opponent! To recapitulate, I started out with the unproblematic assumption that killing people is wrong. Thereafter I defended the explanation that it is wrong because it harms them R2; the misfortune of a premature death deprives them of their future of value! Because the fetus has a ‘future like ours’, killing fetuses is also wrong. If the human fetus is intrinsically something it is presumptively seriously wrong to kill, then abortion is morally reprehensible. My opponent failed to refute this argument; in fact, he did not even try it. Therefore, my conclusion is successfully upheld. The only thing my opponent said is that my argument is invalid because it is a matter of opinion. This is deceptively tricky, as everything is in some sense a matter of opinion, because any argument starts out with an axiomatic principle. The right to life may be described as ‘natural’ and ‘absolute in the sense that reason demands its recognition if men are to live together in society, that no law can oblige a man to abandon it. [25] I regard morality as subjective in the sense that it is mind-dependent. We always have to start at a common principle which cannot be proved. I take the wrongness of harming as such an axiom. This is in principle essential to a utilitarian consequentialist theory, a well-established ethical theory. [26] My opponent is right, I do consider myself a moral anti-realist. His demand for an “ objective, absolute, and the only possible standard for morality ” is simply ridiculous. The mind-dependence relation embodied in a subjectivist theory may give rise to a relation-designating account of moral truth. [27] I have the freedom to condemn everything what I regard as immoral and to convince others to adopt my view, informed by reason. The legal view, however widely held, does not invalidate my argument in defense of the resolution whatsoever. I have argued that the alleged moral majority is mistaken — that there exists no difference, in the relevant moral sense, between the fetus and infant. Those who defend the pro-choice view can argue that the fetus lacks the right to life or that the fetus does not have the right to use the body. My opponent failed to do both. Instead he assumed moral relativism, by reasserting his position when he goes on to argue that the majority decides what is morally permissible. Again he commits the same logical fallacy, but earlier I explained why this is fallacious and, though not necessary, refuted both premises. On legality The gist of my opponent’s argument is: “Things that are generally determined to be morally reprehensible are made illegal ”. From this follows that that the law and morality are the same, i.e. he claims that what seems immoral to most people is made illegal, so there is no such thing as an unjust law , thus everything that is moral is not illegal. He may deny it all he want, but again, my opponent assumes legal positivism , committing the appeal to law fallacy! I have shown that the law can be wrong, which my opponent did not refute, and in this debate I have argued that the law is wrong on the issue of abortion. Notice that I do not argue that abortion should be outlawed. The answer to the ethical dilemma of abortion is not at all self-evident so it takes moral argumentation, because either side lacks consensus, m y opponent has utterly failed to do this. He is wrong that my BoP is that I “must show that the opinions of the entire world are generally in tune with his and that these opinions are also reflected in regard to what is not permitted”. If this was true, which it is not , then the opposite is true for my opponent, because recall that the BoP is shared . M y opponent has presented evidence that in many countries abortion is legally permitted, I was aware of this. But abortion is generally illegal in most countries of the world, namely 126 to 73! [28] I further gave evidence that the law does not necessarily represent the moral majority as is the case in the USA. This has gone unrefuted as well. So my opponent’s argument does not lead to negations of the resolution. On the burden of proof My opponent claims: “Unless my opponent can provide an absolute basis for his standards of morality or show that they are generally held AND practiced by most people...” This is really frustrating, because this is utter nonsense ! As I argued earlier; both sides lack consensus, and that is exactly why I gave a moral reasons to think abortion is morally reprehensible in the n ontherapeutic, non-eugenic and typical statistical (92%) context. Again my opponent commits the argumentum ad populum and appeal to common practice fallacy. His objections are moot. Closing Statements: Defense of the ‘Future Like Ours’ theory In my opening I laid out my affirming case that if it is morally reprehensible to kill children and adults, than so is killing a fetus. I offered an inference to the best explanation for the wrongness of killing. This account generates the conclusion that postnatal human beings are morally equivalent to prenatal human beings, because they share the property that best explains the wrongness of killing. Having this feature is sufficient to generate the strong presumption that killing them is immoral.[6]It is no refutation of a theory to say that it is subjective and opinion based. I was looking forward to my opponent’s rebuttal, yet this was all my opponent had to say on the FLO theory. If my opponent wanted to refute this argument, he had to provide us with a viable alternative in order to generate a pro-choice conclusion on abortion. However he did or could not, thus he failed to refute the FLO theory. Therefore, I urge a vote for Pro. Defense of Right to Life I further explained why the fetus has a positive right to life and the right to be cared for by its parents. My opponent did not even address the responsibility and parental obligation arguments, which was highly disappointing. He claims: “ The positive, unqualified (and implicitly absolute) claim that fetuses have a "right to life" must be defended; the burden of proof is entirely on my opponent”. I find this claim outrageous. My opponent entirely neglected that, in my opening, I argued in minute detail why the fetus has a right to life. Therefore, because my opponent failed to point to a moral distinction between us and the fetus, my argument is successfully defended. Conclusion The difference between my case and my opponent’s case is that only I actually gave moral reasons, that generated a Pro-Life conclusion, thus I find it quite ironic that my opponent repeatedly claims that I have a misunderstanding of morality, considering this. My argument was valid, so my opponent had to show one, or both, of my premises to be false. He failed to do so. I conclude that I have met my burden of proof as my opponent has utterly failed to address, let alone refute, my initial case affirming the Pro-Life position. On the other hand I have soundly refuted my opponent’s case, showing that he relies solely on bare assertions and logical fallacies, instead of moral analysis. I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution. I urge a vote for Pro. Sources [25] http://www.jstor.org... [26] http://plato.stanford.edu... [27] http://plato.stanford.edu... [28] http://worldabortionlaws.com... ;

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Generally-Morally-Reprehensible/1/

I humbly accept.

lit.wakefield

I humbly accept.

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Generally-Morally-Reprehensible/1/

Introduction To preface my argument, I will provide a few initial clarifications. First of all, note that no claims of absolute morality will be involved in this debate. My opponent agrees that morality is not absolute, and based on his opening argument and comments, I do not believe that it his intention to make any arguments in favour of an absolute or objective morality. Morality is simply an artificial human construct that is a manifestation of human desires for human interaction or behaviour. Since no qualification was given about terms such as "deserve," "impermissible," and "wrong" I will assume that what is determined to be reprehensible is in the context of humanity with regards to human action, thought, and interaction as opposed to the context of a god or supreme dictator of moral law. Human Law In this regard, "moral reprehensibility" can be seen as the manifestation of the human perspective on what actions are appropriate or inappropriate. Specifically, negative sanctions are evidence that an act is morally reprehensible. Formal sanctions in particular are the most clear in making these acts known. Written law is a good indicator of what isn't generally permissible and worthy of punishment due to its backing. Laws are generally set in place after great consideration to govern social interaction and maintain "civility" through well financed enforcement. As such, there is a large overlap with what is determined wrong and what is determined illegal, and in some cases, morality is even stated to be the basis of laws. Specifically, generally accepted ideas about morality are what make it into the law (making the law a perfect source of evidence for this debate). For example, my opponent is of the position that the murder of "innocent" human adults is wrong and morally reprehensible. The fact that the murder of human adults is impermissible can be clearly seen in the written law across the world. Similarly, if abortion is generally morally reprehensible, we would expect to see this reflected in the law. I will not debate the legality of abortion in any country, but I will argue that existing laws matter for this debate. I urge the reader to reject any qualms my opponent may have with me discussing the legality of abortion. Since written, official, enforced laws are the number one steady and generally stable determinant of what is permissible and what is met with negative sanctions, it is foolhardy to disregard the law in this situation. The laws are absolutely relevant to what is morally reprehensible, and again, any attempts to dismiss my arguments involving modern law should be themselves dismissed for this reason as an unfair tactic to try to put a dent in my best and most concrete source of defense. Note Thus far, my opponent has made the argument not only that it is impermissible for women to have abortions but also that those who do are deserving of severe disapproval and criticism/harassment for their choice. If anything, this stance embraces the projection of one's preferences/morality onto others to the point of taking action to treat them negatively when their behaviour is found offensive despite the absolute lack of any direct consequences or effects on the person engaging in the criticism. This seems to me to be highly undesirable, but more importantly, for the context of this debate, I will argue that it is simply not case that abortion is generally morally impermissible in the first place. In order for me to meet my burden of proof based on the given definitions, I will only have to provide evidence that in most of or the majority of cases, the act of abortion is permissible. Abortion Being Morally Reprehensible Does Not Reflect Reality Prediction 1: Abortion Is Not Permitted? If abortion was morally reprehensible, we would expect to see a total intolerance of and widespread ban of abortion (it would not be permitted). However, the opposite is true. Abortion is legal on request in a great number of countries including China, the United States, Russia, Canada, Spain, Great Britain, Germany, India, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Turkey, Vietnam, South Africa, etc. [1]. In many other countries, it is permitted in cases other than the special cases my opponent listed, such as for economic reasons (i.e. in Japan) [1]. If abortion was generally impermissible, it would not be permitted in so many countries. The combined population of China (1,360,720,000), India (1,241,060,000), the United States (317,632,000), and Russia (143,700,000) alone totals 3,063,112,000 people or about 43% of the world's population [2]. Counting the other countries where abortions are permissible in the "92%" of cases where factors such as rape are not relevant, the percentage of women in the world who are permitted to have an abortion on request is significantly higher. This fact alone dismantles my opponent's claim. Prediction 2: It Does Not Occur Often? Furthermore, the enforcement of the law and number of people who disobey must be taken into account. Consider the many women who receive abortions against the law in countries where it is not permitted in order to avoid harsher consequences and criticism. In these specific settings, losing one's virginity outside of a marriage is often seen as a terrible thing, and some laws go as far as to punish the action with death. Despite the illegality of abortion, it is seen as a much more desirable alternative in many cases. In Africa, where abortion is generally illegal, an estimated 6.4 million abortions were performed in 2008 [3]. Acts that are generally morally reprehensible do not take place this generally. If such an act was so generally perceived as unacceptable, impermissible, and "evil," it simply would not be occurring at this rate. For example, consider the fact that (assuming an equal sex ratio) 6.4 million women out about 492 million women total had abortions in Africa in 2008 [4]. This is 1.3% of the women living in Africa. Compare this to the estimated robbery rate of 0.13% (133 per 100,000) in the U.S. for 2009 [5]. Of course, for different crimes and countries, the numbers will be quite different, but the deviation here is quite clear. If something was so generally seen as "wrong" and impermissible, it would not be legal in so many places, and it is highly doubtful that it would done by 1 out of every 100 people even in cases where it was illegal. Also, consider the fact that there have been somewhere around 50 million abortions performed in the United States since 1973 [6]. Just for context, remember that there were about 60 million deaths in World War 2 [7]. To mention the previous example, the claim that abortion is generally morally reprehensible is quite similar to claiming that sex outside of marriage is wrong or generally morally reprehensible even though it happens frequently without any criticism in many places across the world. It may be seen as immoral by some groups, but in no way can the subjective morality of a few be generalized for the entire world. This is what separates abortion from the killing of an "innocent" human adult. There is not a mostly universal aversion to the act of abortion; rather, anti-abortion sentiment is espoused by some who hold various strangely constructed moralities not held by most other people. Conclusion I feel that I have met my burden of proof for this debate. In order for my opponent to successfully rebut my arguments, he must provide substantial evidence that abortion is both generally very bad and impermissible. [1] un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/policy/world-abortion-policies-2013.shtml [2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population [3] guttmacher.org/pubs/IB_AWW-Africa.pdf [4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population [5] fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html [6] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States [7] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

lit.wakefield

Introduction To preface my argument, I will provide a few initial clarifications. First of all, note that no claims of absolute morality will be involved in this debate. My opponent agrees that morality is not absolute, and based on his opening argument and comments, I do not believe that it his intention to make any arguments in favour of an absolute or objective morality. Morality is simply an artificial human construct that is a manifestation of human desires for human interaction or behaviour. Since no qualification was given about terms such as "deserve," "impermissible," and "wrong" I will assume that what is determined to be reprehensible is in the context of humanity with regards to human action, thought, and interaction as opposed to the context of a god or supreme dictator of moral law. Human Law In this regard, "moral reprehensibility" can be seen as the manifestation of the human perspective on what actions are appropriate or inappropriate. Specifically, negative sanctions are evidence that an act is morally reprehensible. Formal sanctions in particular are the most clear in making these acts known. Written law is a good indicator of what isn't generally permissible and worthy of punishment due to its backing. Laws are generally set in place after great consideration to govern social interaction and maintain "civility" through well financed enforcement. As such, there is a large overlap with what is determined wrong and what is determined illegal, and in some cases, morality is even stated to be the basis of laws. Specifically, generally accepted ideas about morality are what make it into the law (making the law a perfect source of evidence for this debate). For example, my opponent is of the position that the murder of "innocent" human adults is wrong and morally reprehensible. The fact that the murder of human adults is impermissible can be clearly seen in the written law across the world. Similarly, if abortion is generally morally reprehensible, we would expect to see this reflected in the law. I will not debate the legality of abortion in any country, but I will argue that existing laws matter for this debate. I urge the reader to reject any qualms my opponent may have with me discussing the legality of abortion. Since written, official, enforced laws are the number one steady and generally stable determinant of what is permissible and what is met with negative sanctions, it is foolhardy to disregard the law in this situation. The laws are absolutely relevant to what is morally reprehensible, and again, any attempts to dismiss my arguments involving modern law should be themselves dismissed for this reason as an unfair tactic to try to put a dent in my best and most concrete source of defense. Note Thus far, my opponent has made the argument not only that it is impermissible for women to have abortions but also that those who do are deserving of severe disapproval and criticism/harassment for their choice. If anything, this stance embraces the projection of one's preferences/morality onto others to the point of taking action to treat them negatively when their behaviour is found offensive despite the absolute lack of any direct consequences or effects on the person engaging in the criticism. This seems to me to be highly undesirable, but more importantly, for the context of this debate, I will argue that it is simply not case that abortion is generally morally impermissible in the first place. In order for me to meet my burden of proof based on the given definitions, I will only have to provide evidence that in most of or the majority of cases, the act of abortion is permissible. Abortion Being Morally Reprehensible Does Not Reflect Reality Prediction 1: Abortion Is Not Permitted? If abortion was morally reprehensible, we would expect to see a total intolerance of and widespread ban of abortion (it would not be permitted). However, the opposite is true. Abortion is legal on request in a great number of countries including China, the United States, Russia, Canada, Spain, Great Britain, Germany, India, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Turkey, Vietnam, South Africa, etc. [1]. In many other countries, it is permitted in cases other than the special cases my opponent listed, such as for economic reasons (i.e. in Japan) [1]. If abortion was generally impermissible, it would not be permitted in so many countries. The combined population of China (1,360,720,000), India (1,241,060,000), the United States (317,632,000), and Russia (143,700,000) alone totals 3,063,112,000 people or about 43% of the world's population [2]. Counting the other countries where abortions are permissible in the "92%" of cases where factors such as rape are not relevant, the percentage of women in the world who are permitted to have an abortion on request is significantly higher. This fact alone dismantles my opponent's claim. Prediction 2: It Does Not Occur Often? Furthermore, the enforcement of the law and number of people who disobey must be taken into account. Consider the many women who receive abortions against the law in countries where it is not permitted in order to avoid harsher consequences and criticism. In these specific settings, losing one's virginity outside of a marriage is often seen as a terrible thing, and some laws go as far as to punish the action with death. Despite the illegality of abortion, it is seen as a much more desirable alternative in many cases. In Africa, where abortion is generally illegal, an estimated 6.4 million abortions were performed in 2008 [3]. Acts that are generally morally reprehensible do not take place this generally. If such an act was so generally perceived as unacceptable, impermissible, and "evil," it simply would not be occurring at this rate. For example, consider the fact that (assuming an equal sex ratio) 6.4 million women out about 492 million women total had abortions in Africa in 2008 [4]. This is 1.3% of the women living in Africa. Compare this to the estimated robbery rate of 0.13% (133 per 100,000) in the U.S. for 2009 [5]. Of course, for different crimes and countries, the numbers will be quite different, but the deviation here is quite clear. If something was so generally seen as "wrong" and impermissible, it would not be legal in so many places, and it is highly doubtful that it would done by 1 out of every 100 people even in cases where it was illegal. Also, consider the fact that there have been somewhere around 50 million abortions performed in the United States since 1973 [6]. Just for context, remember that there were about 60 million deaths in World War 2 [7]. To mention the previous example, the claim that abortion is generally morally reprehensible is quite similar to claiming that sex outside of marriage is wrong or generally morally reprehensible even though it happens frequently without any criticism in many places across the world. It may be seen as immoral by some groups, but in no way can the subjective morality of a few be generalized for the entire world. This is what separates abortion from the killing of an "innocent" human adult. There is not a mostly universal aversion to the act of abortion; rather, anti-abortion sentiment is espoused by some who hold various strangely constructed moralities not held by most other people. Conclusion I feel that I have met my burden of proof for this debate. In order for my opponent to successfully rebut my arguments, he must provide substantial evidence that abortion is both generally very bad and impermissible. [1] un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/policy/world-abortion-policies-2013.shtml [2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population [3] guttmacher.org/pubs/IB_AWW-Africa.pdf [4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population [5] fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html [6] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States [7] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Generally-Morally-Reprehensible/1/

Introduction My opponent provided no standards for morality for the context of this debate (meaning none were agreed on beforehand). He cannot then logically argue that abortion meets some subjective standards he gave in R2 because any such argument will necessarily be subjective and opinion-based. I could just as easily structure hundreds of standards for what makes something "immoral" where abortion does not qualify. Unless my opponent can provide evidence that the standard he has presented is objective, absolute, and the only possible standard for morality, it cannot be concluded based on his argument that "abortion is generally morally reprehensible," only that abortion is "immoral" based on an arbitrary standard not important to the debate. On the other hand, I have provided an argument based specifically on the definitions given: Abortion in most cases (generally) is not impermissible or deserving of harsh criticism, reproof, etc. (reprehensible) concerning or relating to principles of right and wrong in human behavior. Instead of presenting an argument based on vague, subjective concepts, I have opted to focus on the concrete qualities of the debate topic. There is no absolute standard, but we can look at at the standards and opinions people generally hold as well as their manifestations in an evidence based manner. My argument is not that just that there is no majority who thinks that abortion should be reprehensible. I have presented evidence that in general abortion is not morally reprehensible but in fact permitted. FLO Rebuttal This "theory" is useless to defend my opponent's position. "The misfortune of a premature death deprives one..." My opponent's argument is riddled with and founded on unwarranted assertions. The claim that enjoyment is good and being deprived of experiences, projects, etc. is bad has no foundation and cannot be argued for with evidence. This is merely a subjective standard for determining if something is "wrong." My opponent's argument boils down to a single opinion. His conclusion is only correct when the opinion is assumed to be true. Rebuttal: "Shifting the goalposts" Unless my opponent can provide an absolute basis for his standards of morality or show that they are generally held AND practiced by most people, he has shifted goalposts to arguing for a morality based on standards not given in R1. Morality is Subjective; Without Agreed Upon Standards, General Opinion Is What Matters What is considered "right and wrong" is determined by humans. My opponent cannot successfully pretend to define a concept for the entirety of humanity; he cannot simply introduce standards that favour his argument now. Any arbitrary standard I could introduce would be of equal weight. "Somehow my opponent misinterpreted the resolution. . ." Just as words have no inherent meaning but are defined by human usage, what is generally immoral is determined by human opinion. There can be no simply "immoral" without a single absolute standard; there can only be "immoral" based on agreed upon standards/definitions (none were given for this debate) or "generally immoral" based on people's general opinions about what should be labelled as "immoral." "Reprehensible" also plays an important role, for it is not just opinions but also their physical manifestations that matter (we would expect abortion to not be permitted and be harshly condemned if it was morally reprehensible). The law can be seen to show both (what is generally considered immoral and deserving of condemnation is in turn banned and not permitted), so I am absolutely justified in using the law as a defense. My opponent has dropped this part of my argument. Counter: All Accused Fallacies We are discussing morality, a matter my opponent seemingly admits is subjective. Sources such as human opinion, human practice, and human laws are absolutely relevant. I have to wonder what my opponent thinks the basis of his argument is if not opinion. Counter: "Appeal to Law Fallacy" This is a straw man. I specifically explained the relationship between the law and what is deemed immoral and impermissible and did not equivocate the two. My argument was that what is generally seen as morally impermissible is reflected in the law (i.e. murder). My opponent has addressed none of my arguments supporting the relationship between what is deemed morally reprehensible and what is illegal but has instead grossly misconstrued my point to say that I am arguing that the law and morality are the same. Things that are generally determined to be morally reprehensible are made illegal. At NO point did I ever state that the law determines morality. My point was just the opposite; it only reflects. Counter: "Argumentum ad populum" This, again, shows a misunderstanding of morality. With no agreed upon standards, whether something is generally morally reprehensible CAN ONLY be determined by the general subjective opinions of people. If my argument is to be dismissed as an appeal to popular opinion, then my opponent's argument must be necessarily dismissed as well since the only weight behind it the opinion he shares with Marquis. "At one time most people approved of slavery . . ." If this was the case, clearly it was not morally reprehensible by their standards. If people generally consider slavery to not be immoral, then to claim it is requires some absolute standard for what is moral. "Therefore, my opponent has practically conceded his loss when he claimed: 'If abortion was morally reprehensible then most people would think so.'" This misquote shows a misunderstanding of morality and my argument. "If we take the US to be loosely representative of global attitude.." Why in the world would we do this? I presented abortion laws from the entire world to show that abortion is frequently permitted. To offer up a few polls specific to the opinions of people from a single country is vastly insufficient, and to call 39% a small minority is laughable. My opponent must show that the opinions of the entire world are generally in tune with his and that these opinions are also reflected in regard to what is not permitted. This must be a majority clear enough for such a sweeping generalization to be considered correct. Remember, as I have described, opinions are not the only thing that matters; action taken is an important component in determining what is "morally reprehensible." Counter: "Appeal to Common Practice" Another straw man. If something is generally seen as impermissible, then human actions would be expected to be generally consistent with the viewpoint. This is the case for murder and most other practices that can be agreed to fit this description. It is not the case for abortion. If everyone stole, then it is highly likely that stealing would be considered an acceptable practice; neither is the case. My conclusion has nothing to do with general practice determining "moral correctness." This is just more projection of an ubsubstantiated assumption of a single absolute morality not determined by humans. Counter: "Straw man fallacy" Again, the irony here is that this is a straw man of my argument. Not only has my opponent put something in quotations that I never said (a repeated misleading occurence), but he has also stated that I claimed he thinks people who have or approve of abortions should be harassed. I said nothing of people who approve of abortion, and my opponent's argument here is founded on the assumption that "harassment" can only refer to physical violence and must be different from "rebuke." This is ridiculous and unimportant. Etc. The concept of "right to life" is not something that just exists inherently or that should just be accepted because the phrase exists. The positive, unqualified (and implicitly absolute) claim that fetuses have a "right to life" must be defended; the burden of proof is entirely on my opponent, not that it's even relevant. Whether abortion is "justified" is also absolutely irrelevant to the debate.

lit.wakefield

Introduction My opponent provided no standards for morality for the context of this debate (meaning none were agreed on beforehand). He cannot then logically argue that abortion meets some subjective standards he gave in R2 because any such argument will necessarily be subjective and opinion-based. I could just as easily structure hundreds of standards for what makes something "immoral" where abortion does not qualify. Unless my opponent can provide evidence that the standard he has presented is objective, absolute, and the only possible standard for morality, it cannot be concluded based on his argument that "abortion is generally morally reprehensible," only that abortion is "immoral" based on an arbitrary standard not important to the debate. On the other hand, I have provided an argument based specifically on the definitions given: Abortion in most cases (generally) is not impermissible or deserving of harsh criticism, reproof, etc. (reprehensible) concerning or relating to principles of right and wrong in human behavior. Instead of presenting an argument based on vague, subjective concepts, I have opted to focus on the concrete qualities of the debate topic. There is no absolute standard, but we can look at at the standards and opinions people generally hold as well as their manifestations in an evidence based manner. My argument is not that just that there is no majority who thinks that abortion should be reprehensible. I have presented evidence that in general abortion is not morally reprehensible but in fact permitted. FLO Rebuttal This "theory" is useless to defend my opponent's position. "The misfortune of a premature death deprives one..." My opponent's argument is riddled with and founded on unwarranted assertions. The claim that enjoyment is good and being deprived of experiences, projects, etc. is bad has no foundation and cannot be argued for with evidence. This is merely a subjective standard for determining if something is "wrong." My opponent's argument boils down to a single opinion. His conclusion is only correct when the opinion is assumed to be true. Rebuttal: "Shifting the goalposts" Unless my opponent can provide an absolute basis for his standards of morality or show that they are generally held AND practiced by most people, he has shifted goalposts to arguing for a morality based on standards not given in R1. Morality is Subjective; Without Agreed Upon Standards, General Opinion Is What Matters What is considered "right and wrong" is determined by humans. My opponent cannot successfully pretend to define a concept for the entirety of humanity; he cannot simply introduce standards that favour his argument now. Any arbitrary standard I could introduce would be of equal weight. "Somehow my opponent misinterpreted the resolution. . ." Just as words have no inherent meaning but are defined by human usage, what is generally immoral is determined by human opinion. There can be no simply "immoral" without a single absolute standard; there can only be "immoral" based on agreed upon standards/definitions (none were given for this debate) or "generally immoral" based on people's general opinions about what should be labelled as "immoral." "Reprehensible" also plays an important role, for it is not just opinions but also their physical manifestations that matter (we would expect abortion to not be permitted and be harshly condemned if it was morally reprehensible). The law can be seen to show both (what is generally considered immoral and deserving of condemnation is in turn banned and not permitted), so I am absolutely justified in using the law as a defense. My opponent has dropped this part of my argument. Counter: All Accused Fallacies We are discussing morality, a matter my opponent seemingly admits is subjective. Sources such as human opinion, human practice, and human laws are absolutely relevant. I have to wonder what my opponent thinks the basis of his argument is if not opinion. Counter: "Appeal to Law Fallacy" This is a straw man. I specifically explained the relationship between the law and what is deemed immoral and impermissible and did not equivocate the two. My argument was that what is generally seen as morally impermissible is reflected in the law (i.e. murder). My opponent has addressed none of my arguments supporting the relationship between what is deemed morally reprehensible and what is illegal but has instead grossly misconstrued my point to say that I am arguing that the law and morality are the same. Things that are generally determined to be morally reprehensible are made illegal. At NO point did I ever state that the law determines morality. My point was just the opposite; it only reflects. Counter: "Argumentum ad populum" This, again, shows a misunderstanding of morality. With no agreed upon standards, whether something is generally morally reprehensible CAN ONLY be determined by the general subjective opinions of people. If my argument is to be dismissed as an appeal to popular opinion, then my opponent's argument must be necessarily dismissed as well since the only weight behind it the opinion he shares with Marquis. "At one time most people approved of slavery . . ." If this was the case, clearly it was not morally reprehensible by their standards. If people generally consider slavery to not be immoral, then to claim it is requires some absolute standard for what is moral. "Therefore, my opponent has practically conceded his loss when he claimed: 'If abortion was morally reprehensible then most people would think so.'" This misquote shows a misunderstanding of morality and my argument. "If we take the US to be loosely representative of global attitude.." Why in the world would we do this? I presented abortion laws from the entire world to show that abortion is frequently permitted. To offer up a few polls specific to the opinions of people from a single country is vastly insufficient, and to call 39% a small minority is laughable. My opponent must show that the opinions of the entire world are generally in tune with his and that these opinions are also reflected in regard to what is not permitted. This must be a majority clear enough for such a sweeping generalization to be considered correct. Remember, as I have described, opinions are not the only thing that matters; action taken is an important component in determining what is "morally reprehensible." Counter: "Appeal to Common Practice" Another straw man. If something is generally seen as impermissible, then human actions would be expected to be generally consistent with the viewpoint. This is the case for murder and most other practices that can be agreed to fit this description. It is not the case for abortion. If everyone stole, then it is highly likely that stealing would be considered an acceptable practice; neither is the case. My conclusion has nothing to do with general practice determining "moral correctness." This is just more projection of an ubsubstantiated assumption of a single absolute morality not determined by humans. Counter: "Straw man fallacy" Again, the irony here is that this is a straw man of my argument. Not only has my opponent put something in quotations that I never said (a repeated misleading occurence), but he has also stated that I claimed he thinks people who have or approve of abortions should be harassed. I said nothing of people who approve of abortion, and my opponent's argument here is founded on the assumption that "harassment" can only refer to physical violence and must be different from "rebuke." This is ridiculous and unimportant. Etc. The concept of "right to life" is not something that just exists inherently or that should just be accepted because the phrase exists. The positive, unqualified (and implicitly absolute) claim that fetuses have a "right to life" must be defended; the burden of proof is entirely on my opponent, not that it's even relevant. Whether abortion is "justified" is also absolutely irrelevant to the debate.

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Generally-Morally-Reprehensible/1/

On Morality My opponent has conceded that morality is subjective. Just as words have no inherent meaning and require subjective interpretation, morality does not have one correct interpretation or set of standards. My opponent's claim is similar to claiming that one can provide a "correct" definition for "pen" and give standards that should be accepted for determining what a pen is without either showing that the word has inherent, absolute meaning or providing evidence of what the word is generally used to mean. If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as a "correct" or "better" set of standards for what is moral, so my opponent's argument contradicts itself. My opponent admits that his standards are subjective and yet claims that they should be generally or universally applied. The only way my opponent's debate resolution can be interpreted where evidence for it (not opinion) can be presented is with regards to whether or not abortion is generally seen as "immoral" an in turn not permitted. Since "pen" has no inherent meaning, what is generally determined to be a pen is based on the general perception of what the word refers to. It is fairly easy to determine perceived meaning for something concrete like an object. However with more abstract concepts such as love or morality, there is much greater variation in standards and definitions. Just as the term "abortion" had to be defined for a clear debate to be had, the words "right" and "wrong" would have needed to been properly qualified (for example.. wrong being defined as constituting harm towards life and then harm and life in turn being explicitly defined) for my opponent to have made a rational argument based on his presented standards. He claims that abortion is wrong because it harms a fetus. Since harm was never given as characteristic of "wrong" and was not explicitly defined, this is totally irrelevant. I could just as easily argue that whatever I choose to define as "harm" is good and moral. This of course would likely go against the popular view, but my opponent's argument seems to be that the popular view does not matter. My opponent's claim that his argument has more weight because he has provided "moral reasons" is like claiming that one can give "romantic reasons" for why love should be defined only one way. It is utter nonsense. As I have pointed out, any number of definitions with equal weight could be given where abortion is not determined to be immoral. "We always have to start at a common principle which cannot be proved. I take the wrongness of harming as such an axiom." "My opponent claims that I did not provide a moral standard in this debate...I have spent my entire opening putting forth a moral framework" This is an obvious straw man; I clearly referred to my opponent's opening proposition. We did not start with a common principle or standard of morality for this debate. There should be no assumptions made for the basis of an argument unless initially agreed upon or generally agreed upon where what is generally agreed upon is given as the standard. My opponent's argument rests on the dishonesty of giving standards midway into the debate and simply asserting that they should be accepted. What would have been a valid argument is if he hard argued that the same principle that makes killing an adult be considered wrong can be applied to a fetus and then provided evidence to show that most people deem murder "immoral" because it deprives people of their futures. He did not defend or make this argument. His demand for an 'objective, absolute, and the only possible standard for morality' is simply ridiculous." Indeed. My point is that this is not possible. "Instead he assumed moral relativism, by reasserting his position when he goes on to argue that the majority decides what is morally permissible" This is the same laughable straw man. What is generally considered to be permissible obviously depends on considerations of the majority. It is the fallacy of special pleading to claim that morality is somehow not just another word/concept but has meaning apart from humans. Does my opponent also deny that language and the meaning of words are determined by humans? I have not argued that the majority determine "moral truth" only that there is no such thing as "moral truth" while there is such a thing as general opinions about human construct of morality. "...there exists no difference, in the relevant moral sense, between the fetus and infant." The "relevant moral sense" is, again, my opponent's opinion (which he provided no support for being relevant). My opponent's argument revolves around terms and standards he has never defined that have no clear meaning to anyone besides himself. "This is deceptively tricky, as everything is in some sense a matter of opinion" No it isn't. If my opponent had originally presented a standard for what is wrong, he could have made an argument based on that standard that was not opinion based. On Legality My opponent's claim that I equivocate morality and the law is akin to claiming that because a strong desire will likely manifest itself in actions being taken that actions and desires are the same and that the actions determine desire in reverse. What is impermissible to most people is highly likely to be made illegal. Often the relationship is even stronger; consider sharia law. My opponent again pushes for absolutism by saying that he has shown that "law can be wrong" (an unqualified, absolute statement). My point was never that the law determined morality, only that general moral opinions are reflected in the law. By his rejection of this, my opponent implies that the status of abortion laws in no way reflects how people perceive abortion with regards to "right" and "wrong." By claiming that my argument is wrong, he is necessarily claiming that there is no relationship between the law and popular moral conceptions and that what is not permitted by law has nothing to do with what is seen as impermissible. On BoP Indeed the BoP is shared, and I presented mine. My opponent again provided a weak rebuttal by pointing out that abortion is illegal in the majority of countries. Of course, he forgets to take into account actual population, which is actually relevant, like I did. My opponent claimed the best explanation for the "wrongness of killing" is the fact that people are deprived of their future but did not even attempt to show that people generally consider killing wrong for this reason. I would argue that it is much more likely that there is no such conscious reason why people have an adverse reaction to killing. Had the debate gone in this direction, I would have presented biological reasons that explain the adverse reaction to murder in general much better. Furthermore, if this was the general reasoning, we would expect this to manifest itself in the real world. Killing people is generally not permitted, but this is not the case with abortion as I have shown. Right to Life This argument is irrelevant and invalid for reasons I have already explained. The term "right" was never defined nor was "right to life" given as something that would relate to what is morally reprehensible. All my reasons for rejecting what my opponent said about FLO apply here, so there is no need for me to address it again. Conclusion The difference between our arguments is that my opponent provided his personal standards for morality and I actually addressed the debate resolution to give evidence that it is not the case that abortion is morally reprehensible as defined. I conclude that I have met my burden of proof as my opponent has utterly failed to address or refute my initial case affirming not the pro-choice position (which is entirely irrelevant to the debate) but the position that abortion is not morally reprehensible as defined. On the other hand I have soundly refuted my opponent's case, showing that it relies solely on assertions and his own personal subjective standard.

lit.wakefield

On Morality My opponent has conceded that morality is subjective. Just as words have no inherent meaning and require subjective interpretation, morality does not have one correct interpretation or set of standards. My opponent's claim is similar to claiming that one can provide a "correct" definition for "pen" and give standards that should be accepted for determining what a pen is without either showing that the word has inherent, absolute meaning or providing evidence of what the word is generally used to mean. If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as a "correct" or "better" set of standards for what is moral, so my opponent's argument contradicts itself. My opponent admits that his standards are subjective and yet claims that they should be generally or universally applied. The only way my opponent's debate resolution can be interpreted where evidence for it (not opinion) can be presented is with regards to whether or not abortion is generally seen as "immoral" an in turn not permitted. Since "pen" has no inherent meaning, what is generally determined to be a pen is based on the general perception of what the word refers to. It is fairly easy to determine perceived meaning for something concrete like an object. However with more abstract concepts such as love or morality, there is much greater variation in standards and definitions. Just as the term "abortion" had to be defined for a clear debate to be had, the words "right" and "wrong" would have needed to been properly qualified (for example.. wrong being defined as constituting harm towards life and then harm and life in turn being explicitly defined) for my opponent to have made a rational argument based on his presented standards. He claims that abortion is wrong because it harms a fetus. Since harm was never given as characteristic of "wrong" and was not explicitly defined, this is totally irrelevant. I could just as easily argue that whatever I choose to define as "harm" is good and moral. This of course would likely go against the popular view, but my opponent's argument seems to be that the popular view does not matter. My opponent's claim that his argument has more weight because he has provided "moral reasons" is like claiming that one can give "romantic reasons" for why love should be defined only one way. It is utter nonsense. As I have pointed out, any number of definitions with equal weight could be given where abortion is not determined to be immoral. "We always have to start at a common principle which cannot be proved. I take the wrongness of harming as such an axiom." "My opponent claims that I did not provide a moral standard in this debate...I have spent my entire opening putting forth a moral framework" This is an obvious straw man; I clearly referred to my opponent's opening proposition. We did not start with a common principle or standard of morality for this debate. There should be no assumptions made for the basis of an argument unless initially agreed upon or generally agreed upon where what is generally agreed upon is given as the standard. My opponent's argument rests on the dishonesty of giving standards midway into the debate and simply asserting that they should be accepted. What would have been a valid argument is if he hard argued that the same principle that makes killing an adult be considered wrong can be applied to a fetus and then provided evidence to show that most people deem murder "immoral" because it deprives people of their futures. He did not defend or make this argument. His demand for an 'objective, absolute, and the only possible standard for morality' is simply ridiculous." Indeed. My point is that this is not possible. "Instead he assumed moral relativism, by reasserting his position when he goes on to argue that the majority decides what is morally permissible" This is the same laughable straw man. What is generally considered to be permissible obviously depends on considerations of the majority. It is the fallacy of special pleading to claim that morality is somehow not just another word/concept but has meaning apart from humans. Does my opponent also deny that language and the meaning of words are determined by humans? I have not argued that the majority determine "moral truth" only that there is no such thing as "moral truth" while there is such a thing as general opinions about human construct of morality. "...there exists no difference, in the relevant moral sense, between the fetus and infant." The "relevant moral sense" is, again, my opponent's opinion (which he provided no support for being relevant). My opponent's argument revolves around terms and standards he has never defined that have no clear meaning to anyone besides himself. "This is deceptively tricky, as everything is in some sense a matter of opinion" No it isn't. If my opponent had originally presented a standard for what is wrong, he could have made an argument based on that standard that was not opinion based. On Legality My opponent's claim that I equivocate morality and the law is akin to claiming that because a strong desire will likely manifest itself in actions being taken that actions and desires are the same and that the actions determine desire in reverse. What is impermissible to most people is highly likely to be made illegal. Often the relationship is even stronger; consider sharia law. My opponent again pushes for absolutism by saying that he has shown that "law can be wrong" (an unqualified, absolute statement). My point was never that the law determined morality, only that general moral opinions are reflected in the law. By his rejection of this, my opponent implies that the status of abortion laws in no way reflects how people perceive abortion with regards to "right" and "wrong." By claiming that my argument is wrong, he is necessarily claiming that there is no relationship between the law and popular moral conceptions and that what is not permitted by law has nothing to do with what is seen as impermissible. On BoP Indeed the BoP is shared, and I presented mine. My opponent again provided a weak rebuttal by pointing out that abortion is illegal in the majority of countries. Of course, he forgets to take into account actual population, which is actually relevant, like I did. My opponent claimed the best explanation for the "wrongness of killing" is the fact that people are deprived of their future but did not even attempt to show that people generally consider killing wrong for this reason. I would argue that it is much more likely that there is no such conscious reason why people have an adverse reaction to killing. Had the debate gone in this direction, I would have presented biological reasons that explain the adverse reaction to murder in general much better. Furthermore, if this was the general reasoning, we would expect this to manifest itself in the real world. Killing people is generally not permitted, but this is not the case with abortion as I have shown. Right to Life This argument is irrelevant and invalid for reasons I have already explained. The term "right" was never defined nor was "right to life" given as something that would relate to what is morally reprehensible. All my reasons for rejecting what my opponent said about FLO apply here, so there is no need for me to address it again. Conclusion The difference between our arguments is that my opponent provided his personal standards for morality and I actually addressed the debate resolution to give evidence that it is not the case that abortion is morally reprehensible as defined. I conclude that I have met my burden of proof as my opponent has utterly failed to address or refute my initial case affirming not the pro-choice position (which is entirely irrelevant to the debate) but the position that abortion is not morally reprehensible as defined. On the other hand I have soundly refuted my opponent’s case, showing that it relies solely on assertions and his own personal subjective standard.

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Generally-Morally-Reprehensible/1/

Why are people so sensitive and controversial about abortion? Abortion is just eliminating a fetus from a woman's womb. How is that even bad? Because a fetus is considered to have life since it can grow, think, feel, and develop? A fetus is a fetus; it is not human until it comes out of the mother's womb. Until then, it is just ... a fetus! Fetuses are even less functional than animals - they can't locomote, they can't think, they can't reproduce, they can't have emotions, and they can't communicate. A human is not considered human until they come out of the mother's womb, like said before. Now I know that abortion is very controversial and that many people feel that you are robbing unborn humans of their life, but they aren't even alive. How would they know if they were going to die? Will they feel anything at all? They can't! Abortion is not killing an unborn human; it is simple removing a fetus - a parasite - from your body because you decide it to. I could go on forever on how a fetus is not a human, but if you refuse to accept that a fetus and a human aren't the same, then that is too bad for you. There are many situations where I feel that abortion is totally acceptable and situations where it isn't, such as the following below: -When a woman gets raped and is forced to become pregnant -When a woman gets pregnant from unprotected sexual intercourse -When a woman discovers their child is going to become mentally retarded -When a woman discovers their child will have diseases, illnesses, and disabilities -When a woman's own life is in grave danger when in labor Situations where I feel the complete opposite are few, but they are here anyways: -When another person forces to remove the fetus from the pregnant woman -When a woman cannot financially support a child because they are too lazy -When a woman wants to abort the fetus just to avoid responsibility Some may ask me: How would you feel if you were aborted? If I'm still not alive, I can't exist! And if I can't exist, I wouldn't be here! And if I wasn't here, I wouldn't be able to tell you my opinions or confess my feelings because I simply do not exist! It doesn't matter if the fetus wants to exist or not, it's entirely up to the decision of the mother and nobody else. The fetus isn't going to come back from the dead and seek revenge, like some ignorant religious people claim to be the case if you do abort. Bottom line, abortion is totally normal as you are just removing a parasite from your body. Yes, it's a parasite because like an actual parasite, it is literally feeding off of the host's nutrients and living inside and contributes nothing to give back. Parasites will also leave the host when they are ready to do so. Therefore, abortion is not about killing human life, it is just about removing an unwanted parasite from your womb.

Shrek_sDrecKid

Why are people so sensitive and controversial about abortion? Abortion is just eliminating a fetus from a woman's womb. How is that even bad? Because a fetus is considered to have life since it can grow, think, feel, and develop? A fetus is a fetus; it is not human until it comes out of the mother's womb. Until then, it is just ... a fetus! Fetuses are even less functional than animals - they can't locomote, they can't think, they can't reproduce, they can't have emotions, and they can't communicate. A human is not considered human until they come out of the mother's womb, like said before. Now I know that abortion is very controversial and that many people feel that you are robbing unborn humans of their life, but they aren't even alive. How would they know if they were going to die? Will they feel anything at all? They can't! Abortion is not killing an unborn human; it is simple removing a fetus - a parasite - from your body because you decide it to. I could go on forever on how a fetus is not a human, but if you refuse to accept that a fetus and a human aren't the same, then that is too bad for you. There are many situations where I feel that abortion is totally acceptable and situations where it isn't, such as the following below: -When a woman gets raped and is forced to become pregnant -When a woman gets pregnant from unprotected sexual intercourse -When a woman discovers their child is going to become mentally retarded -When a woman discovers their child will have diseases, illnesses, and disabilities -When a woman's own life is in grave danger when in labor Situations where I feel the complete opposite are few, but they are here anyways: -When another person forces to remove the fetus from the pregnant woman -When a woman cannot financially support a child because they are too lazy -When a woman wants to abort the fetus just to avoid responsibility Some may ask me: How would you feel if you were aborted? If I'm still not alive, I can't exist! And if I can't exist, I wouldn't be here! And if I wasn't here, I wouldn't be able to tell you my opinions or confess my feelings because I simply do not exist! It doesn't matter if the fetus wants to exist or not, it's entirely up to the decision of the mother and nobody else. The fetus isn't going to come back from the dead and seek revenge, like some ignorant religious people claim to be the case if you do abort. Bottom line, abortion is totally normal as you are just removing a parasite from your body. Yes, it's a parasite because like an actual parasite, it is literally feeding off of the host's nutrients and living inside and contributes nothing to give back. Parasites will also leave the host when they are ready to do so. Therefore, abortion is not about killing human life, it is just about removing an unwanted parasite from your womb.

Health

Abortion-Is-Good-For-Society/1/

Did you get offended by it or something? What are you, a drama queen? Anyways, just because what I say may seem to emotionally discomfort some people does not mean that I am purposely offending other people. That's why many politicians don't argue to their fullest potential for political correctness. And I would love to see what my inconsistencies are, so that I can prove you wrong... You state that life is anything that can grow and change, then you say things like rocks aren't considered life? I don't know about you, but rocks certainly do grow and change over time and do have life as they will eventually leave existence, just not the same way organisms do. Same with the Sun and other stars, they can grow and change; in fact, astronomers have scientifically proven that stars indeed have life, come from nebula gas (or whatever the gas is called), go through many phases or transformations similar to metamorphosis, and will die off as a black hole or super nova. Funny how you just contradicted yourself by adding that definition of life. Just because it grows and change at week 4 doesn't mean it's life. What about before week 4; what about weeks 1-3 where the moment of conception occurs? That's what many people say when life occurs, but both you and what they say is just stupid and has little to no logical reasoning whatsoever. Just because an egg has become to grow and change, doesn't mean it's life. Like you said, an egg is not life so why are you stating that the fetus is life if it is still an egg? You just contradicted yourself right there without even realizing it! You keep supporting your arguments by saying that an unborn child has this, an unborn child is that. Again, you are wrong with your contradictions. How does an unborn child have life if it isn't born yet? Clearly, you do not even know the definition of unborn, otherwise you would be saying other claims to not contradict yourself. By the way, the definition of unborn is not yet born, not yet having life. How can something that is not even born yet have life? Also, just because they develop sexual organs doesn't mean they can reproduce. Like you said as another contradiction statement that I can use against you, they cannot reproduce until they reach puberty. And how can a fetus feel emotions? They can only feel physically, not emotionally - what were you thinking? Then many things that are not considered to be living like the Earth itself and plants are life as it has energy (both rely on the Sun) to sustain life, to reproduce, and so on. Why does an unborn being considered life when planets, stars, and other things in the cosmos don't? You say that fetuses can eventually reproduce when in puberty, but that is after exiting the womb and after they are considered to be born and have life. Do you not realize all of your contradictions that you keep making? Also, stop repeating the same things over and over again if there is no purpose to do so - we are in a formal debate, please stick to the rules of it. You're not a teacher, you are her to debate. I already know about all of that sexual education crap. Just because they resemble us extremely closely does not mean they are like us. Are apes like chimpanzees and orangutans considered to be part of the human race just because they share approximately 98% of our genes. I'll let you decide on that one. Also, when a fetus is considered to have life is the second it comes out of the womb; not before it comes out of the womb, not after the cord is cut, and not during the first couple of days when it is still extremely dependent to survive. I know that philosophy is all about the meaning of life and can be used as mind games, but you seriously can't fool me. A smart rat like me won't fall for the cheese just to get pounced by the cat. How about I call the top dog to do that instead? About my own arguments, I'll copy it in the way you wrote it as well: -A paralyzed person is life because they can still move around some of their body parts and they can certainly move around their internal organs indirectly as certain organs like the heart and lungs cannot work unless they move. -Again, a 3 year old human is considered life because it is already born, it already came out of the womb. You know your mind games aren't working that well on me... -So you're telling me with your logic, then all plants, bacteria, and fungi are not life simply because they cannot communicate with each other through speech, text, noises, or gestures? -Those are just my recommendations to woman out there; I actually don't give two dumps if they aborted or not, even if I was a female human myself. -By the way you argue, you either must be a female yourself or an extreme feminist - if you are, then too bad if I offended you; it's not my fault females are wired to be emotionally sensitive.

Shrek_sDrecKid

Did you get offended by it or something? What are you, a drama queen? Anyways, just because what I say may seem to emotionally discomfort some people does not mean that I am purposely offending other people. That's why many politicians don't argue to their fullest potential for political correctness. And I would love to see what my inconsistencies are, so that I can prove you wrong... You state that life is anything that can grow and change, then you say things like rocks aren't considered life? I don't know about you, but rocks certainly do grow and change over time and do have life as they will eventually leave existence, just not the same way organisms do. Same with the Sun and other stars, they can grow and change; in fact, astronomers have scientifically proven that stars indeed have life, come from nebula gas (or whatever the gas is called), go through many phases or transformations similar to metamorphosis, and will die off as a black hole or super nova. Funny how you just contradicted yourself by adding that definition of life. Just because it grows and change at week 4 doesn't mean it's life. What about before week 4; what about weeks 1-3 where the moment of conception occurs? That's what many people say when life occurs, but both you and what they say is just stupid and has little to no logical reasoning whatsoever. Just because an egg has become to grow and change, doesn't mean it's life. Like you said, an egg is not life so why are you stating that the fetus is life if it is still an egg? You just contradicted yourself right there without even realizing it! You keep supporting your arguments by saying that an unborn child has this, an unborn child is that. Again, you are wrong with your contradictions. How does an unborn child have life if it isn't born yet? Clearly, you do not even know the definition of unborn, otherwise you would be saying other claims to not contradict yourself. By the way, the definition of unborn is not yet born, not yet having life. How can something that is not even born yet have life? Also, just because they develop sexual organs doesn't mean they can reproduce. Like you said as another contradiction statement that I can use against you, they cannot reproduce until they reach puberty. And how can a fetus feel emotions? They can only feel physically, not emotionally - what were you thinking? Then many things that are not considered to be living like the Earth itself and plants are life as it has energy (both rely on the Sun) to sustain life, to reproduce, and so on. Why does an unborn being considered life when planets, stars, and other things in the cosmos don't? You say that fetuses can eventually reproduce when in puberty, but that is after exiting the womb and after they are considered to be born and have life. Do you not realize all of your contradictions that you keep making? Also, stop repeating the same things over and over again if there is no purpose to do so - we are in a formal debate, please stick to the rules of it. You're not a teacher, you are her to debate. I already know about all of that sexual education crap. Just because they resemble us extremely closely does not mean they are like us. Are apes like chimpanzees and orangutans considered to be part of the human race just because they share approximately 98% of our genes. I'll let you decide on that one. Also, when a fetus is considered to have life is the second it comes out of the womb; not before it comes out of the womb, not after the cord is cut, and not during the first couple of days when it is still extremely dependent to survive. I know that philosophy is all about the meaning of life and can be used as mind games, but you seriously can't fool me. A smart rat like me won't fall for the cheese just to get pounced by the cat. How about I call the top dog to do that instead? About my own arguments, I'll copy it in the way you wrote it as well: -A paralyzed person is life because they can still move around some of their body parts and they can certainly move around their internal organs indirectly as certain organs like the heart and lungs cannot work unless they move. -Again, a 3 year old human is considered life because it is already born, it already came out of the womb. You know your mind games aren't working that well on me... -So you're telling me with your logic, then all plants, bacteria, and fungi are not life simply because they cannot communicate with each other through speech, text, noises, or gestures? -Those are just my recommendations to woman out there; I actually don't give two dumps if they aborted or not, even if I was a female human myself. -By the way you argue, you either must be a female yourself or an extreme feminist - if you are, then too bad if I offended you; it's not my fault females are wired to be emotionally sensitive.

Health

Abortion-Is-Good-For-Society/1/

I was never penalized for conduct because the website moderators know that arguments can get heated up to the point that people will start to take it personally. This is especially true with controversial topics; religion, morals, and ethics; and also politics. Besides, it's not like I am using profanity, offensive language, threats, discrimination, or other unaccepted behavior in a controversial debate like this one, so let us continue and move on. I know that you never said it and the dictionary said it. Gee, maybe I was being too metaphorical or something? Do I seriously have to stoop myself so low to writing in literal, concrete terms so that you can understand me? Come on, you can't be that stupid if you have a high knowledge of astrophysics and biology, right? (Or not, LOL) The reason why I am arguing and admitting that unorganic things like suns and rocks are alive is to prove to you that if you consider a fetus to have life, then so can those things. How about you stop stealing my arguments that I have never even used yet! Anyways, you claim that a fetus is alive, yet those aren't; are you that illogical? It's exactly like how Christians and Jews believe in demons and devils, but not ghosts? What? And no, I will not be explaining that metaphor for you. You can go figure it out on your own, Mr. I Know More Than You But Not Know Crap About Metaphors! I am saying what you just said as a contradiction that I can use against you! (Are you that off-topic?) Since you said an egg is not an organism and, thus, not a living thing, that clearly proves that a fetus is not a living thing, as it comes from an egg which isn't a living thing and is still inside the womb. Wait, so you do admit eggs are not living things... Okay, I pretty much won this debate because we both agree that an egg is not life so aborting a fetus is completely just and moral. But for the sake of my rebuttal, I will continue arguing even though I have virtually won when you made that confession. You keep mentioning about seconds, but when exactly does an egg become fertilized to become human-like? At the mili-second? At the split-second? At the tenth of a second? At the hundredth of a second? At the thousandth of a second? At the micro-second? At the nano-second? At the sub-nano second? You have to be extremely specific. Same with when a fetus exits the womb or 30 seconds before or still being hatched to the umbilical cord. When exactly? Stop making false assumptions about such things if you can't even tell time properly! There you go, you are now starting to agree with me more and more, despite me already winning after you made that egg confession earlier (though the voting will say otherwise sadly). You say I am circular reasoning but you contradicted yourself yet again! Do you have a habit of contradicting yourself or you doing this on purpose? You do circular reasoning to with the first paragraph of your argument. And no, I am not your mommy (pun intended) go figure it out on your own. By your very inaccurate logic, you're basically saying that if a fetus can move and that indicates it is life, then so can the sun, so can islands, so can the continents of this planet, so can the planets in this solar system, so can celestial objects, so can black-holes, motor vehicles, and pretty much anything that can move naturally or artificially. I find it funny how you contradict yourself so many times. I admit I do the same, but at least I'm trying to avoid it. You say that is protected by law, but what about in other countries besides in North America. What about Europe? What about the Russian Federation? What about Asia? What about Africa? What about Latin-America? What about Australia? Wjat about Oceania? What about the small islands? And you say if the fetus is 4 to 40 weeks, so if I purposely murder a woman's child at week 3, day 7, 23rd hour, 59th minute, 59th second, and 1 nano second before it becomes 4 weeks, then I am pretty much scot-free even with evidence, witnesses, lawyers, and law right? You are never precise with the time, only accurate; it's better to be precise in these kinds of situations. I have already refuted the third claim, and if you don't believe me after checking, you must be smoking crack. And I have already refuted the fifth claim as well. To be honest, I already refuted those in my previous arguments, but you must be stupid or something to overlook these small tiny details. Since you were kind enough to list my errors, then I will thank you by listing yours and hopefully you can win this debate even though I have already won at this point: 1. You make many contradiction statements 2. You do circular reasoning yourself 3. You lack understanding of metaphorical statements 4. You miss tiny details that makes you fell superior Now I hope to see my opponent's responses, but the voters will most likely choose you because I have emotionally offended them. I have technically won this debate no matter what arguments you bring up as you yourself agree with my main arguments, but the voting will say otherwise. I know I will lose for sure because of those voters, but whatever...

Shrek_sDrecKid

I was never penalized for conduct because the website moderators know that arguments can get heated up to the point that people will start to take it personally. This is especially true with controversial topics; religion, morals, and ethics; and also politics. Besides, it's not like I am using profanity, offensive language, threats, discrimination, or other unaccepted behavior in a controversial debate like this one, so let us continue and move on. I know that you never said it and the dictionary said it. Gee, maybe I was being too metaphorical or something? Do I seriously have to stoop myself so low to writing in literal, concrete terms so that you can understand me? Come on, you can't be that stupid if you have a high knowledge of astrophysics and biology, right? (Or not, LOL) The reason why I am arguing and admitting that unorganic things like suns and rocks are alive is to prove to you that if you consider a fetus to have life, then so can those things. How about you stop stealing my arguments that I have never even used yet! Anyways, you claim that a fetus is alive, yet those aren't; are you that illogical? It's exactly like how Christians and Jews believe in demons and devils, but not ghosts? What? And no, I will not be explaining that metaphor for you. You can go figure it out on your own, Mr. I Know More Than You But Not Know Crap About Metaphors! I am saying what you just said as a contradiction that I can use against you! (Are you that off-topic?) Since you said an egg is not an organism and, thus, not a living thing, that clearly proves that a fetus is not a living thing, as it comes from an egg which isn't a living thing and is still inside the womb. Wait, so you do admit eggs are not living things... Okay, I pretty much won this debate because we both agree that an egg is not life so aborting a fetus is completely just and moral. But for the sake of my rebuttal, I will continue arguing even though I have virtually won when you made that confession. You keep mentioning about seconds, but when exactly does an egg become fertilized to become human-like? At the mili-second? At the split-second? At the tenth of a second? At the hundredth of a second? At the thousandth of a second? At the micro-second? At the nano-second? At the sub-nano second? You have to be extremely specific. Same with when a fetus exits the womb or 30 seconds before or still being hatched to the umbilical cord. When exactly? Stop making false assumptions about such things if you can't even tell time properly! There you go, you are now starting to agree with me more and more, despite me already winning after you made that egg confession earlier (though the voting will say otherwise sadly). You say I am circular reasoning but you contradicted yourself yet again! Do you have a habit of contradicting yourself or you doing this on purpose? You do circular reasoning to with the first paragraph of your argument. And no, I am not your mommy (pun intended) go figure it out on your own. By your very inaccurate logic, you're basically saying that if a fetus can move and that indicates it is life, then so can the sun, so can islands, so can the continents of this planet, so can the planets in this solar system, so can celestial objects, so can black-holes, motor vehicles, and pretty much anything that can move naturally or artificially. I find it funny how you contradict yourself so many times. I admit I do the same, but at least I'm trying to avoid it. You say that is protected by law, but what about in other countries besides in North America. What about Europe? What about the Russian Federation? What about Asia? What about Africa? What about Latin-America? What about Australia? Wjat about Oceania? What about the small islands? And you say if the fetus is 4 to 40 weeks, so if I purposely murder a woman's child at week 3, day 7, 23rd hour, 59th minute, 59th second, and 1 nano second before it becomes 4 weeks, then I am pretty much scot-free even with evidence, witnesses, lawyers, and law right? You are never precise with the time, only accurate; it's better to be precise in these kinds of situations. I have already refuted the third claim, and if you don't believe me after checking, you must be smoking crack. And I have already refuted the fifth claim as well. To be honest, I already refuted those in my previous arguments, but you must be stupid or something to overlook these small tiny details. Since you were kind enough to list my errors, then I will thank you by listing yours and hopefully you can win this debate even though I have already won at this point: 1. You make many contradiction statements 2. You do circular reasoning yourself 3. You lack understanding of metaphorical statements 4. You miss tiny details that makes you fell superior Now I hope to see my opponent's responses, but the voters will most likely choose you because I have emotionally offended them. I have technically won this debate no matter what arguments you bring up as you yourself agree with my main arguments, but the voting will say otherwise. I know I will lose for sure because of those voters, but whatever...

Health

Abortion-Is-Good-For-Society/1/

In this, the acceptance round, I do accept the challenge. I intend to challenge the Instigator's attempt to prove that "Abortion Is Morally Wrong" I acknowledge Instigator's terms and definitions. I acknowledge that the Instigator intends to argue semantics. I intend to do the same!

KevinLomaxESQ

In this, the acceptance round, I do accept the challenge. I intend to challenge the Instigator's attempt to prove that "Abortion Is Morally Wrong" I acknowledge Instigator's terms and definitions. I acknowledge that the Instigator intends to argue semantics. I intend to do the same!

Health

Abortion-Is-Morally-Wrong/4/

Greetings again Pro, and thanks in advance for a interesting debate. I intend to rebut Pros argument that "Abortion is Morally Wrong". I contend that Pro will be unable to prove that "Abortion is Morally Wrong". Interestingly, in the opening round Pro stated that, "The subject of morality is a tricky one. If not carefully understood, it can ruin a debate." Yet, in the first two rounds Pro chose not to provide or refer to any definition or context for determining "Morality" or what is "Moral". The closest Pro came to any related specificity, was when he stated his position that "intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect." Yet, he laid no supporting foundation for that assertion and did not specifically state that his opponent must accept it. Pro's round two argument is essentially the following: A. Abortion is killing B. Abortion is done with intent. C. Killing is morally incorrect D. Abortion is therefore morally incorrect To topple the logic in Pro's argument, I need only to invalidate point C. Without point C, Pro's logic can not make the "connection" between Abortion and Morality. By not, providing specificity, Pro's point C Translates to: "All" Killing is morally incorrect. I challenge that premise, with the following two responses 1. According to Pro's own on-line source. ..a Virus can be considered a living thing.( <URL>... ) If a Virus was killing an unborn child, can Pro prove it is "morally incorrect" to kill the Virus ? I think not. 2. Even if we limit the scope of the word "Killing" to that of Humans. Point C, still can not be validated. If a known relentless Killer was in the act of strangling an innocent child to death, can Pro prove it is "morally incorrect" for a police officer to save a life, by intentionally shooting to kill the killer ? Again, I say no. I say, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. It would seem Situations and context must also be considered. Pro, The instigator, said that in this debate he "will be arguing with semantics". Since "semantics" is not a person or entity, I translate that to mean he will be "using"semantics" to argue with me. Using semantics however, requires careful usage of words, and proper definitions. Unfortunately, Pro has not gotten off to a good start. His choice of words and lack of specificity/definition may have severely undermined his argument.

KevinLomaxESQ

Greetings again Pro, and thanks in advance for a interesting debate. I intend to rebut Pros argument that "Abortion is Morally Wrong". I contend that Pro will be unable to prove that "Abortion is Morally Wrong". Interestingly, in the opening round Pro stated that, "The subject of morality is a tricky one. If not carefully understood, it can ruin a debate." Yet, in the first two rounds Pro chose not to provide or refer to any definition or context for determining "Morality" or what is "Moral". The closest Pro came to any related specificity, was when he stated his position that "intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect." Yet, he laid no supporting foundation for that assertion and did not specifically state that his opponent must accept it. Pro's round two argument is essentially the following: A. Abortion is killing B. Abortion is done with intent. C. Killing is morally incorrect D. Abortion is therefore morally incorrect To topple the logic in Pro's argument, I need only to invalidate point C. Without point C, Pro's logic can not make the "connection" between Abortion and Morality. By not, providing specificity, Pro's point C Translates to: "All" Killing is morally incorrect. I challenge that premise, with the following two responses 1. According to Pro's own on-line source. ..a Virus can be considered a living thing.( http://www.biology-online.org... ) If a Virus was killing an unborn child, can Pro prove it is "morally incorrect" to kill the Virus ? I think not. 2. Even if we limit the scope of the word "Killing" to that of Humans. Point C, still can not be validated. If a known relentless Killer was in the act of strangling an innocent child to death, can Pro prove it is "morally incorrect" for a police officer to save a life, by intentionally shooting to kill the killer ? Again, I say no. I say, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. It would seem Situations and context must also be considered. Pro, The instigator, said that in this debate he "will be arguing with semantics". Since "semantics" is not a person or entity, I translate that to mean he will be "using"semantics" to argue with me. Using semantics however, requires careful usage of words, and proper definitions. Unfortunately, Pro has not gotten off to a good start. His choice of words and lack of specificity/definition may have severely undermined his argument.

Health

Abortion-Is-Morally-Wrong/4/

Pro has indeed made this a humorous debate! It was amusing to see how he'd attempt to remedy a critical error he made, when establishing Terms of the debate in Round #1. The exact quote from Pro, in the Term #4 section of the 1st round said: "4. The subject of morality is a tricky one. If not carefully understood, it can ruin a debate. So I will be taking the fundamental that applies instead of allowing the whole subject matter into this debate. This fundamental will be as follows: One human intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect." However, in opening of Round #3. Pro attempted to express the details of Term #4 as... "we will be solely using a fundamental of morality." Perhaps that's what Pro meant to say, but that is NOT in fact what Pro said. Notice that in Round #1 Term #4, Pro chose to use the word I. That was a critical error in this consensual semantic debate. "I" is singular, not plural. Pro did not say "We" will be, and therefore Con, can't be... bound to the supposed "fundamental" in Term #4 from Round 1 Further, Pro said he would be "taking the fundamental" not "using" the fundamental, nor "sharing" the fundamental. "Taking" is an odd choice of words in this sentence. It's unidirectional and does not imply any collective use. Pro recognized and implicitly acknowledged his errors, by cleaning it up and replacing it with the words "we" and "solely using", in Round #3" Pro's error so badly damaged his intended strategy that in Round #3 he seems to have abandoned his bold intentions to "argue with semantics". Pro now makes the bizarre claim that he is actually arguing "with"...a broken link to ebay. (Very Odd) Pro's error so badly damaged his intended strategy that in Round #3 he also refused to defend his own logic, by referring to his own argument points as just "Headings". "Headings"...Really ??? Let us remember that Pro and I are debating whether "Abortion Is Morally Wrong". As worded, that means each and every Abortion, regardless of circumstance, situation or context., is morally wrong. To support his argument. Pro wants to be able say that that "Killing" is morally wrong, However, that premise, even if true is insufficient. To avoid consideration of circumstance, situation on context, Pro would need to prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. I say again, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. Nor can Pro prove, for example, that it is "morally incorrect" for a police officer to save a life, by intentionally shooting to kill the killer. It would seem that situations and context must also be considered. Critical errors have left Pro without the necessary logical building blocks required to make his initial argument. Pro must therefore prove/justify his premise, find another strategy or abandon the argument altogether.

KevinLomaxESQ

Pro has indeed made this a humorous debate! It was amusing to see how he'd attempt to remedy a critical error he made, when establishing Terms of the debate in Round #1. The exact quote from Pro, in the Term #4 section of the 1st round said: "4. The subject of morality is a tricky one. If not carefully understood, it can ruin a debate. So I will be taking the fundamental that applies instead of allowing the whole subject matter into this debate. This fundamental will be as follows: One human intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect." However, in opening of Round #3. Pro attempted to express the details of Term #4 as... "we will be solely using a fundamental of morality." Perhaps that's what Pro meant to say, but that is NOT in fact what Pro said. Notice that in Round #1 Term #4, Pro chose to use the word I. That was a critical error in this consensual semantic debate. "I" is singular, not plural. Pro did not say "We" will be, and therefore Con, can't be... bound to the supposed "fundamental" in Term #4 from Round 1 Further, Pro said he would be "taking the fundamental" not "using" the fundamental, nor "sharing" the fundamental. "Taking" is an odd choice of words in this sentence. It's unidirectional and does not imply any collective use. Pro recognized and implicitly acknowledged his errors, by cleaning it up and replacing it with the words "we" and "solely using", in Round #3" Pro's error so badly damaged his intended strategy that in Round #3 he seems to have abandoned his bold intentions to "argue with semantics". Pro now makes the bizarre claim that he is actually arguing "with"...a broken link to ebay. (Very Odd) Pro's error so badly damaged his intended strategy that in Round #3 he also refused to defend his own logic, by referring to his own argument points as just "Headings". "Headings"...Really ??? Let us remember that Pro and I are debating whether "Abortion Is Morally Wrong". As worded, that means each and every Abortion, regardless of circumstance, situation or context., is morally wrong. To support his argument. Pro wants to be able say that that "Killing" is morally wrong, However, that premise, even if true is insufficient. To avoid consideration of circumstance, situation on context, Pro would need to prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. I say again, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. Nor can Pro prove, for example, that it is "morally incorrect" for a police officer to save a life, by intentionally shooting to kill the killer. It would seem that situations and context must also be considered. Critical errors have left Pro without the necessary logical building blocks required to make his initial argument. Pro must therefore prove/justify his premise, find another strategy or abandon the argument altogether.

Health

Abortion-Is-Morally-Wrong/4/

I must say, I am disappointed to see that Pro, the instigator, has forfeited round four. I am not completely surprised however. As I said in the closing of round 3, critical errors have left Pro without the necessary logical building blocks required to make his initial argument. Pro would need to prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. I say again, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. Pro must therefore prove/justify his premise, find another strategy or abandon the argument altogether. It seems that Pro, the instigator, has chosen to abandon the argument altogether.

KevinLomaxESQ

I must say, I am disappointed to see that Pro, the instigator, has forfeited round four. I am not completely surprised however. As I said in the closing of round 3, critical errors have left Pro without the necessary logical building blocks required to make his initial argument. Pro would need to prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. I say again, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. Pro must therefore prove/justify his premise, find another strategy or abandon the argument altogether. It seems that Pro, the instigator, has chosen to abandon the argument altogether.

Health

Abortion-Is-Morally-Wrong/4/