Datasets:

notaphoenix
/

debateorg_w_effect_for_liberal_subset

Modalities:

Tabular

Text

Formats:

Size:

Libraries:

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Dataset Viewer

Auto-converted to Parquet

Full Screen Viewer

Full Screen

Split (3)

validation · 3.36k rows

text stringlengths 2 21.4k	author stringlengths 3 25	original_text stringlengths 7 21.8k	category stringclasses 20 values	round int64 0 8	debate_id stringlengths 6 103	idx int64 176 55.3k
First round is acceptance. By reality telivision I mean John and Kate plus 8 and other things like that. I'm not referring to the news or documentaries, so please don't attempt to troll or snipe the resolution in anyway. By doing so you agree to a full 7 point loss.	Wylted	First round is acceptance. By reality telivision I mean John and Kate plus 8 and other things like that. I'm not referring to the news or documentaries, so please don't attempt to troll or snipe the resolution in anyway. By doing so you agree to a full 7 point loss.	Entertainment	0	100-debate-Challenge-3-This-House-believes-reality-television-does-more-harm-than-good/2/	176
Bad Rolemodels- Reality television Makes people celebrities for "Just being themselves". There is no real reason why Paris Hylton and Kim Kardashian are stars, and the message we send to young people is that if you "Just be yourself" you can be a star. This is a horrible message adolescents and kids are getting the message that hard work and learning a valuable skill isn't important. This can have devastating financial repercussionns later on in life as well as set a person up for a life of poverty. Teaching people that hard work and learning aren't important isn't the only bad things that reality shows do. Young girls see these women on television and the comments made about them on the internet about there body and get this message that body image is extremely important. It's been shown in the American journal of health and medicine that when girls consume a lot of media wich makes such a big deal of body image they are more likely to develop an eating disorder. "A study recently published in the American Journal of Health and Education n showed that women who read health and fitness magazines were significantly more likely to have practiced unhealthy weight control methods than were moderate or infrequent readers, says Steven Thomsen, Ph.D., the study's author and an associate communications professor at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Nearly 80 percent of frequent readers had induced vomiting, 73 percent had taken diet pills and 60 percent had used laxatives. And women who limited their daily caloric intake read health and fitness magazines more frequently than those who did not restrict their diets." <URL>... Reality television beside encouraging laziness and eating diorders also corrupts. The things people subject themselves to affects the way they think. A person watching Joe Millionaire where contestants compete with each other for ome construction worker posing as a millionaire promotes lying and beyond that it treats the contestants feelings as unimportant and completely diposable. These shows don't care if they ruin the contestants or the viewers lives. Conclusion- Reality shows hurt contestants and participants by treating their feelings as disposable, destroying their personal lives and turning them into villains. It also serves to encourage eating disorders, teen pregnancy and encourages tossing away good values like hard work and education. Even if you want to argue they do know harm (which I would strongly object to), the fact they are clogging up the airwaves where good educational programs could be instead creates harm in and of it's self.	Wylted	Bad Rolemodels- Reality television Makes people celebrities for "Just being themselves". There is no real reason why Paris Hylton and Kim Kardashian are stars, and the message we send to young people is that if you "Just be yourself" you can be a star. This is a horrible message adolescents and kids are getting the message that hard work and learning a valuable skill isn't important. This can have devastating financial repercussionns later on in life as well as set a person up for a life of poverty. Teaching people that hard work and learning aren't important isn't the only bad things that reality shows do. Young girls see these women on television and the comments made about them on the internet about there body and get this message that body image is extremely important. It's been shown in the American journal of health and medicine that when girls consume a lot of media wich makes such a big deal of body image they are more likely to develop an eating disorder. "A study recently published in the American Journal of Health and Education n showed that women who read health and fitness magazines were significantly more likely to have practiced unhealthy weight control methods than were moderate or infrequent readers, says Steven Thomsen, Ph.D., the study's author and an associate communications professor at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Nearly 80 percent of frequent readers had induced vomiting, 73 percent had taken diet pills and 60 percent had used laxatives. And women who limited their daily caloric intake read health and fitness magazines more frequently than those who did not restrict their diets." http://www.psychologytoday.com... Reality television beside encouraging laziness and eating diorders also corrupts. The things people subject themselves to affects the way they think. A person watching Joe Millionaire where contestants compete with each other for ome construction worker posing as a millionaire promotes lying and beyond that it treats the contestants feelings as unimportant and completely diposable. These shows don't care if they ruin the contestants or the viewers lives. Conclusion- Reality shows hurt contestants and participants by treating their feelings as disposable, destroying their personal lives and turning them into villains. It also serves to encourage eating disorders, teen pregnancy and encourages tossing away good values like hard work and education. Even if you want to argue they do know harm (which I would strongly object to), the fact they are clogging up the airwaves where good educational programs could be instead creates harm in and of it's self.	Entertainment	1	100-debate-Challenge-3-This-House-believes-reality-television-does-more-harm-than-good/2/	177
Reality television is television that captures actual occurrences. It usually stars someone interesting or a already known celebrity. A reality television show could also consists of a documentary. Most reality shows usually have high ratings. Reality shows give people knowledge on how the stars life works. It's usually interesting things the Producers will pick for a reality show. Therefore, reality doesn't do harm.	jaquavianalexander	Reality television is television that captures actual occurrences. It usually stars someone interesting or a already known celebrity. A reality television show could also consists of a documentary. Most reality shows usually have high ratings. Reality shows give people knowledge on how the stars life works. It's usually interesting things the Producers will pick for a reality show. Therefore, reality doesn't do harm.	Entertainment	0	100-debate-Challenge-3-This-House-believes-reality-television-does-more-harm-than-good/2/	178
Thanks for the challenge. My opponent makes a number of observations, and from these, he has built a plan for Reforming Campaign Finance. I will respond to the many assertions my opponent makes. 1. My opponent claims that in the current system, money is more important than votes, and that candidates become indebted to the money rather than to the people. First off, nothing is more important to a candidate than votes. This is because with or without money, it is votes which will determine whether a candidate wins or not. Money can be used for advertisements and such, but they are only a means to an end - votes. Votes are what candidates really care about. That isn't to say that candidates do not feel indebted to source of their money. This is actually a good thing. The money in a society is wherever the successful people are. Therefore, only successful people can donate these large amounts of money. When we consider that a successful person, on average, is more intelligent, more informed, etc. than an unsuccessful person, it seems much better to allow policy to come from these successful people than from Joe six pack, who is in all likelihood ill-informed and of average intelligence. 2. My opponent claims that only the wealthy can run for office effectively, therefore stopping the most qualified from running. However, the most qualified candidates are smart and effective people, so it is almost a certainty that they will be in the upper class rather than the middle or lower classes, especially considering that a person cannot run [for president at least] until he or she is 35 years old. The need for wealth to run for president is also a good thing. It is a screening process. Especially when we consider my opponent's proposition - that all candidates be given a certain amount of money by the state, having a smaller group of possible candidates is good. Even without my opponent's plan for socialized campaigns, a screening process is good. People are known to vote for a candidate they can identify with - a middle class guy would probably be able to get a good portion of the vote JUST for being middle class. If a person is not wealthy by the age they run for president, they are obviously not the driven, smart, effective leader we want for our country. If a person can't even amass his or her own personal wealth, how will he or she implement policies that will ensure America is wealthy as a nation? 3. My opponent claims that a candidate needs an 'army' of lawyers to accept campaign money in the current system. A candidate would probably only need one or two, who would simply check if the sources of the money are legal sources for campaign finance. An 'army' of lawyers is a clear exaggeration. Even so, if a candidate had a message that many people liked - if a candidate was truly popular and could not afford lawyers, you can be sure that some lawyers would do this work Pro Bono. 4. My opponent points out that the current system makes it almost impossible for third party candidates to compete. Indeed, we are truly in a two party system. And it's for the best that we are. Third party candidates siphon votes from other candidates. As an extreme example, consider a situation where 5 candidates all stand for very similar things [let's say they're all on the right economically], and only one candidate is on the left economically. Even if the majority of people want economics policy on the right, their votes are split between 5 candidates. The left-side candidate would almost certainly win, simply because no one was there to siphon off potential voters from him. What's the solution? Instead of picking 5 candidates, the right should throw its support behind only one candidate. What is the result? A two party system. It is unfair to have a straight vote-off between any more than two people, because of this very thing. There must be some selection process where only two candidates remain [like primaries]. Perhaps we could reform primaries to allow all parties to participate in one primary, which will choose only the two most popular candidates from among all parties. While I am against campaign _finance_ reform, this reform has nothing to do with finance. I am simply explaining how 3rd parties are not good, and so my opponent's finance reform, which places them on an even playing field, is bad. 5. My opponent asserts that the rules in campaign finance 'seem random.' Whether they seem random or not, all the regulations were put in place for a reason. Policies are not created randomly. All this point proves is that my opponent doesn't understand these reasons. This isn't an argument for his side, since he has not given us any examples of 'seemingly random' regulations, he has simply asserted that he feels that they are random. 6. My opponent asserts that freedom of speech is violated by dictating what is acceptable and what is not. This is true in all corners of society. One may not run through the streets in the nude, for instance, or make unreasonable amounts of noise. Freedom of speech is not absolute, and pointing out that these regulations limit certain potential campaign financers freedom to their 'speech' is no more significant than pointing out that laws against public indecency limit freedom of speech. While it is a fact, it is not an argument. Just because something isn't 100% freedom-based does not mean it is wrong. 7. My opponent claims something here. I think he is attempting to say that these rules and regulations end up being too much of a problem for people to deal with. Unfortunately, this is observably not true. While there certainly is a burden put onto people, as there is with any law, it does not seem to be burying either of the two primary candidates in the presidential race. If it is the third party candidates my opponent is referring to as being buried by all these regulations, then I refer you to my argument on point #4. 8. My opponent makes the following claim: "The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise and so if one candidate opts in and another opts out, the candidate as part of the system is doomed to be outspent." I don't see how this is true, since the person who opts in has his own fundraising limit. As my opponent says "The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise." The person who opts in and the person who opts out are two different people, so they have two different fundraising limits by my opponent's own words. Since my opponent gave no external source for his claim, and his very own explanation of the situation indicates no problem, we must see it as no problem. Indeed, my opponent's case is made of unbacked assertions, and I have shown all of them to be either untrue, not significant, or actually helpful to the status quo of campaign finance.	beem0r	Thanks for the challenge. My opponent makes a number of observations, and from these, he has built a plan for Reforming Campaign Finance. I will respond to the many assertions my opponent makes. 1. My opponent claims that in the current system, money is more important than votes, and that candidates become indebted to the money rather than to the people. First off, nothing is more important to a candidate than votes. This is because with or without money, it is votes which will determine whether a candidate wins or not. Money can be used for advertisements and such, but they are only a means to an end - votes. Votes are what candidates really care about. That isn't to say that candidates do not feel indebted to source of their money. This is actually a good thing. The money in a society is wherever the successful people are. Therefore, only successful people can donate these large amounts of money. When we consider that a successful person, on average, is more intelligent, more informed, etc. than an unsuccessful person, it seems much better to allow policy to come from these successful people than from Joe six pack, who is in all likelihood ill-informed and of average intelligence. 2. My opponent claims that only the wealthy can run for office effectively, therefore stopping the most qualified from running. However, the most qualified candidates are smart and effective people, so it is almost a certainty that they will be in the upper class rather than the middle or lower classes, especially considering that a person cannot run [for president at least] until he or she is 35 years old. The need for wealth to run for president is also a good thing. It is a screening process. Especially when we consider my opponent's proposition - that all candidates be given a certain amount of money by the state, having a smaller group of possible candidates is good. Even without my opponent's plan for socialized campaigns, a screening process is good. People are known to vote for a candidate they can identify with - a middle class guy would probably be able to get a good portion of the vote JUST for being middle class. If a person is not wealthy by the age they run for president, they are obviously not the driven, smart, effective leader we want for our country. If a person can't even amass his or her own personal wealth, how will he or she implement policies that will ensure America is wealthy as a nation? 3. My opponent claims that a candidate needs an 'army' of lawyers to accept campaign money in the current system. A candidate would probably only need one or two, who would simply check if the sources of the money are legal sources for campaign finance. An 'army' of lawyers is a clear exaggeration. Even so, if a candidate had a message that many people liked - if a candidate was truly popular and could not afford lawyers, you can be sure that some lawyers would do this work Pro Bono. 4. My opponent points out that the current system makes it almost impossible for third party candidates to compete. Indeed, we are truly in a two party system. And it's for the best that we are. Third party candidates siphon votes from other candidates. As an extreme example, consider a situation where 5 candidates all stand for very similar things [let's say they're all on the right economically], and only one candidate is on the left economically. Even if the majority of people want economics policy on the right, their votes are split between 5 candidates. The left-side candidate would almost certainly win, simply because no one was there to siphon off potential voters from him. What's the solution? Instead of picking 5 candidates, the right should throw its support behind only one candidate. What is the result? A two party system. It is unfair to have a straight vote-off between any more than two people, because of this very thing. There must be some selection process where only two candidates remain [like primaries]. Perhaps we could reform primaries to allow all parties to participate in one primary, which will choose only the two most popular candidates from among all parties. While I am against campaign _finance_ reform, this reform has nothing to do with finance. I am simply explaining how 3rd parties are not good, and so my opponent's finance reform, which places them on an even playing field, is bad. 5. My opponent asserts that the rules in campaign finance 'seem random.' Whether they seem random or not, all the regulations were put in place for a reason. Policies are not created randomly. All this point proves is that my opponent doesn't understand these reasons. This isn't an argument for his side, since he has not given us any examples of 'seemingly random' regulations, he has simply asserted that he feels that they are random. 6. My opponent asserts that freedom of speech is violated by dictating what is acceptable and what is not. This is true in all corners of society. One may not run through the streets in the nude, for instance, or make unreasonable amounts of noise. Freedom of speech is not absolute, and pointing out that these regulations limit certain potential campaign financers freedom to their 'speech' is no more significant than pointing out that laws against public indecency limit freedom of speech. While it is a fact, it is not an argument. Just because something isn't 100% freedom-based does not mean it is wrong. 7. My opponent claims something here. I think he is attempting to say that these rules and regulations end up being too much of a problem for people to deal with. Unfortunately, this is observably not true. While there certainly is a burden put onto people, as there is with any law, it does not seem to be burying either of the two primary candidates in the presidential race. If it is the third party candidates my opponent is referring to as being buried by all these regulations, then I refer you to my argument on point #4. 8. My opponent makes the following claim: "The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise and so if one candidate opts in and another opts out, the candidate as part of the system is doomed to be outspent." I don't see how this is true, since the person who opts in has his own fundraising limit. As my opponent says "The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise." The person who opts in and the person who opts out are two different people, so they have two different fundraising limits by my opponent's own words. Since my opponent gave no external source for his claim, and his very own explanation of the situation indicates no problem, we must see it as no problem. Indeed, my opponent's case is made of unbacked assertions, and I have shown all of them to be either untrue, not significant, or actually helpful to the status quo of campaign finance.	Politics	0	4b.-Campaign-Finance-Reform/1/	269
your history channel wont save you , 911 was an inside job	truther1111	your history channel wont save you , 911 was an inside job	Society	0	911-inside-job/3/	423
I was hoping you would go first but ok I wont need luck as the simple fact is that the truth is 911 was an inside job. If anyone loses an argument pro 911 its because they havent done enough research and anyone who doesnt believe 911 was an inside sob simply hasnt looked at the evidence or chosen to ignore it. Either you ignore evidence that doesnt go along with your world view or you accept it and rethink your views. If I look at the evidence for the theory that muslim hijackers hijacked planes flew them in etc No footage of hijackers . No hard evidence linking hijackers to 911 <URL>... No evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon No hard evidence Osama Bin Laden was behind 911 Some of the 911 hijackers still alive etc There is nothing really than a government made story no real evidence . Now for the theory that 911 was an inside job there is real hard evidence . WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives Rapid onset of collapse Sounds of explosions at ground floor " a second before the building's destruction Symmetrical "structural failure" " through the path of greatest resistance " at free-fall acceleration Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered: FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration Improbable symmetry of debris distribution Extremely rapid onset of destruction Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found Isolated explosive ejections 20"40 stories below demolition front Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples Evidence of explosives found in dust samples And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire: Slow onset with large visible deformations Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed	truther1111	I was hoping you would go first but ok I wont need luck as the simple fact is that the truth is 911 was an inside job. If anyone loses an argument pro 911 its because they havent done enough research and anyone who doesnt believe 911 was an inside sob simply hasnt looked at the evidence or chosen to ignore it. Either you ignore evidence that doesnt go along with your world view or you accept it and rethink your views. If I look at the evidence for the theory that muslim hijackers hijacked planes flew them in etc No footage of hijackers . No hard evidence linking hijackers to 911 http://www.projectcensored.org... No evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon No hard evidence Osama Bin Laden was behind 911 Some of the 911 hijackers still alive etc There is nothing really than a government made story no real evidence . Now for the theory that 911 was an inside job there is real hard evidence . WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives Rapid onset of collapse Sounds of explosions at ground floor " a second before the building's destruction Symmetrical "structural failure" " through the path of greatest resistance " at free-fall acceleration Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered: FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration Improbable symmetry of debris distribution Extremely rapid onset of destruction Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found Isolated explosive ejections 20"40 stories below demolition front Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples Evidence of explosives found in dust samples And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire: Slow onset with large visible deformations Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed	Society	1	911-inside-job/3/	424
Obviously con did not read what i posted before proof being 'Evidence of thermite' <URL>... 'Evidence of explosives' <URL>... Not sure how much more proof you need. Ill supply the source this time because i naively though you would've already know about this information 1. ' No hard evidence' you have provided nothing but hearsay 2. Where is the rest of the plane , where are the engines 3. Do you speak arabic no becaue he didnt claim responsibility that was mistranslated. 4. No .....that is not actually based on that but actually phone calls to the father of one of the hijackers from the 'dead terrorist' confirming he is alive and well for example <URL>... 5.Exactly no one is denying that it was heavily damaged although not nearly as damaged as the rest of the buildings like building 6 which did not collapse at free fall acceleration through the path of resistance. If the building fell due to the damaged corner then it would fall over not straight down, this is why NIST had to claim the building fell due to one failure of a column without any hard evidence. The website you provided me written by unqualified nerds who arent even engineers or physicists doesnt explain how the building collapsed at free fall acceleration which can only happen with the use of explosives nor does it explain why there were several tonnes of molten steel below wtc7 ! nor does it explain why evidence of explosives were found... Meanwhile thousands of highly qualified architects and engineers have wrote peer reviewed scientific articles debunking websites such as 911debunking.com ,popular mechanics,history channel and most importantly NIST . Why cant the debunkers address these papers or contest them? because they cant . Popular mechanics debunked. <URL>... Nist Debunked. <URL>... 5. Molten steel, Evidence of explosives, Evidence of Thermite. 6. The jet fuel was burnt in the initial explosion when the plane hit the building nor does the jet fuel explain how it could cause temperatures observed hotter than the surface of the sun.	truther1111	Obviously con did not read what i posted before proof being 'Evidence of thermite' http://911research.wtc7.net... 'Evidence of explosives' http://www.benthamscience.com... Not sure how much more proof you need. Ill supply the source this time because i naively though you would've already know about this information 1. ' No hard evidence' you have provided nothing but hearsay 2. Where is the rest of the plane , where are the engines 3. Do you speak arabic no becaue he didnt claim responsibility that was mistranslated. 4. No .....that is not actually based on that but actually phone calls to the father of one of the hijackers from the 'dead terrorist' confirming he is alive and well for example http://911research.wtc7.net... 5.Exactly no one is denying that it was heavily damaged although not nearly as damaged as the rest of the buildings like building 6 which did not collapse at free fall acceleration through the path of resistance. If the building fell due to the damaged corner then it would fall over not straight down, this is why NIST had to claim the building fell due to one failure of a column without any hard evidence. The website you provided me written by unqualified nerds who arent even engineers or physicists doesnt explain how the building collapsed at free fall acceleration which can only happen with the use of explosives nor does it explain why there were several tonnes of molten steel below wtc7 ! nor does it explain why evidence of explosives were found... Meanwhile thousands of highly qualified architects and engineers have wrote peer reviewed scientific articles debunking websites such as 911debunking.com ,popular mechanics,history channel and most importantly NIST . Why cant the debunkers address these papers or contest them? because they cant . Popular mechanics debunked. http://www.ae911truth.org... Nist Debunked. http://www.ae911truth.org... 5. Molten steel, Evidence of explosives, Evidence of Thermite. 6. The jet fuel was burnt in the initial explosion when the plane hit the building nor does the jet fuel explain how it could cause temperatures observed hotter than the surface of the sun.	Society	2	911-inside-job/3/	425
Once again Con has totally ignored my source and has pulled out debunking911.com which claims the only evidence I have to prove thermite existed is a photo , one which I didn't even claim as evidence for the thermite theory. Whether Con thinks its possible or impossible to plant thermite in the buildings is irrelevant as the scientific evidence proves its there, how it got there is another question. The proof of thermite is Iron rich microspheres with chemical signature of thermite found in wtc dust. <URL>... Steel beams found by fema corroded by thermite. <URL>... High tech nanothermite found in all WTC dust samples. <URL>... 2. Im an idiot for asking why steel engines vaporised into thin air ? 3. Osama denies being involved in 911 <URL>... " I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." 4. <URL>... 5. The point was to show that building damage doesnt prove a building will collapse at freefall acceleration 6. Wrong ever heard of the Conservation of Momentum .... For the building to collapse at free fall speed indicates there was no resistance ( 0 N ) .... only which could be allowed if all columns and support beams were removed during the 'collapse' heres an example disproving your theory. 7. Why did i see a great big fireball and even if there was jet fuel it wouldn't be able to produce the temperatures high enough to melt steel. 8. RJ lee report found vaporised lead and molten molybdenum which require temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun . <URL>... Once again con has resorted to bullying tactics to calling me retarded and an idiot showing he has no argument left.	truther1111	Once again Con has totally ignored my source and has pulled out debunking911.com which claims the only evidence I have to prove thermite existed is a photo , one which I didn't even claim as evidence for the thermite theory. Whether Con thinks its possible or impossible to plant thermite in the buildings is irrelevant as the scientific evidence proves its there, how it got there is another question. The proof of thermite is Iron rich microspheres with chemical signature of thermite found in wtc dust. http://www.journalof911studies.com... Steel beams found by fema corroded by thermite. http://911research.wtc7.net... High tech nanothermite found in all WTC dust samples. http://www.benthamscience.com... 2. Im an idiot for asking why steel engines vaporised into thin air ? 3. Osama denies being involved in 911 http://911blogger.com... " I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." 4. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 5. The point was to show that building damage doesnt prove a building will collapse at freefall acceleration 6. Wrong ever heard of the Conservation of Momentum .... For the building to collapse at free fall speed indicates there was no resistance ( 0 N ) .... only which could be allowed if all columns and support beams were removed during the 'collapse' heres an example disproving your theory. 7. Why did i see a great big fireball and even if there was jet fuel it wouldn't be able to produce the temperatures high enough to melt steel. 8. RJ lee report found vaporised lead and molten molybdenum which require temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun . http://911research.wtc7.net... Once again con has resorted to bullying tactics to calling me retarded and an idiot showing he has no argument left.	Society	3	911-inside-job/3/	426
I dont know what gives you the right to slander Dr Steven Jones like this, what are your credentials ?? The hypothesis for thermite being used at the wtc was made by Dr Steven Jones after finding Iron rich microspheres in samples of the WTC dust. These spheres had the chemical signature of thermate/thermite chemical reaction which indicate a thermitic reaction took place. Im not sure how you can criticise this science ?? The wording he used saying 'could have' etc is typical of a Scientific Hypothesis, the next step is to prove the hypothesis by finding unexploded thermitic material which could account for the exploded remnants..... The high temperatures that were noted to cause these chemical reactions like I already said are far too high for a jet fuel /office furniture fire. The temperatures are expected from a thermitic reaction. The source of the Steel beams corroded by thermite.. is FEMA , FEMA showed evidence of sulphidization of steel and melting of steel beams although they did not do any further tests or investigations into 911. It took researcher Steven Jones to put the pieces of the puzzle together and propose that thermite was the cause of the steel beams melting a mystery totally ignored by NIST!!!. In fact NIST claims there is no evidence of steel melting on 911 which is contradicted by FEMAs report unless you think they are conspiracy hacks too. 'high tech nanothermite' There are other scientists who along with Steven Jones wrote that paper ... You havent proven that steven jones is a hack nor have you disproven any of the Science he has proposed nor has any other scientist . The paper was Peer reviewed by Scientists from the University of Copenhagen. The paper has not been contested in the academic community by any other scientists to this date in a peer reviewed paper . Titanium engines dont break into a billion pieces when they hit the ground. Source? Like I said the white house deliberately mistranslated osamas confession speech nor would it be hard evidence that he did 911 anyway. One could easily argue that he was involved with the conspiracy in the first place considering that both the bush family and bin laden family were friends :O <URL>... 5. Doesnt matter the height or shape of buildings or matter the law of conservation of momentum is the same .Free fall acceleration requires no resistance! nada nothing do you understand... Free fall speed and acceleration are different things by the way .If i were to drop a brick of gold off the top of building 7 we would collapse at the same speed because the rest of building 7 produced the same resistance to the collapse as air would to the gold meaning virtually nothing.. 7. So why didnt the rest of the jet fuel go boom if it was an explosions , explosive materials go boom in explosions. BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF MOLTEN STEEL THEREFORE THE TEMPERATURES WERE HIGH ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL!! WHERE DOES THE TEMPERATURE COME FROM TO MELT THE STEEL? whether or not the buildings could have collapsed at lower temperatures like NIST claims is Irrelevant as there is evidence of high temperatures.NIST chooses to ignore all evidence of high temperatures at 911 therefore they claim that low temperatures could have been responsible for the steel weakening . Even though Underwriter laboratories tested the steel for higher temperatures than NIST claims and guess what the STEEL didnt collapse or weaken. <URL>... 8. No RJ lee job was not to explain the temperatures found at 911 only to test chemicals found in the wtc dust. RJ lee found molten molybedenum which could only be caused with temperatures of 4000 c plus higher than the sun.. CON has provided no clear rebuttal to any of the science or scientific method of the scientists who have written peer reviewed articles proving that 911 was an inside job. All con has done is to slander the names of scientists involved in the study without any evidence for his claims A good documentary to watch on the background and studies of Dr Steven Jones can be found via the link below. Educate yourself!	truther1111	I dont know what gives you the right to slander Dr Steven Jones like this, what are your credentials ?? The hypothesis for thermite being used at the wtc was made by Dr Steven Jones after finding Iron rich microspheres in samples of the WTC dust. These spheres had the chemical signature of thermate/thermite chemical reaction which indicate a thermitic reaction took place. Im not sure how you can criticise this science ?? The wording he used saying 'could have' etc is typical of a Scientific Hypothesis, the next step is to prove the hypothesis by finding unexploded thermitic material which could account for the exploded remnants..... The high temperatures that were noted to cause these chemical reactions like I already said are far too high for a jet fuel /office furniture fire. The temperatures are expected from a thermitic reaction. The source of the Steel beams corroded by thermite.. is FEMA , FEMA showed evidence of sulphidization of steel and melting of steel beams although they did not do any further tests or investigations into 911. It took researcher Steven Jones to put the pieces of the puzzle together and propose that thermite was the cause of the steel beams melting a mystery totally ignored by NIST!!!. In fact NIST claims there is no evidence of steel melting on 911 which is contradicted by FEMAs report unless you think they are conspiracy hacks too. 'high tech nanothermite' There are other scientists who along with Steven Jones wrote that paper ... You havent proven that steven jones is a hack nor have you disproven any of the Science he has proposed nor has any other scientist . The paper was Peer reviewed by Scientists from the University of Copenhagen. The paper has not been contested in the academic community by any other scientists to this date in a peer reviewed paper . Titanium engines dont break into a billion pieces when they hit the ground. Source? Like I said the white house deliberately mistranslated osamas confession speech nor would it be hard evidence that he did 911 anyway. One could easily argue that he was involved with the conspiracy in the first place considering that both the bush family and bin laden family were friends :O http://www.fpp.co.uk... 5. Doesnt matter the height or shape of buildings or matter the law of conservation of momentum is the same .Free fall acceleration requires no resistance! nada nothing do you understand... Free fall speed and acceleration are different things by the way .If i were to drop a brick of gold off the top of building 7 we would collapse at the same speed because the rest of building 7 produced the same resistance to the collapse as air would to the gold meaning virtually nothing.. 7. So why didnt the rest of the jet fuel go boom if it was an explosions , explosive materials go boom in explosions. BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF MOLTEN STEEL THEREFORE THE TEMPERATURES WERE HIGH ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL!! WHERE DOES THE TEMPERATURE COME FROM TO MELT THE STEEL? whether or not the buildings could have collapsed at lower temperatures like NIST claims is Irrelevant as there is evidence of high temperatures.NIST chooses to ignore all evidence of high temperatures at 911 therefore they claim that low temperatures could have been responsible for the steel weakening . Even though Underwriter laboratories tested the steel for higher temperatures than NIST claims and guess what the STEEL didnt collapse or weaken. http://www.911review.com... 8. No RJ lee job was not to explain the temperatures found at 911 only to test chemicals found in the wtc dust. RJ lee found molten molybedenum which could only be caused with temperatures of 4000 c plus higher than the sun.. CON has provided no clear rebuttal to any of the science or scientific method of the scientists who have written peer reviewed articles proving that 911 was an inside job. All con has done is to slander the names of scientists involved in the study without any evidence for his claims A good documentary to watch on the background and studies of Dr Steven Jones can be found via the link below. Educate yourself!	Society	4	911-inside-job/3/	427
I'll accept the debate. Pro asserts that debunkers refuse to address three topics. I intend to establish that both of the primary agents devoted to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, NIST and Popular Mechanics, have addressed all 3 of the questions Pro puts forth. This will show that the topics have been addressed and so Pro's argument is invalid. I don't need to defend NIST or PM's findings or debate the minutia of chemical analysis vs. pictorial evidence. All I need to refute is to establish that debunkers have evaluated these 3 categories of evidence.	Oromagi	I'll accept the debate. Pro asserts that debunkers refuse to address three topics. I intend to establish that both of the primary agents devoted to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, NIST and Popular Mechanics, have addressed all 3 of the questions Pro puts forth. This will show that the topics have been addressed and so Pro's argument is invalid. I don't need to defend NIST or PM's findings or debate the minutia of chemical analysis vs. pictorial evidence. All I need to refute is to establish that debunkers have evaluated these 3 categories of evidence.	Society	0	911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/	440
Con contends that debunkers refuse to address some specific issues during debates about the possibility of controlled demolition before the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Melted Steel From NIST's Investigation Report in 2006: "NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1. Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed. NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface. NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)"who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards"found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers. Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing." [1] However unconvincing Pro may find it, there can be little argument that the NIST directly addressed concerns about molten steel here. Evidence of Thermite The only WTC Debris which exhibits evidence of thermite was proffered by Dr. Steven Jones. NIST rejected Jones' findings citing the lack of a clear "chain of control." That is, the sample had not been protected from potential contamination in a scientifically rigorous way. No examination of WTC material that did meet scientifically rigorous controls has ever demonstrated evidence of thermite. Hundreds of demolitions experts evaluated the debris pile in the weeks after the 9/11 and none found evidence consistent thermite, nano-thermite or other explosives. NIST responds: a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.[1] The Engergetic Materials Research and Testing Center was unable to cut a vertical steel column using thermite, even when the columns were significantly smaller than WTC columns.[2] Again, Pro need not be convinced by these finding. Con is not debating the relative value of pro-demoltion expert findings vs. debunkers. At issue in this debate is whether debunkers like the NIST are willing to address questions about molten steel and thermite. Pro has put forward that debunkers "never face" these arguments. As demonstrated here and with great repetition across the internet, debunkers do address these arguments with regularity. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...	Oromagi	Con contends that debunkers refuse to address some specific issues during debates about the possibility of controlled demolition before the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Melted Steel From NIST's Investigation Report in 2006: "NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1. Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed. NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface. NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)"who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards"found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers. Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing." [1] However unconvincing Pro may find it, there can be little argument that the NIST directly addressed concerns about molten steel here. Evidence of Thermite The only WTC Debris which exhibits evidence of thermite was proffered by Dr. Steven Jones. NIST rejected Jones' findings citing the lack of a clear "chain of control." That is, the sample had not been protected from potential contamination in a scientifically rigorous way. No examination of WTC material that did meet scientifically rigorous controls has ever demonstrated evidence of thermite. Hundreds of demolitions experts evaluated the debris pile in the weeks after the 9/11 and none found evidence consistent thermite, nano-thermite or other explosives. NIST responds: a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.[1] The Engergetic Materials Research and Testing Center was unable to cut a vertical steel column using thermite, even when the columns were significantly smaller than WTC columns.[2] Again, Pro need not be convinced by these finding. Con is not debating the relative value of pro-demoltion expert findings vs. debunkers. At issue in this debate is whether debunkers like the NIST are willing to address questions about molten steel and thermite. Pro has put forward that debunkers "never face" these arguments. As demonstrated here and with great repetition across the internet, debunkers do address these arguments with regularity. [1] http://www.webcitation.org... [2] http://channel.nationalgeographic.com...	Society	1	911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/	441
Thanks for the kind words, Pro. We are not, however, debating the science. Rather, we are evaluating whether debunkers respond to questions about controlled demolition. Con argued that well-known debunkers like NIST and PM have directly addressed concerns about molten steel and thermite and provided a few examples. Pro counters by stating "Well,, they have responded but their science is not valid." Therefore, Pro concedes the argument. Whether or not the science is valid, Con concedes that debunkers have responded to questions of controlled demolition , in contradiction to Con's original argument, debunkers never face these questions. Both Pro and Con are now in agreement that debunkers sometimes face questions of controlled demolition, which essentially ends the debate in favor of Con. ******* Although Pro argues that debunkers have not scientifically proved that the WTC was not imploded by controlled demolition, Pro neglects to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on the side of conspiracists, not debunkers. As Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I don't think even Pro would go so far as to find that these minor points of clarification amount to extraordinary evidence. NIST fails to show how aluminium can be yellow at the temperatures of 1000 C . As documented above, NIST makes no argument that aluminum itself is yellow. NIST advises that the yellow glow comes from the massive amount of organic material trapped in the flow. If Pro's undocumented independent experimenters are unable to produce a yellow glow by burning organic material, Con would recommend burning wood in a fireplace. This is a simple experiment that can be repeated at will and often produces a yellow glow. Molten Iron Spheres Here is a debunker reproducing RJ Lee's molten iron spheres with a bic lighter, proving that thermite is not necessary to explain the presence of molten iron spheres in WTC dust: FEMA melted steel Pro has failed to document this argument, but the same FEMA report also provides a lucid explanation without resorting to extraordinary causes: 1. The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. 2. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel. 3. The high concentration of sulfides in the grain boundaries of the corroded regions of the steel occurred due to copper diffusing fr om the HSLA steel combining with iron and sulfur, making both discrete and continuous sulfides in the steel grain boundaries [1] Pro has failed to elucidate why NIST should contradict FEMA's report. Many eyewitnesses Much of the world can be counted as an eyewitness to the WTC collapse, what of it? Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. [2] Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.... saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center. Astaneh-Asi is a prominent civil engineers whose conclusions are the same as NISTs and whose findings were considered part of the evidence that NIST and Congress used to conclude that there was no controlled demolition. Pro disagrees with Astaneh-Asi's findings so why Pro is citing him in evidence? Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dust Obviously, NIST is not at liberty to create studies is response to every minority theory. Nevertheless, many objective analyses of WTC dust contradict Jone's findings. "There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite." [3] NIST claimed they found no evidence of explosives NIST was trying to understand the cause/effect of WTC collapse after jet impacts: the most obvious and likely explanation for collapse. Although NIST had no cause to suspect demolition and therefore did not seek evidence to that effect, NIST does point out that the presence of hundreds of demolitions experts suggests that any strong evidence indicating an explosion would have been detected and reported by these experts. In the absence of any report of any sign of explosion by any demolitions expert, NIST did not waste time exploring explosions as one possible cause. NIST claims on how much thermite are needed are irrelevant as nanothermite was claimed to be used and not normal thermite. nanothermite was not in general production outside of the lab in Los Alamos at the time of the WTC collapse. The point is that any theoretical explosive would require a massive, coordinated effort that went entirely undetected by the many police agencies protecting one of the busiest buildings in the world, a highly unlikely scenario. Conclusion However unconvincing Pro may find the science, the central dynamic of the controlled demolition debate always revolves around the same fallacy- that debunkers have failed to prove that the WTC was NOT brought down by controlled demolition. This dynamic keeps the debate alive since it is impossible to prove a negative. At the end of the day, the burden of proof must always be handed back to the Truther side of the argument. Unless Pro and controlled demolition advocates can provide unimpeachable evidence that demonstrates controlled demolition, there is little reason to change history's verdict. PRO proposed that debunkers never face molten steel or thermite arguments. Pro conceded the argument in the second round by admitting that debunkers do address these arguments, but Pro finds the science unsatisfactory. Con has demonstrated that the debunkers' responses reflect mainstream and common sense opinion. Voters only have to agree that debunkers do sometimes contradict truther arguments regarding steel and thermite to refute PRO's proposition in order to vote for CON. Thanks in advance, voters, please vote for CON. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>...	Oromagi	Thanks for the kind words, Pro. We are not, however, debating the science. Rather, we are evaluating whether debunkers respond to questions about controlled demolition. Con argued that well-known debunkers like NIST and PM have directly addressed concerns about molten steel and thermite and provided a few examples. Pro counters by stating "Well,, they have responded but their science is not valid." Therefore, Pro concedes the argument. Whether or not the science is valid, Con concedes that debunkers have responded to questions of controlled demolition , in contradiction to Con's original argument, debunkers never face these questions. Both Pro and Con are now in agreement that debunkers sometimes face questions of controlled demolition, which essentially ends the debate in favor of Con. ******* Although Pro argues that debunkers have not scientifically proved that the WTC was not imploded by controlled demolition, Pro neglects to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on the side of conspiracists, not debunkers. As Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I don't think even Pro would go so far as to find that these minor points of clarification amount to extraordinary evidence. NIST fails to show how aluminium can be yellow at the temperatures of 1000 C . As documented above, NIST makes no argument that aluminum itself is yellow. NIST advises that the yellow glow comes from the massive amount of organic material trapped in the flow. If Pro's undocumented independent experimenters are unable to produce a yellow glow by burning organic material, Con would recommend burning wood in a fireplace. This is a simple experiment that can be repeated at will and often produces a yellow glow. Molten Iron Spheres Here is a debunker reproducing RJ Lee's molten iron spheres with a bic lighter, proving that thermite is not necessary to explain the presence of molten iron spheres in WTC dust: FEMA melted steel Pro has failed to document this argument, but the same FEMA report also provides a lucid explanation without resorting to extraordinary causes: 1. The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. 2. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel. 3. The high concentration of sulfides in the grain boundaries of the corroded regions of the steel occurred due to copper diffusing fr om the HSLA steel combining with iron and sulfur, making both discrete and continuous sulfides in the steel grain boundaries [1] Pro has failed to elucidate why NIST should contradict FEMA's report. Many eyewitnesses Much of the world can be counted as an eyewitness to the WTC collapse, what of it? Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. [2] Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.... saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center. Astaneh-Asi is a prominent civil engineers whose conclusions are the same as NISTs and whose findings were considered part of the evidence that NIST and Congress used to conclude that there was no controlled demolition. Pro disagrees with Astaneh-Asi's findings so why Pro is citing him in evidence? Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dust Obviously, NIST is not at liberty to create studies is response to every minority theory. Nevertheless, many objective analyses of WTC dust contradict Jone's findings. "There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite." [3] NIST claimed they found no evidence of explosives NIST was trying to understand the cause/effect of WTC collapse after jet impacts: the most obvious and likely explanation for collapse. Although NIST had no cause to suspect demolition and therefore did not seek evidence to that effect, NIST does point out that the presence of hundreds of demolitions experts suggests that any strong evidence indicating an explosion would have been detected and reported by these experts. In the absence of any report of any sign of explosion by any demolitions expert, NIST did not waste time exploring explosions as one possible cause. NIST claims on how much thermite are needed are irrelevant as nanothermite was claimed to be used and not normal thermite. nanothermite was not in general production outside of the lab in Los Alamos at the time of the WTC collapse. The point is that any theoretical explosive would require a massive, coordinated effort that went entirely undetected by the many police agencies protecting one of the busiest buildings in the world, a highly unlikely scenario. Conclusion However unconvincing Pro may find the science, the central dynamic of the controlled demolition debate always revolves around the same fallacy- that debunkers have failed to prove that the WTC was NOT brought down by controlled demolition. This dynamic keeps the debate alive since it is impossible to prove a negative. At the end of the day, the burden of proof must always be handed back to the Truther side of the argument. Unless Pro and controlled demolition advocates can provide unimpeachable evidence that demonstrates controlled demolition, there is little reason to change history's verdict. PRO proposed that debunkers never face molten steel or thermite arguments. Pro conceded the argument in the second round by admitting that debunkers do address these arguments, but Pro finds the science unsatisfactory. Con has demonstrated that the debunkers' responses reflect mainstream and common sense opinion. Voters only have to agree that debunkers do sometimes contradict truther arguments regarding steel and thermite to refute PRO's proposition in order to vote for CON. Thanks in advance, voters, please vote for CON. [1] http://www.fema.gov... [2] http://www.innocenceproject.org... [3] http://www.nmsr.org...	Society	2	911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/	442
three facts debunkers never face in debates evidence of molten steel evidence of high tech nanothermite evidence of thermite residue. All debunkers run away from these questions and only try and attack strawman arguments like how did the conspirators get away with it and why did they do it while ignoring this evidence	truther1111	three facts debunkers never face in debates evidence of molten steel evidence of high tech nanothermite evidence of thermite residue. All debunkers run away from these questions and only try and attack strawman arguments like how did the conspirators get away with it and why did they do it while ignoring this evidence	Society	0	911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/	443
I contend that the three major debunking sources NIST, popular mechanics and History Channel used cunning 'debunking' tactics of not fairly addressing the evidence proposed by Architect and engineers for 911 truth and other truther scientists. Rather they manipulated the argument without facing the evidence provided. Melted Steel PM next addresses physics professor Dr. Steven Jones" findings regarding molten metal in the debris at Ground Zero, and how this is evidence of melted steel and/or iron. PM"s counter to this claim is the assertion that the fires in the debris piles cooked the steel and other metals to the point where they melted. They quote Jon Magnusson as saying: When we"re talking about the debris pile and the insulating effect, the fires down there are completely different than the factors [affecting the steel] in the building. (pg. 41) However, the idea that the molten metal could have somehow formed in the debris afterwards is actually addressed in Jones" paper: Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.11 PM provides no technical analysis in their book to show that the fires could have become hot enough to melt steel in the debris piles. The temperatures that existed in the debris piles were vastly hotter than what any sort of natural fire could have produced. In fact, the temperatures were evidently high enough: " To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel [1,000 "C (1,832 "F)] " To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) [1,450 "C (2,652 "F)] " To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) [1,565 "C (2,849 "F)] " To vaporize lead [1,740 "C (3,164 "F)] " To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) [2,623 "C (4,753 "F)] " To vaporize aluminosilicates [2,760 "C (5,000 "F)]12 " To melt concrete [1,760 "C (3,200 "F] The conditions at Ground Zero simply could not have produced these types of temperatures.13 However, the extreme heat in the piles is indeed consistent with thermitic reactions.14 In PM"s next attempt to undermine the case for molten metal in the debris, they cite the analysis of Alan Pense, a professor of metallurgical engineering at Lehigh University. They quote him saying: The photographs shown to support melting steel are, to me, either unconvincing" or show materials that appear to be other than steel. One of these photos appears to me to be mostly of glass with unmelted steel rods in it. Glass melts at much lower temperatures than steel. (pg. 41) First off, it is not clear from this statement which photograph Alan Pense is referring to. However, he is likely referring to the popular "crane shot." Regardless of whether the obvious molten material shown above is molten steel, iron, or even glass, its color indicates temperatures exceeding 2,300"F. The jet fuel and office fires in the Twin Towers never reached such temperatures. Second, we have already seen that there were metals that were either melted or evaporated at temperatures well above the melting point of steel and iron. Third, even if the crane photo did show molten glass, it would still need to have been heated to extremely high temperatures, since glass does not begin to give off any visible light until it approaches temperatures of 2240 "F.15 PM next takes issue with Steven Jones" claim that the molten metal can be accounted for by incendiaries that could have been used to destroy the buildings. They counter this claim by quoting Controlled Demolition, Inc. president Mark Loizeaux as saying the explosives used in demolitions do not produce molten metal, noting that the heat from the explosives would not last long. While this may be true for conventional explosives, the use of thermate and nanothermite based devices could certainly account for the molten metal. Molten iron is the main byproduct of a thermite reaction, and the reaction can produce extreme heat that lasts longer than conventional explosives. Nanothermite is a very high tech variation of thermite, and could account for all of these phenomena.16 In fact, both the USGS and RJ Lee, an environmental consulting firm, found ubiquitous previously molten iron microspheres in all of the WTC dust samples. These also can only be the result of temperatures reaching 2,800"F. Up to 6% of some of the dust samples recovered in the nearby skyscraper, the Deutsche Bank building, are composed of these iron spheres " most of which are only the size of the diameter of a human hair. It is quite evident that PM has failed to explain away the extreme heat and molten metal that clearly existed at Ground Zero. They have also failed to show the temperatures inside the buildings were sufficient to cause collapse. The next section of PM"s book deals with another subject not previously dealt with in the 2006 edition: the nanothermite discovered in dust samples from the World Trade Center. PM"s stated objective of the updated book is to debunk "the most common speculation about free-fall times, "nanothermite," and other aspects of the Twin Towers" collapses"," (pg. xxii). However, PM"s section regarding nanothermite utterly fails to do this " not because it presents weak scientific arguments, but because it provides virtually no scientific arguments at all. Molten Metal Flowing from the South Tower PM"s only scientific criticism of claims made by individuals in the 9/11 Truth movement in regards to thermite applies to the spout of molten metal seen coming from the 81st floor of the South Tower, which some have cited as evidence of a thermite-based demolition for the Towers. In spite of photographs and numerous eyewitness accounts of molten steel/iron and concrete, PM chooses to address only this one example. PM"s explanation for this is simply that the material is molten aluminum, a claim echoed by other defenders of the official narrative. It is also a claim that has been thoroughly refuted. PM cites NIST as saying that the material may have been molten aluminum, but individuals such as Dr. Steven Jones have demonstrated " by experiment " that, in daylight conditions, molten aluminum appears silvery and does not glow brightly like the metal seen coming from the South Tower.[i] Some still may argue that the material was molten aluminum and that it was heated to high enough temperatures to get it to glow that brightly. Below is a chart showing temperature-dependent colors of metals. At about 980"C (1800"F), most metals begin to glow "light orange." PM asserts throughout the book that this is how hot the fires could have been in the Towers. However, we previously noted that NIST has no evidence that the fires did reach these temperatures in the buildings. However, even if we accept that the fires did reach those temperature levels, the material still could not have been aluminum because of how long it was heated. As explained by physicist Jerry Lobdill: The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower"s 82nd floor could have been aluminum" is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor [indicated that it] was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.[ii] Perhaps the most important reason why the material could not have been molten aluminum is that the material actually became white hot. Regardless of what kind of material was glowing, nobody has explained what would have heated it to over 2000"F to get it to glow that brightly. In addition, there is simply little chance the material could have been molten aluminum, based on the fact that the material glowed for as	truther1111	I contend that the three major debunking sources NIST, popular mechanics and History Channel used cunning 'debunking' tactics of not fairly addressing the evidence proposed by Architect and engineers for 911 truth and other truther scientists. Rather they manipulated the argument without facing the evidence provided. Melted Steel PM next addresses physics professor Dr. Steven Jones" findings regarding molten metal in the debris at Ground Zero, and how this is evidence of melted steel and/or iron. PM"s counter to this claim is the assertion that the fires in the debris piles cooked the steel and other metals to the point where they melted. They quote Jon Magnusson as saying: When we"re talking about the debris pile and the insulating effect, the fires down there are completely different than the factors [affecting the steel] in the building. (pg. 41) However, the idea that the molten metal could have somehow formed in the debris afterwards is actually addressed in Jones" paper: Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.11 PM provides no technical analysis in their book to show that the fires could have become hot enough to melt steel in the debris piles. The temperatures that existed in the debris piles were vastly hotter than what any sort of natural fire could have produced. In fact, the temperatures were evidently high enough: " To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel [1,000 "C (1,832 "F)] " To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) [1,450 "C (2,652 "F)] " To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) [1,565 "C (2,849 "F)] " To vaporize lead [1,740 "C (3,164 "F)] " To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) [2,623 "C (4,753 "F)] " To vaporize aluminosilicates [2,760 "C (5,000 "F)]12 " To melt concrete [1,760 "C (3,200 "F] The conditions at Ground Zero simply could not have produced these types of temperatures.13 However, the extreme heat in the piles is indeed consistent with thermitic reactions.14 In PM"s next attempt to undermine the case for molten metal in the debris, they cite the analysis of Alan Pense, a professor of metallurgical engineering at Lehigh University. They quote him saying: The photographs shown to support melting steel are, to me, either unconvincing" or show materials that appear to be other than steel. One of these photos appears to me to be mostly of glass with unmelted steel rods in it. Glass melts at much lower temperatures than steel. (pg. 41) First off, it is not clear from this statement which photograph Alan Pense is referring to. However, he is likely referring to the popular "crane shot." Regardless of whether the obvious molten material shown above is molten steel, iron, or even glass, its color indicates temperatures exceeding 2,300"F. The jet fuel and office fires in the Twin Towers never reached such temperatures. Second, we have already seen that there were metals that were either melted or evaporated at temperatures well above the melting point of steel and iron. Third, even if the crane photo did show molten glass, it would still need to have been heated to extremely high temperatures, since glass does not begin to give off any visible light until it approaches temperatures of 2240 "F.15 PM next takes issue with Steven Jones" claim that the molten metal can be accounted for by incendiaries that could have been used to destroy the buildings. They counter this claim by quoting Controlled Demolition, Inc. president Mark Loizeaux as saying the explosives used in demolitions do not produce molten metal, noting that the heat from the explosives would not last long. While this may be true for conventional explosives, the use of thermate and nanothermite based devices could certainly account for the molten metal. Molten iron is the main byproduct of a thermite reaction, and the reaction can produce extreme heat that lasts longer than conventional explosives. Nanothermite is a very high tech variation of thermite, and could account for all of these phenomena.16 In fact, both the USGS and RJ Lee, an environmental consulting firm, found ubiquitous previously molten iron microspheres in all of the WTC dust samples. These also can only be the result of temperatures reaching 2,800"F. Up to 6% of some of the dust samples recovered in the nearby skyscraper, the Deutsche Bank building, are composed of these iron spheres " most of which are only the size of the diameter of a human hair. It is quite evident that PM has failed to explain away the extreme heat and molten metal that clearly existed at Ground Zero. They have also failed to show the temperatures inside the buildings were sufficient to cause collapse. The next section of PM"s book deals with another subject not previously dealt with in the 2006 edition: the nanothermite discovered in dust samples from the World Trade Center. PM"s stated objective of the updated book is to debunk "the most common speculation about free-fall times, "nanothermite," and other aspects of the Twin Towers" collapses"," (pg. xxii). However, PM"s section regarding nanothermite utterly fails to do this " not because it presents weak scientific arguments, but because it provides virtually no scientific arguments at all. Molten Metal Flowing from the South Tower PM"s only scientific criticism of claims made by individuals in the 9/11 Truth movement in regards to thermite applies to the spout of molten metal seen coming from the 81st floor of the South Tower, which some have cited as evidence of a thermite-based demolition for the Towers. In spite of photographs and numerous eyewitness accounts of molten steel/iron and concrete, PM chooses to address only this one example. PM"s explanation for this is simply that the material is molten aluminum, a claim echoed by other defenders of the official narrative. It is also a claim that has been thoroughly refuted. PM cites NIST as saying that the material may have been molten aluminum, but individuals such as Dr. Steven Jones have demonstrated " by experiment " that, in daylight conditions, molten aluminum appears silvery and does not glow brightly like the metal seen coming from the South Tower.[i] Some still may argue that the material was molten aluminum and that it was heated to high enough temperatures to get it to glow that brightly. Below is a chart showing temperature-dependent colors of metals. At about 980"C (1800"F), most metals begin to glow "light orange." PM asserts throughout the book that this is how hot the fires could have been in the Towers. However, we previously noted that NIST has no evidence that the fires did reach these temperatures in the buildings. However, even if we accept that the fires did reach those temperature levels, the material still could not have been aluminum because of how long it was heated. As explained by physicist Jerry Lobdill: The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower"s 82nd floor could have been aluminum" is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor [indicated that it] was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.[ii] Perhaps the most important reason why the material could not have been molten aluminum is that the material actually became white hot. Regardless of what kind of material was glowing, nobody has explained what would have heated it to over 2000"F to get it to glow that brightly. In addition, there is simply little chance the material could have been molten aluminum, based on the fact that the material glowed for as	Society	1	911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/	444
I would like to applaud you on your investigation skills and instead of verbally abusing the truth movement or attacking strawman arguments you have provided some rebuttal so that we may examine the science behind these claims . If all 911 debunkers behaved this way we could have good scientific debates on 911. I would like to argue that NIST hasn't properly shown scientifically anything to back their counter claims. 1. NIST fails to show how aluminium can be yellow at the temperatures of 1000 C . Independent experimenters have tried to melt aluminium and add office furniture carpets etc but have not been able to reproduce the statement NIST claims. NIST ignores other evidence such as molten iron spheres from RJ lee report. FEMA melted steel Many eyewitnesses University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel at Fresh Kills Landfill notes, "I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center." 2. NIST claims steven jones has no clear chain of control for the dust samples , they argue that because they didn't control the chain of custody its not clear to them . Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dust, but NIST did not investigate <URL>... NIST claimed they found no evidence of explosives , later when asked how they tested for that they replied they did not look for evidence of explosives therefore found none. NIST claims on how much thermite are needed are irrelevant as nanothermite was claimed to be used and not normal thermite. The points above show that NIST has not fairly answered or contested the 911 truth movements points with any clear scientific experiments to back up their claims once again.	truther1111	I would like to applaud you on your investigation skills and instead of verbally abusing the truth movement or attacking strawman arguments you have provided some rebuttal so that we may examine the science behind these claims . If all 911 debunkers behaved this way we could have good scientific debates on 911. I would like to argue that NIST hasn't properly shown scientifically anything to back their counter claims. 1. NIST fails to show how aluminium can be yellow at the temperatures of 1000 C . Independent experimenters have tried to melt aluminium and add office furniture carpets etc but have not been able to reproduce the statement NIST claims. NIST ignores other evidence such as molten iron spheres from RJ lee report. FEMA melted steel Many eyewitnesses University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel at Fresh Kills Landfill notes, "I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center." 2. NIST claims steven jones has no clear chain of control for the dust samples , they argue that because they didn't control the chain of custody its not clear to them . Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dust, but NIST did not investigate http://www.independent.com... NIST claimed they found no evidence of explosives , later when asked how they tested for that they replied they did not look for evidence of explosives therefore found none. NIST claims on how much thermite are needed are irrelevant as nanothermite was claimed to be used and not normal thermite. The points above show that NIST has not fairly answered or contested the 911 truth movements points with any clear scientific experiments to back up their claims once again.	Society	2	911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/	445
I accept the terms. Good luck!	Contradiction	I accept the terms. Good luck!	Society	0	A-Fetus-is-Not-Morally-Equivalent-to-a-Mature-Human/1/	511
It's a pleasure to be debating Roy on this topic. Given his past record, I'm looking forward to a very fruitful debate. Pro advances several arguments as to why the fetus is not morally equivalent to a mature human being. [1] In responding, I will both advance a positive case for my position and respond to the arguments offered. 1. Mental Criteria A. Self-awareness? Why isn't a rock morally equivalent to a fully developed human (Hereafter FDH)? According to Pro, it is because a rock is not self-aware. Unfortunately, this is not analogous to the fetus. Additionally, this analogy can be seen to backfire . While the fetus cannot immediately exercise self-awareness, it has the inherent capacity as part of its nature to develop self-awareness. A rock, by contrast, does not have this inherent capacity. The analogy therefore breaks down. Moreover, suppose I am asleep, under general anesthesia, or in a reversable coma, such that I cannot immediately exercise my ability to be self-aware. Am I no longer morally equivalent to a fellow FDH? Of course not, it would be immoral to kill me under any of these circumstances. But can the functionalist criteria appealed to be Pro justify this? It seems not, for as soon as I can no longer execise self-awareness, I am no longer morally equivalent to a FDH. What Pro's rock analogy really proves is not that self-awareness is essential to moral equivalent, but that an inherent capacity for self-awareness is essential to moral equivalence. And it is precisely this capacity for self-awareness which the developing fetus has, even if it's not immediately exercisable. The latter is irrelevant to personhood. Indeed, this is affirmed by the very source Pro as support of his position! "In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity [Emphasis mine] for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood." [2] Even worse is that self-awareness is a degreed property. If moral equivalence is determined by an aquired property, then "moral equivalence" and human rights comes in varying degrees. This means that those who are more able to exercise their self-awareness are more valuable than those who are less able. It's more plausible to argue that "Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose in their lifetime." [3] Finally, if by "self-awareness" pro means an immediately exercisely capacity for self-awareness, then the fetus might as well be morally equivalent to some FDH humans who are in a vegetative state or permanent coma. B. Perception and Memory? Here, both Pro's sci-fi and tree analogy fails for the same reason. The reason we would save a fully functioning human over one who is not properly functioning is because the former has more utility and is more familiar to us -- not because he is less valuable. As an counter-analogy, the fact that a mother may choose to save her own children from a burning building as opposed to a group of orphans does not mean that the latter group are less valuable. She does this only because her own children are more familiar and attached to her -- not because they are more valuable. The analogy is more of an exercise in our personal preferences than it is an accurate guide to moral equivalence. That being said, it's unclear as to how perception and memory count towards moral equivalence. Both are degreed properties and are thus vulnerable to some of the arguments offered in (A). Consider a blind, deaf, and mute adult with CIPA (Congenital Insensivity to Pain with Anhydrosis) who cannot perceive anything but who still has the capacity and is immediately exercising the capacity for self-awareness. Would this adult be morally equivalent to another FDH? Of course, perception has nothing to do with moral equivalence. Would those who have amnesia not be considered morally equivalent to another FDH? No. Memory is therefore irrelevant to moral equivalence. 2. Extrinsic Considerations A. Life of the Mother? The reason that the life of the mother takes primacy over the life of the fetus is because for the most part, the mother has a much higher chance of survival than does the fetus, and not because the fetus is not morally equivalent to a FDH. All things being equal, it is better to save one than let two die. With that in mind, it is better to save the one who has the higher chance of survival. Thus, the life of the mother takes primacy for prudential reasons, and not because the fetus is morally inferior. B. Spontaneous Abortions? It is unclear how this is relevant to moral equivalence. There is a high infant mortality rate in the third world, yet virtually nobody (Including those who aren't proactive about stopping it) would think that they are not morally equivalent to FDHs. This seems to be more of an attack on the intellectual consistency of those in the pro-life camp than an argument against the unborn being persons. Moreover, this "confuses our obvious prima facie moral obligation not to commit homicide with the questionable moral obligation to itnerfere with natural death of a human person every instance. Clearly the former does not entail the latter." [4] As Norman Geisler points out, "Protecting life is a moral obligation, but resisting natural death is not necessarily a moral duty... There is no inconsistency between preserving natural life, opposing artificial abortion, and allowing natural death by spontaneous abortion." [5] 3. The Case for Moral Equivalence Let's say we had a photo album which chronicled my life development. The person depicted in those photos is the same person that I am now. Of course, some things have changed over time (I'm taller, for example), but I am still fundamentally the same entity in those photos -- just at different stages of development. Now, say we turn the pages back to my Kindergarten year. Is that me in those photos? Yes, it is me at a different stage of development. Now, suppose we turn all the way back to the first page. There, we see a sonogram image. Is that image of me? Yes. Like the other photos, it is simply me at a different stage of development. I remain the same individual throughout my development. Even the blastocyst which preceded the fetal stage was still me. After all, my mother gave birth to me , not a body that later became me when it was able to immediately exercise the capacity for self-awareness. She is my mother, not the mother of the body that would later become me. Similarly, my father is the father of me, not the father of the body that would later become me. It would be absurd to deny that I once was a fetus. However, if we assume a functionalist definition of personhood (Which, as we have seen, fails), then I came to be after my body came to be, since my body was not yet a person. But this is absurd. My mother was pregnant with me, not the body that would later become me. I was once a fetus and thus, if it is was wrong to kill me now, it was wrong to kill me then. [6] A fetus is therefore morally equivalent to a mature human. _______ Notes 1. Actually, "fetus" is not the proper term here, since the fetal stage does not begin until the 8th week of development [Neil Campbell and Jane Reece, Biology 7th ed (Pearson: 2005) 979]. But since Pro is referring to the zygote/blastocyst stage, I will use fetus interchangeably with these terms. 2. Handbook of self and identity (pp. 68-90). New York: Guilford Press, 2002. <URL>... cited by Pro. 3. Scott Klusendorf, "Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics" Biola University lecture notes 4. Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press: 2007) 76 5. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues ( Baker: 1989) 153 6. Alexander Pruss, "I Was Once A Fetus: An Identity-Based Argument Against Abortion," <URL>... ;	Contradiction	It's a pleasure to be debating Roy on this topic. Given his past record, I'm looking forward to a very fruitful debate. Pro advances several arguments as to why the fetus is not morally equivalent to a mature human being. [1] In responding, I will both advance a positive case for my position and respond to the arguments offered. 1. Mental Criteria A. Self-awareness? Why isn't a rock morally equivalent to a fully developed human (Hereafter FDH)? According to Pro, it is because a rock is not self-aware. Unfortunately, this is not analogous to the fetus. Additionally, this analogy can be seen to backfire . While the fetus cannot immediately exercise self-awareness, it has the inherent capacity as part of its nature to develop self-awareness. A rock, by contrast, does not have this inherent capacity. The analogy therefore breaks down. Moreover, suppose I am asleep, under general anesthesia, or in a reversable coma, such that I cannot immediately exercise my ability to be self-aware. Am I no longer morally equivalent to a fellow FDH? Of course not, it would be immoral to kill me under any of these circumstances. But can the functionalist criteria appealed to be Pro justify this? It seems not, for as soon as I can no longer execise self-awareness, I am no longer morally equivalent to a FDH. What Pro's rock analogy really proves is not that self-awareness is essential to moral equivalent, but that an inherent capacity for self-awareness is essential to moral equivalence. And it is precisely this capacity for self-awareness which the developing fetus has, even if it's not immediately exercisable. The latter is irrelevant to personhood. Indeed, this is affirmed by the very source Pro as support of his position! "In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity [Emphasis mine] for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood." [2] Even worse is that self-awareness is a degreed property. If moral equivalence is determined by an aquired property, then "moral equivalence" and human rights comes in varying degrees. This means that those who are more able to exercise their self-awareness are more valuable than those who are less able. It's more plausible to argue that "Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose in their lifetime." [3] Finally, if by "self-awareness" pro means an immediately exercisely capacity for self-awareness, then the fetus might as well be morally equivalent to some FDH humans who are in a vegetative state or permanent coma. B. Perception and Memory? Here, both Pro's sci-fi and tree analogy fails for the same reason. The reason we would save a fully functioning human over one who is not properly functioning is because the former has more utility and is more familiar to us -- not because he is less valuable. As an counter-analogy, the fact that a mother may choose to save her own children from a burning building as opposed to a group of orphans does not mean that the latter group are less valuable. She does this only because her own children are more familiar and attached to her -- not because they are more valuable. The analogy is more of an exercise in our personal preferences than it is an accurate guide to moral equivalence. That being said, it's unclear as to how perception and memory count towards moral equivalence. Both are degreed properties and are thus vulnerable to some of the arguments offered in (A). Consider a blind, deaf, and mute adult with CIPA (Congenital Insensivity to Pain with Anhydrosis) who cannot perceive anything but who still has the capacity and is immediately exercising the capacity for self-awareness. Would this adult be morally equivalent to another FDH? Of course, perception has nothing to do with moral equivalence. Would those who have amnesia not be considered morally equivalent to another FDH? No. Memory is therefore irrelevant to moral equivalence. 2. Extrinsic Considerations A. Life of the Mother? The reason that the life of the mother takes primacy over the life of the fetus is because for the most part, the mother has a much higher chance of survival than does the fetus, and not because the fetus is not morally equivalent to a FDH. All things being equal, it is better to save one than let two die. With that in mind, it is better to save the one who has the higher chance of survival. Thus, the life of the mother takes primacy for prudential reasons, and not because the fetus is morally inferior. B. Spontaneous Abortions? It is unclear how this is relevant to moral equivalence. There is a high infant mortality rate in the third world, yet virtually nobody (Including those who aren't proactive about stopping it) would think that they are not morally equivalent to FDHs. This seems to be more of an attack on the intellectual consistency of those in the pro-life camp than an argument against the unborn being persons. Moreover, this "confuses our obvious prima facie moral obligation not to commit homicide with the questionable moral obligation to itnerfere with natural death of a human person every instance. Clearly the former does not entail the latter." [4] As Norman Geisler points out, "Protecting life is a moral obligation, but resisting natural death is not necessarily a moral duty... There is no inconsistency between preserving natural life, opposing artificial abortion, and allowing natural death by spontaneous abortion." [5] 3. The Case for Moral Equivalence Let's say we had a photo album which chronicled my life development. The person depicted in those photos is the same person that I am now. Of course, some things have changed over time (I'm taller, for example), but I am still fundamentally the same entity in those photos -- just at different stages of development. Now, say we turn the pages back to my Kindergarten year. Is that me in those photos? Yes, it is me at a different stage of development. Now, suppose we turn all the way back to the first page. There, we see a sonogram image. Is that image of me? Yes. Like the other photos, it is simply me at a different stage of development. I remain the same individual throughout my development. Even the blastocyst which preceded the fetal stage was still me. After all, my mother gave birth to me , not a body that later became me when it was able to immediately exercise the capacity for self-awareness. She is my mother, not the mother of the body that would later become me. Similarly, my father is the father of me, not the father of the body that would later become me. It would be absurd to deny that I once was a fetus. However, if we assume a functionalist definition of personhood (Which, as we have seen, fails), then I came to be after my body came to be, since my body was not yet a person. But this is absurd. My mother was pregnant with me, not the body that would later become me. I was once a fetus and thus, if it is was wrong to kill me now, it was wrong to kill me then. [6] A fetus is therefore morally equivalent to a mature human. _______ Notes 1. Actually, "fetus" is not the proper term here, since the fetal stage does not begin until the 8th week of development [Neil Campbell and Jane Reece, Biology 7th ed (Pearson: 2005) 979]. But since Pro is referring to the zygote/blastocyst stage, I will use fetus interchangeably with these terms. 2. Handbook of self and identity (pp. 68-90). New York: Guilford Press, 2002. http://socrates.berkeley.edu... cited by Pro. 3. Scott Klusendorf, "Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics" Biola University lecture notes 4. Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press: 2007) 76 5. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues ( Baker: 1989) 153 6. Alexander Pruss, "I Was Once A Fetus: An Identity-Based Argument Against Abortion," http://www9.georgetown.edu... ;	Society	1	A-Fetus-is-Not-Morally-Equivalent-to-a-Mature-Human/1/	512
Thanks for the response. Readers are encouraged to check the footnotes for a deeper explanation of some points that I touch on. Natural ( Negative ) Rights vs. Positive Rights It is true as Pro argues, that depending on our age, the rights and privileges we have will vary (As evidenced by laws on motor vehicle operation, marriage, military service, etc...). However, to use this in a context which entails certain moral conclusions is sorely mistaken, as Pro engages in an equivocation between positive rights and natural rights. Positive rights are those which are imposed upon society by the will of a soverign or state, whereas natural rights are those which we have innately . The former are non-moral and thus cannot be used in matters of determining moral equivalence, whereas the latter are distinctively moral. [1] Since the debate is over moral equivalence, it would be a mistake to use the former. Legal value is not identical to moral value. Pro's argument is therefore irrelevant in regards to moral equivalence. Pro seems to be assuming legal positivism, a controversial jurisprudential view under which law and morality are the same thing. Instead of being presupposed, this must be defended in an argument. Under legal positivism, there would be no such thing as an unjust law , which strikes many as plainly absurd. We can name many examples of unjust laws, but if the law is the same thing as morality, then those who protest against so-called unjust laws would actually be acting immorally. 1. Mental Criteria A. Self-awareness? As pointed out in the preceding paragraph, Pro's argument here equivocates between natural rights and positive rights. Pro argues that our "privileges decrease dramatically" when asleep. This is an ambigious statement. Our legal rights (Those arbitrarily imposed on us by a state or soveriegn) may decrease, but our natural rights remain the same. Picture two people lying on a bed, one asleep and the other awake. Even though they may be of different legal value , they have the same moral value. A "capacity" is commonly understood by philosophers to be "another term for a thing's potentiality." [2] Whether or not this potential is actual is completely irrelevant. As it thus standards, Pro's own source ends up backfiring and hurting his own position. Moreover, the term ability does not refer to the immediate exemplification of some trait, but to the inherent potential for a trait to be exercised. Nowhere is the term "ability" to be understood as the immediate exemplification of some property. [3] What is relevant to personhood is thus not the actual expression of self-awareness, but a potential for it. This is precisely why Pro's rock analogy breaks down, for rocks do not have such a capacity inherent in their nature As it stands, Pro has not shown why self-awareness is equivalent to moral equivalence. He has simply reasserted it. Are we to believe that sleeping persons are morally inferior to awake persons? Pro's appeal to legal value fails, as it ends up equivocating between legal value and moral value. At any rate, this seems like a rather hard position to embrace, such that we should reject Pro's argument if it entails such counterintuitive conclusions. B. Perception and Memory Firstly, Pro has done nothing to object to the two counterexamples I raised. Let me therefore extend and repeat it here: 1. Consider a blind, deaf, and mute adult with CIPA (Congenital Insensivity to Pain with Anhydrosis) who cannot perceive anything but who still has the capacity and is immediately exercising the capacity for self-awareness. Would this adult be morally equivalent to another FDH? Of course. Perception has nothing to do with moral equivalence. 2. Would those who have amnesia not be considered morally equivalent to another FDH? No. Memory is therefore irrelevant to moral equivalence. From this we see that perception and memory is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for personhood. Pro's response seems to have misunderstood me. By "utility," I refer not to moral value, but to pragmatic value. All things being equal, a fully functioning human is just as valuable as one who is not as functioning. So morally speaking everything is equal, but since it is better to save one life than to let two die, we factor in other non-moral criteria into our decision. This is not to say that one life is more morally valuable than another. Utility does not take precedence over moral equivalence. We only consider non-moral reasons in decision-making when all the moral criteria are equally weighed. 2. Extrinsic Criteria A. Life of the mother Morally speaking, the fetus is equal in value to the mother. However, if faced in a situation such that we have to choose one or the other, we incorporate external non-moral factors into the decision-making process. This is not to say that non-moral factors take precedent over the moral factors, but that if we have to make a decision in which the two sides are equally weighed, we can incorporate other criteria. Consider the paradox of Burridan's donkey, in which a donkey is presented with two equally large bales of hay. If he deliberates forever, then he will die. The same principle applies in this instance. In the context of a medical decision though, it is better to save one than to let two die. A decision therefore has to be made. To tip the scales, we therefore introduce non-moral criteria to influence our decision-making. This has nothing to do with the moral value of the two subjects involved -- rather it has to do with the necessity of making a decision. Pro's argument here therefore fails. B. Spontaneous abortions Pro's argument here is rather dubious. Consider a parody argument: If poor African babies are "morally equivalent" to adults, then their deaths should be mourned like the loss of adults. They are not (The majority of people in the developed world would just shrug their shoulders). Very few hold funerals for African babies who die in poverty. Does it follow that they are morally nil? Of course not! As I argued earlier, "There is a high infant mortality rate in the third world, yet virtually nobody (Including those who aren't proactive about stopping it) would think that they are not morally equivalent to FDHs." Or suppose a mother decides to rescue her own children over those of another parent. Would those children be less valuable? Hardly. Pro has not responded to this argument. Regarding natural death, by "natural" I referred to death by natural causes -- not what corners refer to as "unnatural deaths" (Which may be by homicide, natural disaster, etc...). While it would be a good thing to prevent it, it is arguably not a duty. So there is no inconsistency when pro-lifers ignore the number of sponatneous abortions. Pro simply chooses to bite the bullet in regards to those with vegetative states. This seems completely counterintuitive and strikes me as a sufficient reason in itself to reject Pro's argument. Could we also not extend his argument to its logical conclusions, such that the elderly (and especially those with Alzheimer's) are included? The Case for Moral Equivalence There isn't much to say here, as much of Pro's response to my argument has been dealt with in the above responses. Refer especially to my argument (Since I'm out of character space) that Pro equivocates between natural rights and positive rights. I look forward to Pro's response. ________ Notes 1. Positive rights have to do with legal issues, which is distinct from moral issues. 2. Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (OUP: 2005) 52. Note that Pro's source for his definition of capacity is the Wikipedia article on "self-awareness." However, the actual disambiguation page on "capacity" all understand the term (In its many uses) to refer to an ability to do X. See: <URL>... ; 3. See Pro's own source, none of the meanings of "ability" refers to the immediate exercisability of some trait. <URL>...	Contradiction	Thanks for the response. Readers are encouraged to check the footnotes for a deeper explanation of some points that I touch on. Natural ( Negative ) Rights vs. Positive Rights It is true as Pro argues, that depending on our age, the rights and privileges we have will vary (As evidenced by laws on motor vehicle operation, marriage, military service, etc...). However, to use this in a context which entails certain moral conclusions is sorely mistaken, as Pro engages in an equivocation between positive rights and natural rights. Positive rights are those which are imposed upon society by the will of a soverign or state, whereas natural rights are those which we have innately . The former are non-moral and thus cannot be used in matters of determining moral equivalence, whereas the latter are distinctively moral. [1] Since the debate is over moral equivalence, it would be a mistake to use the former. Legal value is not identical to moral value. Pro's argument is therefore irrelevant in regards to moral equivalence. Pro seems to be assuming legal positivism, a controversial jurisprudential view under which law and morality are the same thing. Instead of being presupposed, this must be defended in an argument. Under legal positivism, there would be no such thing as an unjust law , which strikes many as plainly absurd. We can name many examples of unjust laws, but if the law is the same thing as morality, then those who protest against so-called unjust laws would actually be acting immorally. 1. Mental Criteria A. Self-awareness? As pointed out in the preceding paragraph, Pro's argument here equivocates between natural rights and positive rights. Pro argues that our "privileges decrease dramatically" when asleep. This is an ambigious statement. Our legal rights (Those arbitrarily imposed on us by a state or soveriegn) may decrease, but our natural rights remain the same. Picture two people lying on a bed, one asleep and the other awake. Even though they may be of different legal value , they have the same moral value. A "capacity" is commonly understood by philosophers to be "another term for a thing's potentiality." [2] Whether or not this potential is actual is completely irrelevant. As it thus standards, Pro's own source ends up backfiring and hurting his own position. Moreover, the term ability does not refer to the immediate exemplification of some trait, but to the inherent potential for a trait to be exercised. Nowhere is the term "ability" to be understood as the immediate exemplification of some property. [3] What is relevant to personhood is thus not the actual expression of self-awareness, but a potential for it. This is precisely why Pro's rock analogy breaks down, for rocks do not have such a capacity inherent in their nature As it stands, Pro has not shown why self-awareness is equivalent to moral equivalence. He has simply reasserted it. Are we to believe that sleeping persons are morally inferior to awake persons? Pro's appeal to legal value fails, as it ends up equivocating between legal value and moral value. At any rate, this seems like a rather hard position to embrace, such that we should reject Pro's argument if it entails such counterintuitive conclusions. B. Perception and Memory Firstly, Pro has done nothing to object to the two counterexamples I raised. Let me therefore extend and repeat it here: 1. Consider a blind, deaf, and mute adult with CIPA (Congenital Insensivity to Pain with Anhydrosis) who cannot perceive anything but who still has the capacity and is immediately exercising the capacity for self-awareness. Would this adult be morally equivalent to another FDH? Of course. Perception has nothing to do with moral equivalence. 2. Would those who have amnesia not be considered morally equivalent to another FDH? No. Memory is therefore irrelevant to moral equivalence. From this we see that perception and memory is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for personhood. Pro's response seems to have misunderstood me. By "utility," I refer not to moral value, but to pragmatic value. All things being equal, a fully functioning human is just as valuable as one who is not as functioning. So morally speaking everything is equal, but since it is better to save one life than to let two die, we factor in other non-moral criteria into our decision. This is not to say that one life is more morally valuable than another. Utility does not take precedence over moral equivalence. We only consider non-moral reasons in decision-making when all the moral criteria are equally weighed. 2. Extrinsic Criteria A. Life of the mother Morally speaking, the fetus is equal in value to the mother. However, if faced in a situation such that we have to choose one or the other, we incorporate external non-moral factors into the decision-making process. This is not to say that non-moral factors take precedent over the moral factors, but that if we have to make a decision in which the two sides are equally weighed, we can incorporate other criteria. Consider the paradox of Burridan's donkey, in which a donkey is presented with two equally large bales of hay. If he deliberates forever, then he will die. The same principle applies in this instance. In the context of a medical decision though, it is better to save one than to let two die. A decision therefore has to be made. To tip the scales, we therefore introduce non-moral criteria to influence our decision-making. This has nothing to do with the moral value of the two subjects involved -- rather it has to do with the necessity of making a decision. Pro's argument here therefore fails. B. Spontaneous abortions Pro's argument here is rather dubious. Consider a parody argument: If poor African babies are "morally equivalent" to adults, then their deaths should be mourned like the loss of adults. They are not (The majority of people in the developed world would just shrug their shoulders). Very few hold funerals for African babies who die in poverty. Does it follow that they are morally nil? Of course not! As I argued earlier, "There is a high infant mortality rate in the third world, yet virtually nobody (Including those who aren't proactive about stopping it) would think that they are not morally equivalent to FDHs." Or suppose a mother decides to rescue her own children over those of another parent. Would those children be less valuable? Hardly. Pro has not responded to this argument. Regarding natural death, by "natural" I referred to death by natural causes -- not what corners refer to as "unnatural deaths" (Which may be by homicide, natural disaster, etc...). While it would be a good thing to prevent it, it is arguably not a duty. So there is no inconsistency when pro-lifers ignore the number of sponatneous abortions. Pro simply chooses to bite the bullet in regards to those with vegetative states. This seems completely counterintuitive and strikes me as a sufficient reason in itself to reject Pro's argument. Could we also not extend his argument to its logical conclusions, such that the elderly (and especially those with Alzheimer's) are included? The Case for Moral Equivalence There isn't much to say here, as much of Pro's response to my argument has been dealt with in the above responses. Refer especially to my argument (Since I'm out of character space) that Pro equivocates between natural rights and positive rights. I look forward to Pro's response. ________ Notes 1. Positive rights have to do with legal issues, which is distinct from moral issues. 2. Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (OUP: 2005) 52. Note that Pro's source for his definition of capacity is the Wikipedia article on "self-awareness." However, the actual disambiguation page on "capacity" all understand the term (In its many uses) to refer to an ability to do X. See: http://en.wikipedia.org... ; 3. See Pro's own source, none of the meanings of "ability" refers to the immediate exercisability of some trait. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...	Society	2	A-Fetus-is-Not-Morally-Equivalent-to-a-Mature-Human/1/	513
Despite Pro's response, he has not avoided the equivocation charge between positive (legal) rights and natural rights. Consider the example he raised in the initial paragraph: that children have fewer rights than adults. Now in one sense, this is true -- children do not have the right to drive cars, drink alcohol, smoke, etc... They don't have these rights because these "rights" are those which are artificially created by law. However, these are legal rights, not moral rights; moral rights are those that one has irrespective of what the law says -- this is what enables us to call a law unjust. Pro admits to this distinction. Thus, in order to demonstrate moral equivalence, Pro has to show that moral rights, and not legal rights, vary according to certain criteria. Now Pro has a response to this. He presents a scenario in which a child objects to the authority of his parents, saying "I ahve the natural right to have a glass of gin, get married, etc..." Unfortunately, this just commits the same error. The right to "have a glass of gin" is not a natural right due to the fact that it isn't pre-political, whereas say the right to life is. The "right" to have a glass of gin or to drive an automobile is a positive right. So Pro's response ends up commiting the same error. From this it is clear that though individuals may vary in regards to positive rights, this is irrelevant to moral equivalence (ME). Pro's examples ME therefore fail. Now, in regards to the burden of proof which I share, Pro has shared me with failing to demonstrate that natural rights of the fetus and the adult are the same, he alleges that I have only raised the mere possibility. No, I did so in my opening argument in which I argued that since I was once a fetus, I had the same rights then as I did now. Now of course whether this argument is sound is another issue which I will touch on shortly, but suffice to say that I did argue for my side. I. Mental Criteria A. Self-awareness Pro argues that I am defining "self" in terms of future ability. Not so. What counts as the "self" is another subject, but my use of "future ability" was used only to deliberate a necessary condition for being a person. The unborn count as persons by virtue of the fact that they have the inherent potential to develop self-awareness. The immediate exercising of self-awareness, as Pro argues, does not stand up to scrutiny as an adequate definition of what counts as a person, for this would imply that those who lie down to take a nap no longer count as persons. Now Pro is right that the law treats those who are impaired or unconscious with no or lesser penalties than if they were fully aware -- but to use this as a counterexample to moral equivalence is wrongheaded, for it once again confuses positive rights with natural rights. The law regards these people as being different because they are not able to exercise moral judgement -- but to say that this also entails moral non-equivalence is to go beyond what the legal motivations tell us. Even though the law has varying degrees of responsibility, all persons are treated equal in moral value. In fact, legal counterexamples can be found which allow us to more clearly understand this notion. Suppose that a homeless man takes some sleeping medication and falls into a deep slumber on a park bench. Now suppose that he is then shot and killed by a vandal. On Pro's account of rights, the vandal should not be charged with murder because the individual in question either wasn't a person or lacked significant mental function to be morally equivalent to an adult human. But clearly this is absurd -- it would have been just as wrong if the man was shot when he was fully conscious. This lines up with both what the law says and what our moral intuitions tell us. B. Perception and memory The above can be equally applied to Pro's perception and memory requirement. Pro argues that "a person without sensory capability loses rights and priviledges because the person is almost totally dependent on others." Let's amend the above example. Suppose that an assailant rapes two people: one who is normal in all regards and another who has no ability to sense but maintains full mental awareness. Should we charge him with a lesser crime in the case of the latter person? No. Indeed, it is just as wrong to shoot and kill an educated college professor as it is to shoot and kill a severely retarded child. In the eyes of the law, they are the same -- all persons are of equal value even if their ability to function comes in varying degrees. Interestingly, we see that therefore the legal examples employed by Pro can also be used in support of moral equivalence. Whereas the law regards positive rights as varying based on certain criteria, the law treats the natural rights of all human persons as the same. The murder of a severely retarded person is treated the same as the murder of a normal healthy person. So Pro's appeal to legal examples actually backfires! Now, regarding the two specific examples I raised -- Pro simply bite the bullet! But is this really convincing? All else being equal, are we really to believe that it is less wrong to strangle a severely retarded child than it is to strangle a normal child? That the example is not between a child and an adult is irrelevant, since I'm focused on the general principle Pro advanced, which is that rights vary. I suspect that our intuitions don't line up here. Pro's appeal to examples in which you can only save one appear to tip the scales toward his favor. A much clearer example would be the one that I just provided, in which all else is equal and moral decision making is not performed under durress. And in those cases, interestingly enough, our moral intuitions line up. 2. Extrinsic criteria A. Life of the mother/spontaneous abortions Since I want to save room for some final comments, I will condense my responses here. Regarding the high infant mortality rate in third world countries -- I did not make a concession along the lines that they are not morally equivalent (Indeed, I don't even know how Pro inferred this). Now regarding the argument, Pro still has not responded to it. Are we to think that the infants who die in the third world are not morally equivalent to infants who die in developed countries simply because (a) more of them die and (b) they are not given the proper treatment usually associated with death? This strikes one as absurd, the answer is obviously no. The use of extreme examples in which we must rescue one and let the other die (such as in the life of the mother) are dubious here. When one decides to rescue a young person over an elderly person, is he really saying that the elderly person is less valuable, or that though they have equal moral value, the younger person has a better chance physically of surviving. It's important that we analyze not just the act, but the motivations and intent behind it. One may act to save the younger person over the elderly, but this does NOT automatically imply that his reasons were that because the younger person is morally worth more. His reasons may be completely different, as is usually the case in these examples. The very fact that there are dilemmas like these is because most consider them to be of equal worth, and thus must look to other nonmoral criteria. But doing this does not imply that they are not of equal worth. Examples which involve the life of the mother thus do not assume that the fetus is less valuable. Final comments In responding to Roy, I have mixed in positive arguments for my own position due to space considerations. I gave several clear examples in which various humans were treated equally despite their varying mental criteria. Thus, if equal treatment is independent of mental function, then the fetus too should be treated on par with an FDH despite the fact that it lacks significant mental function. Thanks to Roy for participating in this debate, I appreciate it. I urge a strong vote for Pro.	Contradiction	Despite Pro's response, he has not avoided the equivocation charge between positive (legal) rights and natural rights. Consider the example he raised in the initial paragraph: that children have fewer rights than adults. Now in one sense, this is true -- children do not have the right to drive cars, drink alcohol, smoke, etc... They don't have these rights because these "rights" are those which are artificially created by law. However, these are legal rights, not moral rights; moral rights are those that one has irrespective of what the law says -- this is what enables us to call a law unjust. Pro admits to this distinction. Thus, in order to demonstrate moral equivalence, Pro has to show that moral rights, and not legal rights, vary according to certain criteria. Now Pro has a response to this. He presents a scenario in which a child objects to the authority of his parents, saying "I ahve the natural right to have a glass of gin, get married, etc..." Unfortunately, this just commits the same error. The right to "have a glass of gin" is not a natural right due to the fact that it isn't pre-political, whereas say the right to life is. The "right" to have a glass of gin or to drive an automobile is a positive right. So Pro's response ends up commiting the same error. From this it is clear that though individuals may vary in regards to positive rights, this is irrelevant to moral equivalence (ME). Pro's examples ME therefore fail. Now, in regards to the burden of proof which I share, Pro has shared me with failing to demonstrate that natural rights of the fetus and the adult are the same, he alleges that I have only raised the mere possibility. No, I did so in my opening argument in which I argued that since I was once a fetus, I had the same rights then as I did now. Now of course whether this argument is sound is another issue which I will touch on shortly, but suffice to say that I did argue for my side. I. Mental Criteria A. Self-awareness Pro argues that I am defining "self" in terms of future ability. Not so. What counts as the "self" is another subject, but my use of "future ability" was used only to deliberate a necessary condition for being a person. The unborn count as persons by virtue of the fact that they have the inherent potential to develop self-awareness. The immediate exercising of self-awareness, as Pro argues, does not stand up to scrutiny as an adequate definition of what counts as a person, for this would imply that those who lie down to take a nap no longer count as persons. Now Pro is right that the law treats those who are impaired or unconscious with no or lesser penalties than if they were fully aware -- but to use this as a counterexample to moral equivalence is wrongheaded, for it once again confuses positive rights with natural rights. The law regards these people as being different because they are not able to exercise moral judgement -- but to say that this also entails moral non-equivalence is to go beyond what the legal motivations tell us. Even though the law has varying degrees of responsibility, all persons are treated equal in moral value. In fact, legal counterexamples can be found which allow us to more clearly understand this notion. Suppose that a homeless man takes some sleeping medication and falls into a deep slumber on a park bench. Now suppose that he is then shot and killed by a vandal. On Pro's account of rights, the vandal should not be charged with murder because the individual in question either wasn't a person or lacked significant mental function to be morally equivalent to an adult human. But clearly this is absurd -- it would have been just as wrong if the man was shot when he was fully conscious. This lines up with both what the law says and what our moral intuitions tell us. B. Perception and memory The above can be equally applied to Pro's perception and memory requirement. Pro argues that "a person without sensory capability loses rights and priviledges because the person is almost totally dependent on others." Let's amend the above example. Suppose that an assailant rapes two people: one who is normal in all regards and another who has no ability to sense but maintains full mental awareness. Should we charge him with a lesser crime in the case of the latter person? No. Indeed, it is just as wrong to shoot and kill an educated college professor as it is to shoot and kill a severely retarded child. In the eyes of the law, they are the same -- all persons are of equal value even if their ability to function comes in varying degrees. Interestingly, we see that therefore the legal examples employed by Pro can also be used in support of moral equivalence. Whereas the law regards positive rights as varying based on certain criteria, the law treats the natural rights of all human persons as the same. The murder of a severely retarded person is treated the same as the murder of a normal healthy person. So Pro's appeal to legal examples actually backfires! Now, regarding the two specific examples I raised -- Pro simply bite the bullet! But is this really convincing? All else being equal, are we really to believe that it is less wrong to strangle a severely retarded child than it is to strangle a normal child? That the example is not between a child and an adult is irrelevant, since I'm focused on the general principle Pro advanced, which is that rights vary. I suspect that our intuitions don't line up here. Pro's appeal to examples in which you can only save one appear to tip the scales toward his favor. A much clearer example would be the one that I just provided, in which all else is equal and moral decision making is not performed under durress. And in those cases, interestingly enough, our moral intuitions line up. 2. Extrinsic criteria A. Life of the mother/spontaneous abortions Since I want to save room for some final comments, I will condense my responses here. Regarding the high infant mortality rate in third world countries -- I did not make a concession along the lines that they are not morally equivalent (Indeed, I don't even know how Pro inferred this). Now regarding the argument, Pro still has not responded to it. Are we to think that the infants who die in the third world are not morally equivalent to infants who die in developed countries simply because (a) more of them die and (b) they are not given the proper treatment usually associated with death? This strikes one as absurd, the answer is obviously no. The use of extreme examples in which we must rescue one and let the other die (such as in the life of the mother) are dubious here. When one decides to rescue a young person over an elderly person, is he really saying that the elderly person is less valuable, or that though they have equal moral value, the younger person has a better chance physically of surviving. It's important that we analyze not just the act, but the motivations and intent behind it. One may act to save the younger person over the elderly, but this does NOT automatically imply that his reasons were that because the younger person is morally worth more. His reasons may be completely different, as is usually the case in these examples. The very fact that there are dilemmas like these is because most consider them to be of equal worth, and thus must look to other nonmoral criteria. But doing this does not imply that they are not of equal worth. Examples which involve the life of the mother thus do not assume that the fetus is less valuable. Final comments In responding to Roy, I have mixed in positive arguments for my own position due to space considerations. I gave several clear examples in which various humans were treated equally despite their varying mental criteria. Thus, if equal treatment is independent of mental function, then the fetus too should be treated on par with an FDH despite the fact that it lacks significant mental function. Thanks to Roy for participating in this debate, I appreciate it. I urge a strong vote for Pro.	Society	3	A-Fetus-is-Not-Morally-Equivalent-to-a-Mature-Human/1/	514
This is a debate reagrding the concept of there being an omnipotent creator who made this world and this universe versus the universe creating itself. We will not be arguing over the nature of this God and this God does not necessarily belong to any religion(although I will be arguing on behalf of Christianity).	Philosophy123	This is a debate reagrding the concept of there being an omnipotent creator who made this world and this universe versus the universe creating itself. We will not be arguing over the nature of this God and this God does not necessarily belong to any religion(although I will be arguing on behalf of Christianity).	Philosophy	0	A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/	530
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, I will start with a more scientific approach to proving the existence of God. The first thing that I would like to say is that there is no reason why the bulk of the weight in this argument should be on me, just because my opponent says so. The bulk should be evenly distributed and everyone should have an open mind while reading the arguments. Thank you. Statement #1: A lot of people see God(especially the Christian God who I am arguing for) as contradictory to science but I do not believe that is the case, in fact I think science without some God would be completely illogical. The perfect mathematical language that has been laid out for us must of course be a fundamental feature of the universe(one which humans could not create), a language with numbers could not just be created by a large bang. And that of course is another thing, I believe that the Big Bang theory leaves room for God. It simply states that the universe started from a dimmensionless point and then expanded rapidly and that this universe that we are in is still expanding from this singularity. This must leave room for God for a couple of reasons: 1. Of course you cannot have an acceleration without a force and forces do not create themselves so how did this singularity expand at such a rapid rate. This is very similar to a debate made by Thomas Aquinas, for every event there is a cause to an effect and since an effect could never create itself there must be some sort of God. 2. Where did the singularity come from, did it just create itself too. I believe that the Big Bang theory makes more sense with a God. I also believe that Christianity leaves room for evolution(although it does contradict certain passages of the Old Testament i personally believe that it is very hard to understand the Old Testament because both age and translation and that it may not have been so literal as it may appear). Statement #2: My next argument is not necessarily regarding this debate as much but I do believe that it is valid. This argument was made by the philosopher Pascal. Since, you have nothing to lose by being a Christian it is illogical to not do so. Even(hypothetically) if Christianity did not exist it would still give you a better lifestyle and strong moral inspiration and if death is just a numb blackness then you would have lost nothing unless there is an "atheist hell." The very principle of hell makes it worth being a Christian, if you do not believe in Christianity you are being rather arrogant. You are staking eternal life in paradise or hell on your earthly logic. Look at a man named Socrates with me for a moment, I'm sure you've heard of him. He taught Plato and made the statement "I know nothing"(paraphrasing there). The only thing he knew was that he was certain of nothing, because even a man as brilliant as Socrates did not trust himself and his logic enough to make the simplest decisions with it then it is extremely foolish to "gamble" on eternal life.	Philosophy123	I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, I will start with a more scientific approach to proving the existence of God. The first thing that I would like to say is that there is no reason why the bulk of the weight in this argument should be on me, just because my opponent says so. The bulk should be evenly distributed and everyone should have an open mind while reading the arguments. Thank you. Statement #1: A lot of people see God(especially the Christian God who I am arguing for) as contradictory to science but I do not believe that is the case, in fact I think science without some God would be completely illogical. The perfect mathematical language that has been laid out for us must of course be a fundamental feature of the universe(one which humans could not create), a language with numbers could not just be created by a large bang. And that of course is another thing, I believe that the Big Bang theory leaves room for God. It simply states that the universe started from a dimmensionless point and then expanded rapidly and that this universe that we are in is still expanding from this singularity. This must leave room for God for a couple of reasons: 1. Of course you cannot have an acceleration without a force and forces do not create themselves so how did this singularity expand at such a rapid rate. This is very similar to a debate made by Thomas Aquinas, for every event there is a cause to an effect and since an effect could never create itself there must be some sort of God. 2. Where did the singularity come from, did it just create itself too. I believe that the Big Bang theory makes more sense with a God. I also believe that Christianity leaves room for evolution(although it does contradict certain passages of the Old Testament i personally believe that it is very hard to understand the Old Testament because both age and translation and that it may not have been so literal as it may appear). Statement #2: My next argument is not necessarily regarding this debate as much but I do believe that it is valid. This argument was made by the philosopher Pascal. Since, you have nothing to lose by being a Christian it is illogical to not do so. Even(hypothetically) if Christianity did not exist it would still give you a better lifestyle and strong moral inspiration and if death is just a numb blackness then you would have lost nothing unless there is an "atheist hell." The very principle of hell makes it worth being a Christian, if you do not believe in Christianity you are being rather arrogant. You are staking eternal life in paradise or hell on your earthly logic. Look at a man named Socrates with me for a moment, I'm sure you've heard of him. He taught Plato and made the statement "I know nothing"(paraphrasing there). The only thing he knew was that he was certain of nothing, because even a man as brilliant as Socrates did not trust himself and his logic enough to make the simplest decisions with it then it is extremely foolish to "gamble" on eternal life.	Philosophy	1	A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/	531
Thank you for a very interesting argument on the part of SNP1. I will now bring up the argument that many people have made before me, the argument that this world(and this universe in general) is simply too complex to be created by random chance, even with several scientific theories which would choose to show otherwhise(Evolution for example gives us a degree of explanation of the biological complexity all around us but only a degree). Evolution had brought us to where we are today, it has given us several special traits which have helped us survive but there are so many things that cannot be caused by mere evolution. For example, here are several things which must have existed for the human body to survive long enough to produce offspring and continue life: 1. Eyes 2. Blood 3. Heart 4. Reproductive system 5. Arms 6. Legs 7. Lungs 8. Mouths 9. Bladder 10. Liver 11. Pancreas(modern humanity can live without one but in its primitive state we would not have a chance) 12. Cells 13. Kidney(same case as pancreas) 14. Bones 15. Nerves 16. Skin 17. Brain 18. Immune system 19. Muscles The fact that we have all of these things is incredible. Imagine that there is a o.1 percent chance of these things being created by random chance(which I personally think is a favorable percentage for the con). The chances of the human body being that perfect is one in 262,144,000 and of course the human body is exponentially more complex that that. Look at the rib cage(like a prison around our heart, our most vital organ, coincidence?), or our fingers and fingernails(perfect for everyday life, using and holding tools), think of our eyes(there are twelve parts to the eye that are explicit for our sight), think of our ears, how we have senses which can transmit information to our brains. It is all so amazing. Evolution could not have created ears or fingers, we could not have said "I wish I could hear" and suddenly be able to hear or gain other features. No, these features were innate, given to us since the very creation of time. The body is amazing. Now, look at the circumstances which the human body is in. We have just the right combination of oxygen in the air, just the perfect climate for our survival, animals and plants to give us food, water which we could not live without, the perfect amount of gravity, a strong nuclear force, the perfect strength of the electromagnetic force. You cannot honestly say that this all happened. The human body is lets say, one in a trillion, thats pretty conservative if you ask me. So, a body which is one in a trillion in an environment where if gravity were just a little stronger or a little weaker we could not survive, this perfect body the perfect distance from a star which is the perfect size. If this world was created by random chance, it is a mathematical anamoly which is almost unthinkable. Now, I will add to my list of amazing things about the body, including things about the universe around us. 20. Correct amount of oxygen 21. Perfect gravity 22. Perfect electromagnetism 23. The sun 24. Water 25. Strong nuclear force 26. Ears 27. Fingers 28. Fingernails 29. Tongue 30. Stomach 31. Spine 32. Nose 33. The sheer quantity of elements 34. The ability of electrons to react with other elements 35. Plants 36. Animals 37. Ribcage 38. Feet These are just things I thought of off the top of my head, there are hundreds more. The chances of this universe being this perfect is one in 137,438,953,472,000. I am going to make these numbers relateable to your life. You have about a one in 175 million chance of winnning the lottery. These chances are equal to winning the lottery 785,365 times in a row. If you won the lottery 785,000 times in a row would you shrug and think of it as random chance or would you think some one had hacked or messed with the system. Remember my number estimates were rather conservative. Now a couple of questions about the Big Bang theory which, not suprisingly came up in my opponents arguments. Using the Big Bang theory in its present form as a theory which can explain all of the universe's creation seems somewhat rushed. The theory was many bugs to work out, it would be like physicists trying to draw realistic conclusions from Quantum Mechanics in 1920. It would not work very well since we have so far to go, science is by its nature contingent. It is foolish of us to think we are at the height of physics currently, people in the late 19th century thought the same thing. Every modern man must realize that in one-hundred years his beliefs and work will be thought foolish and stupid. Science is always changing, morphed constantly and therefore we cannot always trust it. Christianity is not morphed and changed(its idealogy is but its core beliefs are not), we can trust Christianity much more than we can trust our current views of science. So here are some arguments against the Big Bang theory, I am not saying that it is useless but rather that it has so many bugs to be worked out, in the future it may very well work: 1. It violates the First Law of Thermodynamics 2. It violates Relativity, Hawking and others have based their theories and ways of explaining the Big Bang on relativity and yet their theory breaks one of Relativity's basic statements. Since the Big Bang accelerated faster than the speed of light, it violates Relativity and therefore it is illogical to try and explain time and space with Relativistic concepts because obviously the theory does not work on something as complex as the Big Bang. 3. It defies the Law of Entropy. 4. New evidence argues that the Universe is not expanding at all(I don't want to go in depth, I'm running out of characterds but I'll post the link below my arguments) which if that is true defintely proves the Big Bang theory wrong. 5. It assumes nothing creates everything. 6. What created the Singularity or did it just exist? 7. What force caused the Big Bang to occur? 8. The Big Bang theory must produce a fair amount of Lithium but as researchers are now noticing, the universe has not produced near as much as predicted and older stars(which should have more) have less than one tenth of what is predicted. Thank you to everyone reading, good luck to SNP1. Link I promised: <URL>...	Philosophy123	Thank you for a very interesting argument on the part of SNP1. I will now bring up the argument that many people have made before me, the argument that this world(and this universe in general) is simply too complex to be created by random chance, even with several scientific theories which would choose to show otherwhise(Evolution for example gives us a degree of explanation of the biological complexity all around us but only a degree). Evolution had brought us to where we are today, it has given us several special traits which have helped us survive but there are so many things that cannot be caused by mere evolution. For example, here are several things which must have existed for the human body to survive long enough to produce offspring and continue life: 1. Eyes 2. Blood 3. Heart 4. Reproductive system 5. Arms 6. Legs 7. Lungs 8. Mouths 9. Bladder 10. Liver 11. Pancreas(modern humanity can live without one but in its primitive state we would not have a chance) 12. Cells 13. Kidney(same case as pancreas) 14. Bones 15. Nerves 16. Skin 17. Brain 18. Immune system 19. Muscles The fact that we have all of these things is incredible. Imagine that there is a o.1 percent chance of these things being created by random chance(which I personally think is a favorable percentage for the con). The chances of the human body being that perfect is one in 262,144,000 and of course the human body is exponentially more complex that that. Look at the rib cage(like a prison around our heart, our most vital organ, coincidence?), or our fingers and fingernails(perfect for everyday life, using and holding tools), think of our eyes(there are twelve parts to the eye that are explicit for our sight), think of our ears, how we have senses which can transmit information to our brains. It is all so amazing. Evolution could not have created ears or fingers, we could not have said "I wish I could hear" and suddenly be able to hear or gain other features. No, these features were innate, given to us since the very creation of time. The body is amazing. Now, look at the circumstances which the human body is in. We have just the right combination of oxygen in the air, just the perfect climate for our survival, animals and plants to give us food, water which we could not live without, the perfect amount of gravity, a strong nuclear force, the perfect strength of the electromagnetic force. You cannot honestly say that this all happened. The human body is lets say, one in a trillion, thats pretty conservative if you ask me. So, a body which is one in a trillion in an environment where if gravity were just a little stronger or a little weaker we could not survive, this perfect body the perfect distance from a star which is the perfect size. If this world was created by random chance, it is a mathematical anamoly which is almost unthinkable. Now, I will add to my list of amazing things about the body, including things about the universe around us. 20. Correct amount of oxygen 21. Perfect gravity 22. Perfect electromagnetism 23. The sun 24. Water 25. Strong nuclear force 26. Ears 27. Fingers 28. Fingernails 29. Tongue 30. Stomach 31. Spine 32. Nose 33. The sheer quantity of elements 34. The ability of electrons to react with other elements 35. Plants 36. Animals 37. Ribcage 38. Feet These are just things I thought of off the top of my head, there are hundreds more. The chances of this universe being this perfect is one in 137,438,953,472,000. I am going to make these numbers relateable to your life. You have about a one in 175 million chance of winnning the lottery. These chances are equal to winning the lottery 785,365 times in a row. If you won the lottery 785,000 times in a row would you shrug and think of it as random chance or would you think some one had hacked or messed with the system. Remember my number estimates were rather conservative. Now a couple of questions about the Big Bang theory which, not suprisingly came up in my opponents arguments. Using the Big Bang theory in its present form as a theory which can explain all of the universe's creation seems somewhat rushed. The theory was many bugs to work out, it would be like physicists trying to draw realistic conclusions from Quantum Mechanics in 1920. It would not work very well since we have so far to go, science is by its nature contingent. It is foolish of us to think we are at the height of physics currently, people in the late 19th century thought the same thing. Every modern man must realize that in one-hundred years his beliefs and work will be thought foolish and stupid. Science is always changing, morphed constantly and therefore we cannot always trust it. Christianity is not morphed and changed(its idealogy is but its core beliefs are not), we can trust Christianity much more than we can trust our current views of science. So here are some arguments against the Big Bang theory, I am not saying that it is useless but rather that it has so many bugs to be worked out, in the future it may very well work: 1. It violates the First Law of Thermodynamics 2. It violates Relativity, Hawking and others have based their theories and ways of explaining the Big Bang on relativity and yet their theory breaks one of Relativity's basic statements. Since the Big Bang accelerated faster than the speed of light, it violates Relativity and therefore it is illogical to try and explain time and space with Relativistic concepts because obviously the theory does not work on something as complex as the Big Bang. 3. It defies the Law of Entropy. 4. New evidence argues that the Universe is not expanding at all(I don't want to go in depth, I'm running out of characterds but I'll post the link below my arguments) which if that is true defintely proves the Big Bang theory wrong. 5. It assumes nothing creates everything. 6. What created the Singularity or did it just exist? 7. What force caused the Big Bang to occur? 8. The Big Bang theory must produce a fair amount of Lithium but as researchers are now noticing, the universe has not produced near as much as predicted and older stars(which should have more) have less than one tenth of what is predicted. Thank you to everyone reading, good luck to SNP1. Link I promised: http://nextbigfuture.com...	Philosophy	2	A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/	532
I accept. Pro must show that it cannot be the case that the universe could exist without god. The burden of proof is on pro to show this.	SNP1	I accept. Pro must show that it cannot be the case that the universe could exist without god. The burden of proof is on pro to show this.	Philosophy	0	A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/	533
Introduction I will be proposing a couple different ways in which we can have the universe without a god creating it (as just having a single example of how the universe could exist without god falsifies Pro's statement that god must have created the universe. In this round I will only be bringing up my own points, I will save rebuttals for the next round. Hawking Argument In this point I will be using an argument that Stephen Hawking made, but formalized[1]. P1) Causes must precede their effects in time P2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe) C) Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause P1 is validated through the principals of causality. P2 is based off of relativity, where time is another dimension of space, and where there is no space there is no time. No space before the big bang means no time before the big bang. This works under the A-Theory of Time if time is a dimension of space, and therefore under that metaphysical model it is possible that the universe did not have a cause, and therefore was not caused by god. Krauss Argument In this point I will be using Krauss' points to show that if the universe has a cause that it does not necessarily need to be god[2]. One discovery in quantum mechanics is that empty space is not really empty, it is bubling with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. These fluctuations can explain where all the matter/anti-matter/energy in the universe came from[3]. Furthermore, as quantum physics is a field of fluctuations, quantum gravity, if such a thing exists, would almost certainly allow fluctuations as well. Gravity, as we currently understand it, deals with spacetime. If you put these two things together then we would have the ability for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence. This allows for space, time, matter, anti-matter, energy etc. to come out of nothing without the need of god, only the need of quantum mechanics. Tenseless Cosmological Argument In this point I will be showing that under the B-Theory of Time that god cannot have created the universe. P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause. P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist. P3) Tensed facts do not exist. C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3). C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1). Defense of Premise 1: I am sure that this does not need much for explanation. If God created the universe, the logically god is the cause and the universe is the effect. Defense of Premise 2: The principals of causality require for there to be a movement of time. A before the effect, an after the cause, etc. This requires tensed facts. This point is seemingly agreed upon by all time theorists, even William Lane Craig[4]. Defense of Premise 3: To defend premise 3 I will be proposing that the most probable theory of time is the B-Theory of Time. Effects like relativity and time dialation support the B-Theory of Time while refuting the A-Theory of Time (the A-Theory of Time is the theory of time that allows tensed facts to exist). Further support for this premise comes from recent experiments in quantum mechanics. Under the B-Theory of Time, the progression of time is an illusion, and time does not really pass. If one were to have "god view", a view of the universe from outside of it, the universe would appear static. A recent study has shown that the progress of time is an illusion caused from quantum entanglement, and that if you did have "god view" that the universe would actually appear static[5]. Conclusion I have shown ways in which it is possible that god does not have to have created the universe. I will make my rebbutals next round. Good luck to Pro. Sources [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>...	SNP1	Introduction I will be proposing a couple different ways in which we can have the universe without a god creating it (as just having a single example of how the universe could exist without god falsifies Pro's statement that god must have created the universe. In this round I will only be bringing up my own points, I will save rebuttals for the next round. Hawking Argument In this point I will be using an argument that Stephen Hawking made, but formalized[1]. P1) Causes must precede their effects in time P2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe) C) Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause P1 is validated through the principals of causality. P2 is based off of relativity, where time is another dimension of space, and where there is no space there is no time. No space before the big bang means no time before the big bang. This works under the A-Theory of Time if time is a dimension of space, and therefore under that metaphysical model it is possible that the universe did not have a cause, and therefore was not caused by god. Krauss Argument In this point I will be using Krauss' points to show that if the universe has a cause that it does not necessarily need to be god[2]. One discovery in quantum mechanics is that empty space is not really empty, it is bubling with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. These fluctuations can explain where all the matter/anti-matter/energy in the universe came from[3]. Furthermore, as quantum physics is a field of fluctuations, quantum gravity, if such a thing exists, would almost certainly allow fluctuations as well. Gravity, as we currently understand it, deals with spacetime. If you put these two things together then we would have the ability for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence. This allows for space, time, matter, anti-matter, energy etc. to come out of nothing without the need of god, only the need of quantum mechanics. Tenseless Cosmological Argument In this point I will be showing that under the B-Theory of Time that god cannot have created the universe. P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause. P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist. P3) Tensed facts do not exist. C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3). C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1). Defense of Premise 1: I am sure that this does not need much for explanation. If God created the universe, the logically god is the cause and the universe is the effect. Defense of Premise 2: The principals of causality require for there to be a movement of time. A before the effect, an after the cause, etc. This requires tensed facts. This point is seemingly agreed upon by all time theorists, even William Lane Craig[4]. Defense of Premise 3: To defend premise 3 I will be proposing that the most probable theory of time is the B-Theory of Time. Effects like relativity and time dialation support the B-Theory of Time while refuting the A-Theory of Time (the A-Theory of Time is the theory of time that allows tensed facts to exist). Further support for this premise comes from recent experiments in quantum mechanics. Under the B-Theory of Time, the progression of time is an illusion, and time does not really pass. If one were to have "god view", a view of the universe from outside of it, the universe would appear static. A recent study has shown that the progress of time is an illusion caused from quantum entanglement, and that if you did have "god view" that the universe would actually appear static[5]. Conclusion I have shown ways in which it is possible that god does not have to have created the universe. I will make my rebbutals next round. Good luck to Pro. Sources [1] http://www.hawking.org.uk... [2] https://www.youtube.com... [3] http://universe-review.ca... [4] http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com... [5] https://medium.com...	Philosophy	1	A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/	534
Rebbutals Round 2 Argument 1 These points address the standard version of the Big Bang. None of my arguments in my round 2 use that model, they do not have the same problems as this. Round 2 Argument 2 There are 2 problems here. First, it does not deal with knowledge (which is the purpose of this debate). Second, this is a false dichodomy. Pro assumes here that there are only 2 religious positions, either Christianity or atheism. The reason this is flawed is because there are an infinite amount of possible gods. Not only this, but there are also a lot of denominations of certain religions which have slight variations, including how to go to heaven. So, if there are an infinite amount of possible gods and an infinite amount of ways to go to heaven (if there is a heaven) then it would logically follow that everyone would have about an equal chance of going to heaven. Not only that, but changing belief requires evidence. For example, if I pointed a gun at your head and told you that you would die if you didn't start believing in the invisible elephant that is right in front of you that I will kill you. The odds are the same with Pascal's Wager, good outcomes for belief and bad outcomes for doubt. Now, will you honestly believe in this invisible elephant? No, it is not possible for one to simply believe. One needs evidence to change their disposition. Round 3 Argument 1 Here, Pro argues for Intelligent Design by proposing there is infinite complexity. Pro makes a common mistake that humans were a goal of evolution. It does not matter what the chances of humans evolving were as evolution does not have an end goal. Now, these things can be explained through evolution. As Pro listed too many things to address all the things, so I will simply list links to address all the things he listed (so that I do not run out of character space just refuting all of these points). Eyes- <URL>... Circulatory system- <URL>... Heart- <URL>... Reproduction- <URL>... Limbs- <URL>... Lungs- <URL>... Kidney- purdy.satitpatumwan.ac.th/.../ Evolution %20of%20the%20 Kidney .ppt Bones- <URL>... Nerves- <URL>... Human skin- <URL>... Brain- <URL>... Immune system- <URL>... Muscles- <URL>... And even if evolution of Earth is false, which it probably isn't, that does not rule out Panspermia. Round 3 Argument 2 Here is where Pro argues for teleology. The problem is that teleology actually supports naturalism as one would not expect life to exist where it was not permitted under naturalism. Video to the side for further explanation. Teleology also assumes that the universe could be any other way, that there isn't a multiverse, and that there is only 1 dimension (instead of 2 which would allow for every possible past, present, and future to exist at once). Round 3 Pro's Rebuttals First Law of Thermodynamics: The Tenselss argument that I made makes it so the universe never began, so there is no problem there. Besides, this issue is avoided under a zero energy universe(as the net energy would not have changed, just like how 1+(-1)=0), and that is the type of universe that we live in. <URL>... Relativity: Space expanding does not violate relativity as relativity deals with motion, but the universe is not in motion, it is expanding. <URL>... Entropy (2nd law of Thermodynaics): This is solved due to the expanding universe creating pockets of equalibrium and the universe's expansion changing the point of equalibrium. <URL>... Not expanding universe: This does not refute the tenseless argument that I made. Also, the evidence that you suggested does not conclusively show that the universe is not expanding. The evidence for the expanding universe is much more conclusive. More tests would have to be done before confirming this, especially since the actual abstract of the paper says, " We do not claim that the consistency of the adopted model with SB data is sufficient by itself to confirm what would be a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos. However, we believe this result is more than sufficient reason to examine this combination of hypotheses further. " Nothing creates everything: I addressed this issue in my round 2, and you have not yet refuted any of my premises or arguments. Singularity: The singularity would not be an issue under the Krauss Argument and Tenseless argument (as it would be non-existent), and the Hawking argument explains why there doesn't need to be a cause. This poses no problem. Force behind the Big Bang: I addressed this in my second round. In 2 of the 3 arguments there would not need to be a force (in fact, there could not be a force) behind the big bang. In the other, quantum physics explains it. Lithium: More recent findings showed that there isn't actually a lithium problem in the universe. Also, this would not impact the tenseless argument I made in round 2. <URL>... Conclusions I have addressed all of Pro's arguments and rebuttals, he has not yet addressed the actual arguments that I proposed in my second round.	SNP1	Rebbutals Round 2 Argument 1 These points address the standard version of the Big Bang. None of my arguments in my round 2 use that model, they do not have the same problems as this. Round 2 Argument 2 There are 2 problems here. First, it does not deal with knowledge (which is the purpose of this debate). Second, this is a false dichodomy. Pro assumes here that there are only 2 religious positions, either Christianity or atheism. The reason this is flawed is because there are an infinite amount of possible gods. Not only this, but there are also a lot of denominations of certain religions which have slight variations, including how to go to heaven. So, if there are an infinite amount of possible gods and an infinite amount of ways to go to heaven (if there is a heaven) then it would logically follow that everyone would have about an equal chance of going to heaven. Not only that, but changing belief requires evidence. For example, if I pointed a gun at your head and told you that you would die if you didn't start believing in the invisible elephant that is right in front of you that I will kill you. The odds are the same with Pascal's Wager, good outcomes for belief and bad outcomes for doubt. Now, will you honestly believe in this invisible elephant? No, it is not possible for one to simply believe. One needs evidence to change their disposition. Round 3 Argument 1 Here, Pro argues for Intelligent Design by proposing there is infinite complexity. Pro makes a common mistake that humans were a goal of evolution. It does not matter what the chances of humans evolving were as evolution does not have an end goal. Now, these things can be explained through evolution. As Pro listed too many things to address all the things, so I will simply list links to address all the things he listed (so that I do not run out of character space just refuting all of these points). Eyes- http://www.scientificamerican.com... Circulatory system- http://www.sciencedaily.com... Heart- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Reproduction- http://www.nhm.ac.uk... Limbs- http://www.nature.com... Lungs- http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Kidney- purdy.satitpatumwan.ac.th/.../ Evolution %20of%20the%20 Kidney .ppt Bones- http://www.jstor.org... Nerves- http://scienceblogs.com... Human skin- http://www.amnh.org... Brain- http://www.newscientist.com... Immune system- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Muscles- http://www.sciencedaily.com... And even if evolution of Earth is false, which it probably isn't, that does not rule out Panspermia. Round 3 Argument 2 Here is where Pro argues for teleology. The problem is that teleology actually supports naturalism as one would not expect life to exist where it was not permitted under naturalism. Video to the side for further explanation. Teleology also assumes that the universe could be any other way, that there isn't a multiverse, and that there is only 1 dimension (instead of 2 which would allow for every possible past, present, and future to exist at once). Round 3 Pro's Rebuttals First Law of Thermodynamics: The Tenselss argument that I made makes it so the universe never began, so there is no problem there. Besides, this issue is avoided under a zero energy universe(as the net energy would not have changed, just like how 1+(-1)=0), and that is the type of universe that we live in. http://www.livescience.com... Relativity: Space expanding does not violate relativity as relativity deals with motion, but the universe is not in motion, it is expanding. http://scienceline.org... Entropy (2nd law of Thermodynaics): This is solved due to the expanding universe creating pockets of equalibrium and the universe's expansion changing the point of equalibrium. http://machineslikeus.com... Not expanding universe: This does not refute the tenseless argument that I made. Also, the evidence that you suggested does not conclusively show that the universe is not expanding. The evidence for the expanding universe is much more conclusive. More tests would have to be done before confirming this, especially since the actual abstract of the paper says, " We do not claim that the consistency of the adopted model with SB data is sufficient by itself to confirm what would be a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos. However, we believe this result is more than sufficient reason to examine this combination of hypotheses further. " Nothing creates everything: I addressed this issue in my round 2, and you have not yet refuted any of my premises or arguments. Singularity: The singularity would not be an issue under the Krauss Argument and Tenseless argument (as it would be non-existent), and the Hawking argument explains why there doesn't need to be a cause. This poses no problem. Force behind the Big Bang: I addressed this in my second round. In 2 of the 3 arguments there would not need to be a force (in fact, there could not be a force) behind the big bang. In the other, quantum physics explains it. Lithium: More recent findings showed that there isn't actually a lithium problem in the universe. Also, this would not impact the tenseless argument I made in round 2. http://www.popsci.com... Conclusions I have addressed all of Pro's arguments and rebuttals, he has not yet addressed the actual arguments that I proposed in my second round.	Philosophy	2	A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/	535
The case is DC v. Heller. I contend that Heller had the constitution on his side. The Second Amendment can be interpreted as thus "The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re-phrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law 585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists' Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814-821" That from Scalia's opinion for the majority in above case. So the Second Amendment means that we cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Dick Heller's complaint to the Federal District Court in DC was on three laws, and why he thought they were unconstitutional. The summary of the writ of certiorari in the opinion summarized it best: "He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of 'functional firearms within the home.'" According the syllabus the Court held: "1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53. (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28 (c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30. (d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47. (f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpre- tation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54. 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition--in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute--would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64." The court held that the Second Amendment conveys and individual right to bear arms. This means that because the DC laws prohibit and inhibit the right to keep and bear arms, they are unconstitutional. I affirm.	LR4N6FTW4EVA	The case is DC v. Heller. I contend that Heller had the constitution on his side. The Second Amendment can be interpreted as thus "The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re-phrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law ï¿½585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists' Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821" That from Scalia's opinion for the majority in above case. So the Second Amendment means that we cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Dick Heller's complaint to the Federal District Court in DC was on three laws, and why he thought they were unconstitutional. The summary of the writ of certiorari in the opinion summarized it best: "He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of 'functional firearms within the home.'" According the syllabus the Court held: "1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28 (c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpre- tation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64." The court held that the Second Amendment conveys and individual right to bear arms. This means that because the DC laws prohibit and inhibit the right to keep and bear arms, they are unconstitutional. I affirm.	Politics	0	A-debate-on-a-Supreme-Court-Case/1/	666

End of preview. Expand in Dataset Viewer.

Dataset Card for "debateorg_w_effect_for_liberal_subset"

More Information needed

Downloads last month: 30

Size of downloaded dataset files:

57.1 MB

Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:

57.1 MB

Number of rows:

24,332