Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_liberal_subset

like 0

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

100-debate-Challenge-3-This-House-believes-reality-television-does-more-harm-than-good/2/

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

100-debate-Challenge-3-This-House-believes-reality-television-does-more-harm-than-good/2/

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

100-debate-Challenge-3-This-House-believes-reality-television-does-more-harm-than-good/2/

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

4b.-Campaign-Finance-Reform/1/

your history channel wont save you , 911 was an inside job

truther1111

your history channel wont save you , 911 was an inside job

Society

911-inside-job/3/

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

911-inside-job/3/

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

911-inside-job/3/

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

911-inside-job/3/

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

911-inside-job/3/

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

911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/

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

911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/

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

911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/

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

911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/

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

911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/

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

911-why-debunkers-cant-face-the-facts/1/

I accept the terms. Good luck!

Contradiction

I accept the terms. Good luck!

Society

A-Fetus-is-Not-Morally-Equivalent-to-a-Mature-Human/1/

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

A-Fetus-is-Not-Morally-Equivalent-to-a-Mature-Human/1/

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

A-Fetus-is-Not-Morally-Equivalent-to-a-Mature-Human/1/

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

A-Fetus-is-Not-Morally-Equivalent-to-a-Mature-Human/1/

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

A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/

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

A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/

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

A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/

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

A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/

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

A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/

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

A-God-must-have-created-the-universe./1/

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 �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.

Politics

A-debate-on-a-Supreme-Court-Case/1/

"While I agree that the first part of the clause is a prefatory statement, it is used to do just that, further explain the purpose of second part of the clause, which is to allow for the people to be a part of a State Militia. More on this to come..." No, it's not, there is no basis for that statement. "The Government cannot infringe upon the security of a State by taking away their right to a militia, is actually what it means; again, more to follow in my case." What? No. You ignore the Volokh card. "hat's a militia, but not a well regulated militia, as the amendment specifies. A well regulated militia was one that included training and an organization as proscribed by the State's legislature. Heller was not a member of any well regulated State Militia when he first appealed his denial to own a handgun." But he is a people. The amendment says people, not "states" or "militias." The people can keep and bear arms. "This is false, citizens militias wouldn't have done anything, it would just be a bunch of dudes with guns with no idea whats going on. Anti-federalists realized this, and demanded the right for States to keep militias, militias that would abide to State and not national law." Citizen's militias won the Revolutionary War, and besides, the people need weapons, that's why we need the Second Amendment. "I contend that it means 'to fight. [in a military sense]' Versus what my opponent asserts, which is 'to have weapons' Lets look at the Declaration of Independence, where the term is used in one of Thomas Jefferson's castigations of George III." Ahh, but Black, the famous jurist, and publisher of Black's Law Dictionary defined "bear arms" as to have weapons, and as the framers were lawyers it is likely that this would be their legalese definition, and the one that would be used in say a law, or huh, the second amendment. A British Common Law case in 1707 definitively defined "to bear arms" as to have arms, not as to fight. As the founders used British Common Law until they established Common Law of their own, it is safe to say that this is their meaning. Also, it also said "keep...arms" So even under your definition, it would say "the right of the people to have weapons, and serve in a militia shall not be infringed." "A trigger lock can be disengaged in under a minute, and also, the DC Circuit court and DC Court of Appeals have both found that exceptions can and should be granted to the general law in exceptional circumstances, as seen in the DC Court of Appeals Case Emry v. US." And in that minute, you can be shot by the burglar. And, what's with the point about the Emry v. US case? There is no way of knowing when an "exceptional circumstance" will occur. This means that the law-abiding citizen would be screwed over by the less upright one. "Ergo, to fight in a military sense is the meaning of bearing arms. Shooting at an intrusive/tasty rabbit would not be described as bearing arms against it, so how could shooting at a person in a self-defense style be described as bearing arms as well?' As I have shown, the founders used legal terms, and as a legal term, "bear arms" meant to have them. Also, I have shown that the first clause is prefatory. Need further proof? The phrase is the Latin ablative absolute, and if properly used, the first part is explanatory, answering why ( <URL>... ). As the founders were well versed in Latin, this is certainly the term they would have used. "Further proof that the 2nd Amendment is referring only to the usage of weapons in a military sense is that other amendments were proposed that did allow for the usage of weapons for personal defense, but were rejected. 'That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state...' read an amendment proposed by the Pennsylvania delegation. 'that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.' read another proposition from the Massachusetts delegation." They only needed one amendment, so, as multiples were proposed, they chose the best. Thomas Jefferson, probably one of the most influential people at the time, wrote the Second Amendment, so he had the most clout to get his version passed. "The facts are in, handguns are particularly suited to criminal misuse, especially in the District of Columbia. There is no reason to own a handgun in the city for any other purpose than to shoot someone with, considering that it is 100% city. The Department of Justice reports while only 1/3 of the firearms owned in this nation are handguns, that Eighty-seven percent of all guns used in crime are handguns. The DC laws were enacted to prevent this. Furthermore, the DC laws allowed for people to still own and keep rifles and shotguns, shotguns especially, as described in Guns & Ammo, are more effective than handguns at stopping a home intruder." However, handguns are the most convenient, and the Courts have ruled that a weapon in common usage by the people cannot be prohibited. 1/3 of all the guns is a pretty common usage. Vote PRO.

LR4N6FTW4EVA

"While I agree that the first part of the clause is a prefatory statement, it is used to do just that, further explain the purpose of second part of the clause, which is to allow for the people to be a part of a State Militia. More on this to come..." No, it's not, there is no basis for that statement. "The Government cannot infringe upon the security of a State by taking away their right to a militia, is actually what it means; again, more to follow in my case." What? No. You ignore the Volokh card. "hat's a militia, but not a well regulated militia, as the amendment specifies. A well regulated militia was one that included training and an organization as proscribed by the State's legislature. Heller was not a member of any well regulated State Militia when he first appealed his denial to own a handgun." But he is a people. The amendment says people, not "states" or "militias." The people can keep and bear arms. "This is false, citizens militias wouldn't have done anything, it would just be a bunch of dudes with guns with no idea whats going on. Anti-federalists realized this, and demanded the right for States to keep militias, militias that would abide to State and not national law." Citizen's militias won the Revolutionary War, and besides, the people need weapons, that's why we need the Second Amendment. "I contend that it means 'to fight. [in a military sense]' Versus what my opponent asserts, which is 'to have weapons' Lets look at the Declaration of Independence, where the term is used in one of Thomas Jefferson's castigations of George III." Ahh, but Black, the famous jurist, and publisher of Black's Law Dictionary defined "bear arms" as to have weapons, and as the framers were lawyers it is likely that this would be their legalese definition, and the one that would be used in say a law, or huh, the second amendment. A British Common Law case in 1707 definitively defined "to bear arms" as to have arms, not as to fight. As the founders used British Common Law until they established Common Law of their own, it is safe to say that this is their meaning. Also, it also said "keep...arms" So even under your definition, it would say "the right of the people to have weapons, and serve in a militia shall not be infringed." "A trigger lock can be disengaged in under a minute, and also, the DC Circuit court and DC Court of Appeals have both found that exceptions can and should be granted to the general law in exceptional circumstances, as seen in the DC Court of Appeals Case Emry v. US." And in that minute, you can be shot by the burglar. And, what's with the point about the Emry v. US case? There is no way of knowing when an "exceptional circumstance" will occur. This means that the law-abiding citizen would be screwed over by the less upright one. "Ergo, to fight in a military sense is the meaning of bearing arms. Shooting at an intrusive/tasty rabbit would not be described as bearing arms against it, so how could shooting at a person in a self-defense style be described as bearing arms as well?' As I have shown, the founders used legal terms, and as a legal term, "bear arms" meant to have them. Also, I have shown that the first clause is prefatory. Need further proof? The phrase is the Latin ablative absolute, and if properly used, the first part is explanatory, answering why ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). As the founders were well versed in Latin, this is certainly the term they would have used. "Further proof that the 2nd Amendment is referring only to the usage of weapons in a military sense is that other amendments were proposed that did allow for the usage of weapons for personal defense, but were rejected. 'That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state...' read an amendment proposed by the Pennsylvania delegation. 'that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.' read another proposition from the Massachusetts delegation." They only needed one amendment, so, as multiples were proposed, they chose the best. Thomas Jefferson, probably one of the most influential people at the time, wrote the Second Amendment, so he had the most clout to get his version passed. "The facts are in, handguns are particularly suited to criminal misuse, especially in the District of Columbia. There is no reason to own a handgun in the city for any other purpose than to shoot someone with, considering that it is 100% city. The Department of Justice reports while only 1/3 of the firearms owned in this nation are handguns, that Eighty-seven percent of all guns used in crime are handguns. The DC laws were enacted to prevent this. Furthermore, the DC laws allowed for people to still own and keep rifles and shotguns, shotguns especially, as described in Guns & Ammo, are more effective than handguns at stopping a home intruder." However, handguns are the most convenient, and the Courts have ruled that a weapon in common usage by the people cannot be prohibited. 1/3 of all the guns is a pretty common usage. Vote PRO.

Politics

A-debate-on-a-Supreme-Court-Case/1/

"What? No. You ignore reality. It was explained by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison that no part of the Constitution is to be ignored. You're advocating the ignorance of part of the amendment." What? No. You ignore reading comprehension skills. Volokh shows us what the amendment means, and the purpose of the first clause. "Erm, state's militias comprised of citizens won the Revolutionary war. It wasn't just a bunch of 'dudes with guns' as previously described by myself. The 13 states were well aware that the 'dudes with guns' strategy is a terrible one, and so they designed laws to regulate their militias. A regulation of said militia could include not allowing handguns." Erm... no. Concord, Lexington, ever heard of them? "1. Less than half of the framers had any legal experience. 2. So you're suggesting that the Framers would write the constitution in an un-natural way, meaning that we should read it un-naturally to how words meant back then?" 1. James Madison wrote it. He was a lawyer. 2. No...check your history ( <URL>... ) "Except for the fact that I showed a different meaning being used in the Declaration of Independence, which occurred a good 60 years after your common law case." See the link above. "Keeping arms which may be regulated by the states as part of states having a well-regulated militia." False, there is no basis for such a statement. "Its not a burglar if he or she shoots you. I wouldn't recommend trying to pull a gun on someone that is right next to you anyway. But enough about macabre stuff. Back to the debate." Whatever. All I'm saying is that the trigger lock inhibits your ability to defend yourself. "This has nothing to do with the case of DC v. Heller anymore." It does. What I'm saying is that the law abiding citizen who keeps the gun locked will be endangered if an exceptional circumstance occurs. "Again, you are advocating the idea that the best way to read the constitution would be in an un-natural format. And you have no proof of anyone saying 'oh yeah, we wrote it like that because we didn't really mean the first part.'" The phrasing was natural at the time. People who wanted to sound smart used it. "Uhhh. Yeah. Thomas Jefferson was in France during the entirety of the Constitutional Convention. So This is completely false. You'd also need to prove that Pennslyvania and Massachusetts somehow didn't have enough clout." Obviously I was suffering intense muscle spasms when I wrote Thomas Jefferson. I meant James Madison, who was equally influential. "Most convenient for criminals that is. My facts have shown that handguns are in high frequency usage by those who wish to do another harm. Lets also not forget about the harrowing statistics regarding domestic violence and suicide when a handgun is in the home. If needed, I will present them." The fact that they are very commonly used by people in general awards them constitutional protection. "The courts have also ruled that a weapon in common usage by criminals can and should be banned." Right now, or at least at the time of the Heller case, common law protected handguns.

LR4N6FTW4EVA

"What? No. You ignore reality. It was explained by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison that no part of the Constitution is to be ignored. You're advocating the ignorance of part of the amendment." What? No. You ignore reading comprehension skills. Volokh shows us what the amendment means, and the purpose of the first clause. "Erm, state's militias comprised of citizens won the Revolutionary war. It wasn't just a bunch of 'dudes with guns' as previously described by myself. The 13 states were well aware that the 'dudes with guns' strategy is a terrible one, and so they designed laws to regulate their militias. A regulation of said militia could include not allowing handguns." Erm... no. Concord, Lexington, ever heard of them? "1. Less than half of the framers had any legal experience. 2. So you're suggesting that the Framers would write the constitution in an un-natural way, meaning that we should read it un-naturally to how words meant back then?" 1. James Madison wrote it. He was a lawyer. 2. No...check your history ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) "Except for the fact that I showed a different meaning being used in the Declaration of Independence, which occurred a good 60 years after your common law case." See the link above. "Keeping arms which may be regulated by the states as part of states having a well-regulated militia." False, there is no basis for such a statement. "Its not a burglar if he or she shoots you. I wouldn't recommend trying to pull a gun on someone that is right next to you anyway. But enough about macabre stuff. Back to the debate." Whatever. All I'm saying is that the trigger lock inhibits your ability to defend yourself. "This has nothing to do with the case of DC v. Heller anymore." It does. What I'm saying is that the law abiding citizen who keeps the gun locked will be endangered if an exceptional circumstance occurs. "Again, you are advocating the idea that the best way to read the constitution would be in an un-natural format. And you have no proof of anyone saying 'oh yeah, we wrote it like that because we didn't really mean the first part.'" The phrasing was natural at the time. People who wanted to sound smart used it. "Uhhh. Yeah. Thomas Jefferson was in France during the entirety of the Constitutional Convention. So This is completely false. You'd also need to prove that Pennslyvania and Massachusetts somehow didn't have enough clout." Obviously I was suffering intense muscle spasms when I wrote Thomas Jefferson. I meant James Madison, who was equally influential. "Most convenient for criminals that is. My facts have shown that handguns are in high frequency usage by those who wish to do another harm. Lets also not forget about the harrowing statistics regarding domestic violence and suicide when a handgun is in the home. If needed, I will present them." The fact that they are very commonly used by people in general awards them constitutional protection. "The courts have also ruled that a weapon in common usage by criminals can and should be banned." Right now, or at least at the time of the Heller case, common law protected handguns.

Politics

A-debate-on-a-Supreme-Court-Case/1/

"Basically, he says that the first part of the 2nd amendment was just a joke, and that only the second half really matters. I say, 'no way! You can't pick and choose parts of the Constitution to listen to!' and I use a quote from the Supreme Court to back it up. He still thinks it is correct, and so to further prove this wrong, I present a quote from US v. Miller, the last major 2nd amendment case before this one: 'with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state-regulated militias the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.'" That lists the end. Basically, because state regulated militias are good, we need gun rights. Further proof needed? Uhh...how about the fact that the earliest commentator on the Constitution, a personal friend of both James Madison, the author of the amendment, and Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1803 that it conferred an individual right to bear and keep arms. "1. The Revolutionary War seemed to transpire over more than two battles. 2. Well regulated militias fought in both of those battles for the Revolutionaries. The minutemen were not just dudes with guns. They were the best of the Massachusetts militia, designed to be ready in a minutes notice. I will now quote Mr. Jared Sparks, author of a book on George Washington, who explains the Massachusetts militia in depth:" The militias of that time were operating separate from the government, because it was the government they were fighting against. They were not state militias. Anyways, it is the right of the people to have arms, so just because it is to aid the formation of militias, people may still keep and bear arms. The definition of militia is not important. "My opponent continues with the idea of the authors writing the second amendment just to be confusing. He says that James Madison originally wrote it, which is true, however, it went through intense discussion in the House and Senate, which was not comprised of lawyers exclusively, or even primarily. To say that they all were ones who felt that an un-natural reading that not even most of them could understand was best is hogwash. My opponent then goes to the wikipedia page on the history of amendment number 2. Its quite a good bit to read, I'm not really sure if he expects me to read all of it, without him explaining what is relevant to this discussion at all. Until further explanation, that link should be discounted as evidence." I mean just the history part, it explains the common law background for the second amendment, the founder's views and commentators views. That gives us a clear view of the meaning of the second amendment. For example, the article said that NO ONE suggested that it conferred a collective right, not an individual one until the late nineteenth century. Yeah, it looks like the founders pretty clearly meant an individual right. Also, they weren't writing it to be confusing, they were writing the way people talked. "My opponent says that there is no basis to assume that the amendment should lead to the assumption that the states should have the power to regulate arms to be used in their militias. The basis is that only certain weapons were kosher for militia use, namely muskets and rifles. The rightfulness of certain weapons was determined in laws written by the states regarding the creation of their respective militias." DC is not a state, so it can't regulate its militia, but people can still have weapons. Also, like I said, the amendment clearly confers an individual right. States can regulate what is actually used in the militias, but nonetheless, people can keep whatever weapon they want. "My opponent states that trigger locks inhibit one's ability of self defense. The purpose of a trigger lock is to prevent an accidental firing of said weapon, leading to unintentional deaths. I can prove this with statistics. Can my opponent find proof that trigger locks have led to more people being killed or robbed?" I used common sense. In the minute it takes to disengage, all sorts of bad things could happen. "My opponent continues with the idea of an un-natural reading and writing of the Constitution being the way to go. I don't understand why anything would be written in a legally binding document if it weren't designed to have affect. This would be the result of accepting my opponent's premise, basically, you can pick and choose parts of documents as you see fit. This would lead to grave consequences upon the United States and the world as a whole, another reason to reject it." The preamble of the Constitution explains the purpose of the Constitution, yet it is not of legal bearing. You can't sue the government for not securing the blessings of liberty for you and your posterity, now can you? "If you suffered intense muscle spasms then, I would assume that all of your writing would be a symptom of such a disorder. The amendment originally provided by Mr. Madison was altered quite a bit throughout, obviously if he was Mr. influence 9000 then it would have flown through. The other amendments were rejected because Mr. Madison's was closest to correct, which proscribed that states shall be granted the right to have militias comprised of the people." They were momentary muscle spasms. Anyways, if you have three of the same amendments, you only need to pass one. The fact that two were rejected means nothing. "My opponent says that common civil use grants it protection, while I maintain that even more common criminal use makes it legal and reasonable to ban it, as evidenced by Miller." But the handgun is the most convenient gun on the market, banning it violates the people's right. I mean seriously, do you want to make room for proper storage of a bulky rifle, or for a compact handgun? In conclusion, the second amendment was intended to be a an individual right, and the DC laws violate this individual right, therefore, you must vote Pro.

LR4N6FTW4EVA

"Basically, he says that the first part of the 2nd amendment was just a joke, and that only the second half really matters. I say, 'no way! You can't pick and choose parts of the Constitution to listen to!' and I use a quote from the Supreme Court to back it up. He still thinks it is correct, and so to further prove this wrong, I present a quote from US v. Miller, the last major 2nd amendment case before this one: 'with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state-regulated militias the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.'" That lists the end. Basically, because state regulated militias are good, we need gun rights. Further proof needed? Uhh...how about the fact that the earliest commentator on the Constitution, a personal friend of both James Madison, the author of the amendment, and Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1803 that it conferred an individual right to bear and keep arms. "1. The Revolutionary War seemed to transpire over more than two battles. 2. Well regulated militias fought in both of those battles for the Revolutionaries. The minutemen were not just dudes with guns. They were the best of the Massachusetts militia, designed to be ready in a minutes notice. I will now quote Mr. Jared Sparks, author of a book on George Washington, who explains the Massachusetts militia in depth:" The militias of that time were operating separate from the government, because it was the government they were fighting against. They were not state militias. Anyways, it is the right of the people to have arms, so just because it is to aid the formation of militias, people may still keep and bear arms. The definition of militia is not important. "My opponent continues with the idea of the authors writing the second amendment just to be confusing. He says that James Madison originally wrote it, which is true, however, it went through intense discussion in the House and Senate, which was not comprised of lawyers exclusively, or even primarily. To say that they all were ones who felt that an un-natural reading that not even most of them could understand was best is hogwash. My opponent then goes to the wikipedia page on the history of amendment number 2. Its quite a good bit to read, I'm not really sure if he expects me to read all of it, without him explaining what is relevant to this discussion at all. Until further explanation, that link should be discounted as evidence." I mean just the history part, it explains the common law background for the second amendment, the founder's views and commentators views. That gives us a clear view of the meaning of the second amendment. For example, the article said that NO ONE suggested that it conferred a collective right, not an individual one until the late nineteenth century. Yeah, it looks like the founders pretty clearly meant an individual right. Also, they weren't writing it to be confusing, they were writing the way people talked. "My opponent says that there is no basis to assume that the amendment should lead to the assumption that the states should have the power to regulate arms to be used in their militias. The basis is that only certain weapons were kosher for militia use, namely muskets and rifles. The rightfulness of certain weapons was determined in laws written by the states regarding the creation of their respective militias." DC is not a state, so it can't regulate its militia, but people can still have weapons. Also, like I said, the amendment clearly confers an individual right. States can regulate what is actually used in the militias, but nonetheless, people can keep whatever weapon they want. "My opponent states that trigger locks inhibit one's ability of self defense. The purpose of a trigger lock is to prevent an accidental firing of said weapon, leading to unintentional deaths. I can prove this with statistics. Can my opponent find proof that trigger locks have led to more people being killed or robbed?" I used common sense. In the minute it takes to disengage, all sorts of bad things could happen. "My opponent continues with the idea of an un-natural reading and writing of the Constitution being the way to go. I don't understand why anything would be written in a legally binding document if it weren't designed to have affect. This would be the result of accepting my opponent's premise, basically, you can pick and choose parts of documents as you see fit. This would lead to grave consequences upon the United States and the world as a whole, another reason to reject it." The preamble of the Constitution explains the purpose of the Constitution, yet it is not of legal bearing. You can't sue the government for not securing the blessings of liberty for you and your posterity, now can you? "If you suffered intense muscle spasms then, I would assume that all of your writing would be a symptom of such a disorder. The amendment originally provided by Mr. Madison was altered quite a bit throughout, obviously if he was Mr. influence 9000 then it would have flown through. The other amendments were rejected because Mr. Madison's was closest to correct, which proscribed that states shall be granted the right to have militias comprised of the people." They were momentary muscle spasms. Anyways, if you have three of the same amendments, you only need to pass one. The fact that two were rejected means nothing. "My opponent says that common civil use grants it protection, while I maintain that even more common criminal use makes it legal and reasonable to ban it, as evidenced by Miller." But the handgun is the most convenient gun on the market, banning it violates the people's right. I mean seriously, do you want to make room for proper storage of a bulky rifle, or for a compact handgun? In conclusion, the second amendment was intended to be a an individual right, and the DC laws violate this individual right, therefore, you must vote Pro.

Politics

A-debate-on-a-Supreme-Court-Case/1/

Thank you harrymate (Pro) for bringing an obvious subject to the debating floor. I (Con) will look forward to a learning experience in a constructive debate.

Mike_10-4

Thank you harrymate (Pro) for bringing an obvious subject to the debating floor. I (Con) will look forward to a learning experience in a constructive debate.

Education

A-teacher-should-not-apply-his-or-her-religious-beliefs-or-personal-opinions-on-his-or-her-lesson./1/

Let me start by agreeing with Pro, that teachers are " not perfect ." However, all teachers do have a " belief " and " personal opinion " on the best way to teach a subject. On the subject of " religion ," I attended a Parochial Catholic School and the nuns were expected to apply their " religious beliefs ," especially on the subjects of religion and bible study. That was the type of education my parents wanted for their children. On the other hand, my science teacher was a bit of a maverick. The nuns focused on Jesus and the bible, where my science teacher focused on God. My science teacher's " personal opinion " was, since God created everything, therefore, the physical Laws of Nature are the handwriting of God and the scientific method was a way to read God's handwriting. In essence, the Laws of Nature were here before the birth of Jesus. His " personal opinion " about the handwriting of God being more accurate than man's written scripture about God, was an enlightening moment. Since teachers are " not perfect ," those prophets (the ones who write scripture) are also teachers, and therefore, they too are " not perfect ." In summary, from my science teacher's " personal opinion " was, for those of faith, including preachers and prophets, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets--and, in some cases, God help us all. I was very fortunate to have a science teacher who gave his " personal opinion " on the difference between the handwriting of God, relative to man's handwritten scripture about Jesus and God. I will advise Pro to be aware of institutional biases in " beliefs " and " opinions " that exist throughout all educational systems. The subjects having the least bias in " beliefs " and " opinions " would be mathematics followed by physical science. All other subjects are a function of " beliefs " and " opinions " not only by the " teacher " but by the authors who write the text books you study from. My advice to Pro, is to understand " beliefs " and " opinions " are an inseparable part of humanity. And in saying that, while doing your homework, use the internet to challenge your teacher. Not to spite your teacher, but to enjoy the zenith in learning the spectrum of " beliefs " and " opinions ." This zenith is the nursery in the genesis of your " love of wisdom ," Greek translation: philosophy . Your philosophical evolution is a function of a teacher's " beliefs " and " personal opinions ." Where everyone, is a " not perfect " teacher.

Mike_10-4

Let me start by agreeing with Pro, that teachers are “ not perfect .” However, all teachers do have a “ belief ” and “ personal opinion ” on the best way to teach a subject. On the subject of " religion ," I attended a Parochial Catholic School and the nuns were expected to apply their “ religious beliefs ,” especially on the subjects of religion and bible study. That was the type of education my parents wanted for their children. On the other hand, my science teacher was a bit of a maverick. The nuns focused on Jesus and the bible, where my science teacher focused on God. My science teacher's “ personal opinion ” was, since God created everything, therefore, the physical Laws of Nature are the handwriting of God and the scientific method was a way to read God's handwriting. In essence, the Laws of Nature were here before the birth of Jesus. His “ personal opinion ” about the handwriting of God being more accurate than man's written scripture about God, was an enlightening moment. Since teachers are " not perfect ," those prophets (the ones who write scripture) are also teachers, and therefore, they too are “ not perfect .” In summary, from my science teacher's “ personal opinion ” was, for those of faith, including preachers and prophets, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets--and, in some cases, God help us all. I was very fortunate to have a science teacher who gave his “ personal opinion ” on the difference between the handwriting of God, relative to man's handwritten scripture about Jesus and God. I will advise Pro to be aware of institutional biases in “ beliefs ” and “ opinions ” that exist throughout all educational systems. The subjects having the least bias in “ beliefs ” and “ opinions ” would be mathematics followed by physical science. All other subjects are a function of “ beliefs ” and “ opinions ” not only by the “ teacher ” but by the authors who write the text books you study from. My advice to Pro, is to understand “ beliefs ” and “ opinions ” are an inseparable part of humanity. And in saying that, while doing your homework, use the internet to challenge your teacher. Not to spite your teacher, but to enjoy the zenith in learning the spectrum of “ beliefs ” and “ opinions .” This zenith is the nursery in the genesis of your “ love of wisdom ,” Greek translation: philosophy . Your philosophical evolution is a function of a teacher's “ beliefs ” and “ personal opinions .” Where everyone, is a “ not perfect ” teacher.

Education

A-teacher-should-not-apply-his-or-her-religious-beliefs-or-personal-opinions-on-his-or-her-lesson./1/

Pro stated, " You have provided me with a great example but unfortunately not all teachers are like that ." No two humans are alike therefore, no two teachers are the same. Con gave " a great example ," according to Pro, which debunks Pro's debating point that " A teacher should not apply his or her religious beliefs or personal opinions on his or her lesson ." Pro stated, " You have not responded to my final point in the second round. How about politically biased teachers? " " Politically biased " statements are simply based on one's " beliefs " and " opinions ." Besides, all public schools are controlled by the government. From a government controlled educational system, what does one expect, but political biases, especially in American History! Pro stated, " You have told me your "feelings", not logic or facts ." Pro addressed that point. I will state it again, it is logical, and a fact that " beliefs " and " opinions " are found less in mathematics followed by physical science compared to other subjects. Pro stated, " You made a great point but it had some faults ." Pro failed to point out those " faults ," therefore, Pro's claim is simply his " beliefs " and " opinions ." Pro stated, " Nice to know someone who debates properly ." Thank you for those kind words. Pro must realize that one's " religious beliefs or personal opinions " are inseparable from a person. Relative to a teacher, the way they act, teach, and interface with a student are all a function of their " religious beliefs or personal opinions ," and they could be so subtle, where the student does not realize it. The fine art in teaching depends on personal " beliefs " and " opinions " relative to their interest and passion on the lesson at hand. It is not so much about the teacher's " religious beliefs or personal opinions ," as it is about the subtle application of government institutional propaganda controlling teaching methods complemented by text book biases, which are far more concerning in manipulating the direction of society.

Mike_10-4

Pro stated, “ You have provided me with a great example but unfortunately not all teachers are like that .” No two humans are alike therefore, no two teachers are the same. Con gave “ a great example ,” according to Pro, which debunks Pro's debating point that “ A teacher should not apply his or her religious beliefs or personal opinions on his or her lesson .” Pro stated, “ You have not responded to my final point in the second round. How about politically biased teachers? ” “ Politically biased ” statements are simply based on one's “ beliefs ” and “ opinions .” Besides, all public schools are controlled by the government. From a government controlled educational system, what does one expect, but political biases, especially in American History! Pro stated, “ You have told me your "feelings", not logic or facts .” Pro addressed that point. I will state it again, it is logical, and a fact that “ beliefs ” and “ opinions ” are found less in mathematics followed by physical science compared to other subjects. Pro stated, “ You made a great point but it had some faults .” Pro failed to point out those “ faults ,” therefore, Pro's claim is simply his “ beliefs ” and “ opinions .” Pro stated, “ Nice to know someone who debates properly .” Thank you for those kind words. Pro must realize that one's “ religious beliefs or personal opinions ” are inseparable from a person. Relative to a teacher, the way they act, teach, and interface with a student are all a function of their “ religious beliefs or personal opinions ,” and they could be so subtle, where the student does not realize it. The fine art in teaching depends on personal “ beliefs ” and “ opinions ” relative to their interest and passion on the lesson at hand. It is not so much about the teacher's “ religious beliefs or personal opinions ,” as it is about the subtle application of government institutional propaganda controlling teaching methods complemented by text book biases, which are far more concerning in manipulating the direction of society.

Education

A-teacher-should-not-apply-his-or-her-religious-beliefs-or-personal-opinions-on-his-or-her-lesson./1/

First round is for accepting and the other two rounds are for debating. I bet most people would agree with me and would not be surprised if no one accepts the challenge. Please do not forfeit. Thank you.

harrymate

First round is for accepting and the other two rounds are for debating. I bet most people would agree with me and would not be surprised if no one accepts the challenge. Please do not forfeit. Thank you.

Education

A-teacher-should-not-apply-his-or-her-religious-beliefs-or-personal-opinions-on-his-or-her-lesson./1/

First of all, the teacher is not perfect. He could accidently tell the students something wrong based on his personal opinion. I know plenty of teachers like that. Also, when a teacher applies his religious belief on his teaching, it could be very offensive to the students. If a person is not a Christian, and the teacher talks about how God is so perfect, the student will feel very mad. Finally, the student could think (for example) Democrats are bad just because the teacher said that. Some students believe everything the teacher says and they will lack the choice to choose. I know these are very obvious reasons but they are necessary.

harrymate

First of all, the teacher is not perfect. He could accidently tell the students something wrong based on his personal opinion. I know plenty of teachers like that. Also, when a teacher applies his religious belief on his teaching, it could be very offensive to the students. If a person is not a Christian, and the teacher talks about how God is so perfect, the student will feel very mad. Finally, the student could think (for example) Democrats are bad just because the teacher said that. Some students believe everything the teacher says and they will lack the choice to choose. I know these are very obvious reasons but they are necessary.

Education

A-teacher-should-not-apply-his-or-her-religious-beliefs-or-personal-opinions-on-his-or-her-lesson./1/

You have provived me with a great example but unfortunately not all teachers are like that. The teachers I'm talking about only talks about how God is so great. You have not responded to my final point in the second round. How about politically biased teachers? You have told me your "feelings", not logic or facts. You made a great point but it had some faults. Nice to know someone who debates properly.

harrymate

You have provived me with a great example but unfortunately not all teachers are like that. The teachers I'm talking about only talks about how God is so great. You have not responded to my final point in the second round. How about politically biased teachers? You have told me your "feelings", not logic or facts. You made a great point but it had some faults. Nice to know someone who debates properly.

Education

A-teacher-should-not-apply-his-or-her-religious-beliefs-or-personal-opinions-on-his-or-her-lesson./1/

I accept the resolution, and therefore Affirm: A virgin should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion. I thank my opponent, and gratefully accept their definitions. My arguments stand as 1) Abortion is a matter that correlates to a couple who openly decide to have sexual intercourse, and want to prevent the child. Since abortion requires sexual intercourse, a virgin therefore, one who has NEVER had sexual intercourse, may not have an opinion because there is no way they may understand what the parents go through. 2) A virgin, if given the right to an opinion, could ruin the poor girls' lives by convincing them with their so-called "opinion" to not abortion. A recent study shows that many woman in the US alone die due to child-birth. <URL>... There can be a great chance, though, not 100% proven, from not getting abortions. A) The first effect of their opinion would be destroying the lives of the unprepared, or unwanting mother. The inexperienced virgin, not understanding what their doing, could cause this onto the mother willingly. This could later turn and effect the friend, or family members of the mother. B) The second, and other effect is death. As the above warrant tells, women die often due to the child birth. Also, as a well-known fact, women are at a greater susceptibility to death in a limited period of time after the child birth. Rebuttal: 1- The "emotion" argument cannot stand, because even though they have emotions, they have no logical right to an opinion. I can have an emotion of sadness when hearing of abortion, but I do not require a single opinion on it. And as argued in my contentions, they are inexperienced, and will not understand this. 2- The "bonds" simply don't matter; I can have a bond with my best friend, or even my parents, but that means nothing. That gives me no right to have an opinion on sexual intercourse, nor a reason why I should have one. Next, to answer the questions. - Yes, to the "Gay Rights," simply because they can understand why or why not they deserve them. I myself am for Gay Rights, because I, like everyone, can see Heterosexual rights. If I can see it, without being it, I can easily compare them, due to what we have. - Please re-word the "Capitalism" question. - The last question has an obvious answer: no. To wrap up my Round ("1") speech, I'd simply like to ask a few questions. - Do you have any opinion on the Physically handicapped? - Why must people have an opinion on something they don't know, or have, entirely? - Can you define the word "Virgin" in your own words? Thank you, and good luck.

TheWheel

I accept the resolution, and therefore Affirm: A virgin should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion. I thank my opponent, and gratefully accept their definitions. My arguments stand as 1) Abortion is a matter that correlates to a couple who openly decide to have sexual intercourse, and want to prevent the child. Since abortion requires sexual intercourse, a virgin therefore, one who has NEVER had sexual intercourse, may not have an opinion because there is no way they may understand what the parents go through. 2) A virgin, if given the right to an opinion, could ruin the poor girls' lives by convincing them with their so-called "opinion" to not abortion. A recent study shows that many woman in the US alone die due to child-birth. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... There can be a great chance, though, not 100% proven, from not getting abortions. A) The first effect of their opinion would be destroying the lives of the unprepared, or unwanting mother. The inexperienced virgin, not understanding what their doing, could cause this onto the mother willingly. This could later turn and effect the friend, or family members of the mother. B) The second, and other effect is death. As the above warrant tells, women die often due to the child birth. Also, as a well-known fact, women are at a greater susceptibility to death in a limited period of time after the child birth. Rebuttal: 1- The "emotion" argument cannot stand, because even though they have emotions, they have no logical right to an opinion. I can have an emotion of sadness when hearing of abortion, but I do not require a single opinion on it. And as argued in my contentions, they are inexperienced, and will not understand this. 2- The "bonds" simply don't matter; I can have a bond with my best friend, or even my parents, but that means nothing. That gives me no right to have an opinion on sexual intercourse, nor a reason why I should have one. Next, to answer the questions. - Yes, to the "Gay Rights," simply because they can understand why or why not they deserve them. I myself am for Gay Rights, because I, like everyone, can see Heterosexual rights. If I can see it, without being it, I can easily compare them, due to what we have. - Please re-word the "Capitalism" question. - The last question has an obvious answer: no. To wrap up my Round ("1") speech, I'd simply like to ask a few questions. - Do you have any opinion on the Physically handicapped? - Why must people have an opinion on something they don't know, or have, entirely? - Can you define the word "Virgin" in your own words? Thank you, and good luck.

Health

A-virgin-should-not-be-allowed-to-have-an-opinion-on-abortion./1/

I thank my opponent for their counter-arguments, and shall respond to them in order. 1- All Doctor's job is to tell them what the effects are. Whose job is it to choose whether the woman, aka the mother, has it or not? Is it the doctor who is having the abortion? No. The mother has it, and does not need any comments, or opinions from their doctor. 2- Of course, I would feel bad if someone I knew had died. My opponent's argument does state, in no way, how it should be an opinion of a virgin. These opinions of "anybody" could literally be non-virgins, so how can we go on the argument which doesn't state specifics. We can't. I'll answer this though as if it was specific on virgins: how would they know? Do you know when you're in the womb which other baby is going to be your best friend? No. We're no future-tellers, or Mind-readers. Again, opinions can hurt the mother in negative ways, such as harm to their life, and causing death in certain situations. My opponent disregarded this attack, so you can extend it. I end my rebuttals, and look forward to my opponent's 2nd Rebuttal, as soon my own.

TheWheel

I thank my opponent for their counter-arguments, and shall respond to them in order. 1- All Doctor's job is to tell them what the effects are. Whose job is it to choose whether the woman, aka the mother, has it or not? Is it the doctor who is having the abortion? No. The mother has it, and does not need any comments, or opinions from their doctor. 2- Of course, I would feel bad if someone I knew had died. My opponent's argument does state, in no way, how it should be an opinion of a virgin. These opinions of "anybody" could literally be non-virgins, so how can we go on the argument which doesn't state specifics. We can't. I'll answer this though as if it was specific on virgins: how would they know? Do you know when you're in the womb which other baby is going to be your best friend? No. We're no future-tellers, or Mind-readers. Again, opinions can hurt the mother in negative ways, such as harm to their life, and causing death in certain situations. My opponent disregarded this attack, so you can extend it. I end my rebuttals, and look forward to my opponent's 2nd Rebuttal, as soon my own.

Health

A-virgin-should-not-be-allowed-to-have-an-opinion-on-abortion./1/

Debate with me, It will be quality I promise

AkulMunjal

Debate with me, It will be quality I promise

Sports

Aaron-Hernandes-should-be-exonerated/1/

Defense: 1. I did not say that he was innocent or guilty, all what I have said is that there is not enough evidence for a conviction. Offense: 1. All the evidence is circumstantial: 2. Nobody saw who fired the gun, it could have bee anybody that was with Hernandes it might actually have been Hernandes. 3. Hernandes may have deleted the film to protect his friends, that does not make him a murderer 4. The Nissan Altima and the bullets in the car do not indicate that Hernandes is the killer they simply illustrate that own of the people with Hernandes is the killer, this would make him an accomplice to murder, and not an actual murder. 5. The text message between Lyod and his sister does not mean that Hernandez shot him, it just means that he may have witnessed the killing. 6. Without an eye witness account, a ballistics match, or DNA analysis Hernandes should not be convicted, because there is no proof that he did it, there is just evidence that he was with the person that did, or that he knew the person that did.

AkulMunjal

Defense: 1. I did not say that he was innocent or guilty, all what I have said is that there is not enough evidence for a conviction. Offense: 1. All the evidence is circumstantial: 2. Nobody saw who fired the gun, it could have bee anybody that was with Hernandes it might actually have been Hernandes. 3. Hernandes may have deleted the film to protect his friends, that does not make him a murderer 4. The Nissan Altima and the bullets in the car do not indicate that Hernandes is the killer they simply illustrate that own of the people with Hernandes is the killer, this would make him an accomplice to murder, and not an actual murder. 5. The text message between Lyod and his sister does not mean that Hernandez shot him, it just means that he may have witnessed the killing. 6. Without an eye witness account, a ballistics match, or DNA analysis Hernandes should not be convicted, because there is no proof that he did it, there is just evidence that he was with the person that did, or that he knew the person that did.

Sports

Aaron-Hernandes-should-be-exonerated/1/

defense: 1. I did not say that he was innocent or guilty, all what I have said is that there is not enough evidence for a conviction. 2. He does not have any sources, nor does he have any evidence, therefore you cannot vote for him. Extend my offense Offense: 1. All the evidence is circumstantial: 2. Nobody saw who fired the gun, it could have bee anybody that was with Hernandes it might actually have been Hernandes. 3. Hernandes may have deleted the film to protect his friends, that does not make him a murderer 4. The Nissan Altima and the bullets in the car do not indicate that Hernandes is the killer they simply illustrate that own of the people with Hernandes is the killer, this would make him an accomplice to murder, and not an actual murder. 5. The text message between Lyod and his sister does not mean that Hernandez shot him, it just means that he may have witnessed the killing. 6. Without an eye witness account, a ballistics match, or DNA analysis Hernandes should not be convicted, because there is no proof that he did it, there is just evidence that he was with the person that did, or that he knew the person that did.

AkulMunjal

defense: 1. I did not say that he was innocent or guilty, all what I have said is that there is not enough evidence for a conviction. 2. He does not have any sources, nor does he have any evidence, therefore you cannot vote for him. Extend my offense Offense: 1. All the evidence is circumstantial: 2. Nobody saw who fired the gun, it could have bee anybody that was with Hernandes it might actually have been Hernandes. 3. Hernandes may have deleted the film to protect his friends, that does not make him a murderer 4. The Nissan Altima and the bullets in the car do not indicate that Hernandes is the killer they simply illustrate that own of the people with Hernandes is the killer, this would make him an accomplice to murder, and not an actual murder. 5. The text message between Lyod and his sister does not mean that Hernandez shot him, it just means that he may have witnessed the killing. 6. Without an eye witness account, a ballistics match, or DNA analysis Hernandes should not be convicted, because there is no proof that he did it, there is just evidence that he was with the person that did, or that he knew the person that did.

Sports

Aaron-Hernandes-should-be-exonerated/1/

Seriously? You deserve a slap for even asking such a question. Hernandez had it all. Money, fame everything and threw it all away by just shooting some innocent guy in Boston. Sure celebrities are known for doind stupid stuff but killing someone is out. I think that he deserves every single minute of a sentence and learns his lesson. If he gets out, what's it gonna teach him? I got lucky? Try telling that to O.J Simpson

ManeSource

Seriously? You deserve a slap for even asking such a question. Hernandez had it all. Money, fame everything and threw it all away by just shooting some innocent guy in Boston. Sure celebrities are known for doind stupid stuff but killing someone is out. I think that he deserves every single minute of a sentence and learns his lesson. If he gets out, what's it gonna teach him? I got lucky? Try telling that to O.J Simpson

Sports

Aaron-Hernandes-should-be-exonerated/1/

From NFL Total Access and NFL Network and TmZ..Here is why I'm right

ManeSource

From NFL Total Access and NFL Network and TmZ..Here is why I'm right

Sports

Aaron-Hernandes-should-be-exonerated/1/

Eventhough they didn't see a shooting dosen't mean that he has a chance of going. A body was found, there were forensics, fingerprints, everything. A bucket load of evidence proving that gives him a huge chance of being put away.

ManeSource

Eventhough they didn't see a shooting dosen't mean that he has a chance of going. A body was found, there were forensics, fingerprints, everything. A bucket load of evidence proving that gives him a huge chance of being put away.

Sports

Aaron-Hernandes-should-be-exonerated/1/

I am going to go out on a limb and try this one. We will see how it turns out ;) I have one simple argument: Websites that are not being used should not be raken down because they are personal property. That server space is bought and pated for, and taking it down would be comparable to stealing. If you buy abox of fruit simply to let it sit on your porch and rot, nobody hasd anything to say about it. It is your box of fruit. Same with a website. If you used your server space for absolutely nothing of any importance, nobody should have the right to remove it without your permission. If they start removing personal server space, what next? Cars that have not been driven in a certain amount of time? Houses tha are only used once every two years? Thanks, Renzzy

Renzzy

I am going to go out on a limb and try this one. We will see how it turns out ;) I have one simple argument: Websites that are not being used should not be raken down because they are personal property. That server space is bought and pated for, and taking it down would be comparable to stealing. If you buy abox of fruit simply to let it sit on your porch and rot, nobody hasd anything to say about it. It is your box of fruit. Same with a website. If you used your server space for absolutely nothing of any importance, nobody should have the right to remove it without your permission. If they start removing personal server space, what next? Cars that have not been driven in a certain amount of time? Houses tha are only used once every two years? Thanks, Renzzy

Technology

Abandoned-websites-should-be-taken-down./1/

This may be the with some, namely the fluff-websites like the one you cited, but not all. Many, many of the unused sites are simply outdated, or just there for no reason. They are, however, personal property. For the ones that are lent, by all means let them be retaken. For the ones that are personal property, let them be as long as the owner desires them to be. Thank! Renzzy

Renzzy

This may be the with some, namely the fluff-websites like the one you cited, but not all. Many, many of the unused sites are simply outdated, or just there for no reason. They are, however, personal property. For the ones that are lent, by all means let them be retaken. For the ones that are personal property, let them be as long as the owner desires them to be. Thank! Renzzy

Technology

Abandoned-websites-should-be-taken-down./1/

There are 162,662,052 websites on the Internet, yet only 65,600,000 of them are active.* The others just take up valuable server space. They are also very irritating because they clog up the search engines, making it difficult to "sort the wheat from the chaff". For example, take a look at this online outrage: <URL>... This insult to the Internet hasn't been updated for over five years, yet if you Google "comedy scripts" it's right up there with proper comedy websites produced by really funny people. Indeed, so far this year it has wasted the time of 40,643 joke-seekers. Web-based dens of iniquity like this are a wicked waste of web space and they should be closed down forthwith. Furthermore the owners should be permanently barred from setting up new websites as punishment for their crimes against cyberspace. * Source: <URL>...

brian_eggleston

There are 162,662,052 websites on the Internet, yet only 65,600,000 of them are active.* The others just take up valuable server space. They are also very irritating because they clog up the search engines, making it difficult to "sort the wheat from the chaff". For example, take a look at this online outrage: http://www.geocities.com... This insult to the Internet hasn't been updated for over five years, yet if you Google "comedy scripts" it's right up there with proper comedy websites produced by really funny people. Indeed, so far this year it has wasted the time of 40,643 joke-seekers. Web-based dens of iniquity like this are a wicked waste of web space and they should be closed down forthwith. Furthermore the owners should be permanently barred from setting up new websites as punishment for their crimes against cyberspace. * Source: http://news.netcraft.com...

Technology

Abandoned-websites-should-be-taken-down./1/

Thanks for joining the debate, Renzzy. I will make my reply brief as I am pushed for time. You say websites are personal property, but I'm not sure this is really the case. For example, the website I cited as an example in R1 is hosted by Yahoo! completely buck shee! - It has never cost the webmaster a penny! It is like someone lending you their car free of charge. Very generous of them, surely? However, if one day they want it back, you can hardly refuse, can you? Anyway, must dash but I look forward to reading your reply. Cheers!

brian_eggleston

Thanks for joining the debate, Renzzy. I will make my reply brief as I am pushed for time. You say websites are personal property, but I'm not sure this is really the case. For example, the website I cited as an example in R1 is hosted by Yahoo! completely buck shee! - It has never cost the webmaster a penny! It is like someone lending you their car free of charge. Very generous of them, surely? However, if one day they want it back, you can hardly refuse, can you? Anyway, must dash but I look forward to reading your reply. Cheers!

Technology

Abandoned-websites-should-be-taken-down./1/

Terrorism can be defined in many ways. The following are courtesy of Dictionary.com... 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Better yet, terrorism is defined here by the American Heritage Dictionary... The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Finally, the best explanation of the term described by Wordnet... The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. My personal belief is that A terrorist can not be considered a freedom-fighter if he infracts on any of another individuals freedoms or rights while fighting for his cause. Unless of course, if you mean "freedom-fighter" as someone who fights against freedoms.

The_Deeps

Terrorism can be defined in many ways. The following are courtesy of Dictionary.com... 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Better yet, terrorism is defined here by the American Heritage Dictionary... The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Finally, the best explanation of the term described by Wordnet... The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. My personal belief is that A terrorist can not be considered a freedom-fighter if he infracts on any of another individuals freedoms or rights while fighting for his cause. Unless of course, if you mean "freedom-fighter" as someone who fights against freedoms.

Politics

Abolish-the-term-terrorism-It-is-a-point-of-view./1/

Those who determine it is unlawful could be either the governments affected by terrorism, or most importantly, the citizens who are victims of terrorism. As to freedom of opposition, you will first have to clarify about exactly what you mean, for there are many different ways that could be interpreted. I really do not know your motivational backing for the topic; I see terrorism as a huge problem today. It has caused the United States to back out of Vietnam, Somalia, and most recently Iraq. When you cannot tell who the enemy is, you cannot fight. As soon as you attack militia dressed as civilians, you take a chance of killing civilians. The moment you do that, the world is against you, and your soldiers lose heart, or even take their own lives. When your soldiers cannot fight, you have lost the war, and that nation is once again victim to the will of those terrorism.

The_Deeps

Those who determine it is unlawful could be either the governments affected by terrorism, or most importantly, the citizens who are victims of terrorism. As to freedom of opposition, you will first have to clarify about exactly what you mean, for there are many different ways that could be interpreted. I really do not know your motivational backing for the topic; I see terrorism as a huge problem today. It has caused the United States to back out of Vietnam, Somalia, and most recently Iraq. When you cannot tell who the enemy is, you cannot fight. As soon as you attack militia dressed as civilians, you take a chance of killing civilians. The moment you do that, the world is against you, and your soldiers lose heart, or even take their own lives. When your soldiers cannot fight, you have lost the war, and that nation is once again victim to the will of those terrorism.

Politics

Abolish-the-term-terrorism-It-is-a-point-of-view./1/

It is quite unfortunate that you could not/did not state your last claim. I'm forced to use a filler for the 100 characters: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.

The_Deeps

It is quite unfortunate that you could not/did not state your last claim. I'm forced to use a filler for the 100 characters: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.

Politics

Abolish-the-term-terrorism-It-is-a-point-of-view./1/

The "War On Terror" is an ongoing debate. How can you define terrorism? I do not knoq who was quoted as saying "Is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter?" but it is an interesting quote nonetheless.

braystonian

The "War On Terror" is an ongoing debate. How can you define terrorism? I do not knoq who was quoted as saying "Is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter?" but it is an interesting quote nonetheless.

Politics

Abolish-the-term-terrorism-It-is-a-point-of-view./1/

Your use of the word unlawful leads me to ask the qustion who decides f it is unlawful?Add to this you clearly have an arguement involving terrorism regarding the freedom of the opposition could you clarify.

braystonian

Your use of the word unlawful leads me to ask the qustion who decides f it is unlawful?Add to this you clearly have an arguement involving terrorism regarding the freedom of the opposition could you clarify.

Politics

Abolish-the-term-terrorism-It-is-a-point-of-view./1/

I am taking the stance that abortion is wrong in all cases, including rape and incest, but excluding instances when the mother's life is in danger. This debate is acceptable only for people who have 10 debates or more, because I'm tired of debating people who don't care about their ranking and will forfeit. Let's tackle the issue and try to find out if it's right or wrong. Thanks in advance, and feel free to post your first argument. Good luck.

rugbypro5

I am taking the stance that abortion is wrong in all cases, including rape and incest, but excluding instances when the mother's life is in danger. This debate is acceptable only for people who have 10 debates or more, because I'm tired of debating people who don't care about their ranking and will forfeit. Let's tackle the issue and try to find out if it's right or wrong. Thanks in advance, and feel free to post your first argument. Good luck.

Society

Abortion-Is-Wrong/46/

Thank you, Con for accepting; and from the looks of it, we're going to have a good debate. I'd like to start with an introduction and a presentation of my basic arguments for the pro-life movement before I begin to counter your points. Abortion, I believe, is completely permissible. A woman should have a right to choose what to do with the fetus since it's inside and attached to her body. There's no point in me, or anyone on the pro-life side of things, to argue about this- it should be simply assumed. If . If what? If the unborn are 1) not alive, and 2) not human. If the unborn aren't human and they aren't alive, why shouldn't we be able to do with them whatever we like? Why would we treat them any differently than a headache or anything else that could hinder our personal happiness? But, if the unborn are human and alive, why should we treat them any differently, or give them any less value than you or me? I believe there are good scientific and philisophical reasons to believe the unborn match both criteria of being alive and human. First: Are the unborn alive? Oxford dictionary defines 'life' as the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.So let's take a look at a fetus and see if it fits the definition. A fetus, according to the definition, must have "...the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change..." Out of all of the requirements to be alive, the fetus is already doing three in the womb. Not only does it have the capacity for growth, functional activity, and continual change, the fetus is currently doing all three of them from the moment of conception. It's not reproducing, but, fulfilling the requirement, it has the capacity to reproduce. So we know that a fetus is alive. Second: Are the unborn human? From the moment of conception, the fetus is, according to Jan Langman in Medical Embryology , "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote ." Furthermore, in the textbook, Human Embryology& Teratology , it says, "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed..." At fertilization, a distinct, living and whole human being exists. Yes, it is immature and still developing, but it is a human nonetheless. So, we see that the unborn are human and alive, and we need to treat them as such. They should have the same value you and I have, and they should be given the rights all men have: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Chiefly, the right that provides the gateway to all others: the right to life. Rebuttals You may have agreed with all that I mentioned above, seeing as your arguments weren't contingent on the fetus' life or humanity, but I wanted to lay my foundation. In response to your first argument: A person needs the desire to live in order to have a right to life. Very well. What action then, do we take when a 1-year old, who has no more desire to live than does the fetus- neither are even self aware- has suddenly become a nuissance to the mother? Does she have the right to kill it simply because it has no desire to live? If you're going to hold to this stance, you're going to have to condone abortion until the age of 2, when an average child gains the ability of self-awareness, and with it the desire to preserve that self. Afterall, how can you desire for yourself to live, if you don't know you exist. So, if you insist on not giving the right to life to those without a desire to live will mean that any parent should legally be allowed to kill their child until the age of 2. And I believe, if I'm not thinking of another pro-choice advocate, Michael Tooley, the one you quoted, does in fact hold this position. Is this the position you hold? I'd like to address your next argument, the violinist analogy, first by noting that your analogy doesn't fit very well with pregnancy. The vast majority of pregnancies are with women who consented to have sex. So, the whole kidnapping thing doesn't work. Now pleas look at this sister analogy: You're at a shooting range, and you're aimed at a target when someone comes and stands in front of the barrel of your gun. In response you lower your gun so as not to shoot him. Now like you said, "you are a sovereign over your own body..." so, now if he wouldn't have stepped in front of your barrell, in another second you would've practiced your sovereignity over your own body and pulled the trigger. So why should the person change your action to pull the trigger when you are sovereign of whether you flex your finger muscles or not? There should be no reason, according to your logic that you don't go and pull the trigger just like you'd planned to and kill him. Then look all around you, if everyone is sovereign over their own body (which I believe they are) and have no responsibility to other humans (which like I pointed out a fetus is) why can't anyone go and kill anyone they please, or anyone that annoys them? After all, aren't they just excercizing their sovereignty when they pull the trigger? You see, you look over an essential part of humanity: The fact that we have a moral responsibility to help and preserve the lives of others. So I would absolutely say that the person should remain hooked up to the person whether he was a famous violinist or a homeless bum, one person's life is astronomically much more important than your own personal 9 months of independency. So, I find your arguments to be flawed and insufficient to provide good reason to kill the lives of the unborn. Therefore, seeing that the unborn are both alive and human, and it would be wrong not to give them every right you and I have, meaning, abortion would be wrong. Sources: Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology . 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3] [O'Rahilly, Ronan and MA533;ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology . 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12} ( <URL>... )

rugbypro5

Thank you, Con for accepting; and from the looks of it, we're going to have a good debate. I'd like to start with an introduction and a presentation of my basic arguments for the pro-life movement before I begin to counter your points. Abortion, I believe, is completely permissible. A woman should have a right to choose what to do with the fetus since it's inside and attached to her body. There's no point in me, or anyone on the pro-life side of things, to argue about this- it should be simply assumed. If . If what? If the unborn are 1) not alive, and 2) not human. If the unborn aren't human and they aren't alive, why shouldn't we be able to do with them whatever we like? Why would we treat them any differently than a headache or anything else that could hinder our personal happiness? But, if the unborn are human and alive, why should we treat them any differently, or give them any less value than you or me? I believe there are good scientific and philisophical reasons to believe the unborn match both criteria of being alive and human. First: Are the unborn alive? Oxford dictionary defines 'life' as the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.So let's take a look at a fetus and see if it fits the definition. A fetus, according to the definition, must have "...the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change..." Out of all of the requirements to be alive, the fetus is already doing three in the womb. Not only does it have the capacity for growth, functional activity, and continual change, the fetus is currently doing all three of them from the moment of conception. It's not reproducing, but, fulfilling the requirement, it has the capacity to reproduce. So we know that a fetus is alive. Second: Are the unborn human? From the moment of conception, the fetus is, according to Jan Langman in Medical Embryology , "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote ." Furthermore, in the textbook, Human Embryology& Teratology , it says, "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed..." At fertilization, a distinct, living and whole human being exists. Yes, it is immature and still developing, but it is a human nonetheless. So, we see that the unborn are human and alive, and we need to treat them as such. They should have the same value you and I have, and they should be given the rights all men have: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Chiefly, the right that provides the gateway to all others: the right to life. Rebuttals You may have agreed with all that I mentioned above, seeing as your arguments weren't contingent on the fetus' life or humanity, but I wanted to lay my foundation. In response to your first argument: A person needs the desire to live in order to have a right to life. Very well. What action then, do we take when a 1-year old, who has no more desire to live than does the fetus- neither are even self aware- has suddenly become a nuissance to the mother? Does she have the right to kill it simply because it has no desire to live? If you're going to hold to this stance, you're going to have to condone abortion until the age of 2, when an average child gains the ability of self-awareness, and with it the desire to preserve that self. Afterall, how can you desire for yourself to live, if you don't know you exist. So, if you insist on not giving the right to life to those without a desire to live will mean that any parent should legally be allowed to kill their child until the age of 2. And I believe, if I'm not thinking of another pro-choice advocate, Michael Tooley, the one you quoted, does in fact hold this position. Is this the position you hold? I'd like to address your next argument, the violinist analogy, first by noting that your analogy doesn't fit very well with pregnancy. The vast majority of pregnancies are with women who consented to have sex. So, the whole kidnapping thing doesn't work. Now pleas look at this sister analogy: You're at a shooting range, and you're aimed at a target when someone comes and stands in front of the barrel of your gun. In response you lower your gun so as not to shoot him. Now like you said, "you are a sovereign over your own body..." so, now if he wouldn't have stepped in front of your barrell, in another second you would've practiced your sovereignity over your own body and pulled the trigger. So why should the person change your action to pull the trigger when you are sovereign of whether you flex your finger muscles or not? There should be no reason, according to your logic that you don't go and pull the trigger just like you'd planned to and kill him. Then look all around you, if everyone is sovereign over their own body (which I believe they are) and have no responsibility to other humans (which like I pointed out a fetus is) why can't anyone go and kill anyone they please, or anyone that annoys them? After all, aren't they just excercizing their sovereignty when they pull the trigger? You see, you look over an essential part of humanity: The fact that we have a moral responsibility to help and preserve the lives of others. So I would absolutely say that the person should remain hooked up to the person whether he was a famous violinist or a homeless bum, one person's life is astronomically much more important than your own personal 9 months of independency. So, I find your arguments to be flawed and insufficient to provide good reason to kill the lives of the unborn. Therefore, seeing that the unborn are both alive and human, and it would be wrong not to give them every right you and I have, meaning, abortion would be wrong. Sources: Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology . 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3] [O'Rahilly, Ronan and MA533;ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology . 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12} ( http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... )

Society

Abortion-Is-Wrong/46/

Yes, I am being very speciest. If speciesism was a real thing, then we should all be in jail- if you took a shower today and washed your hair, then you commited mass murder against tens of thousands hair mites. Shampoo is absorbed into the bodies of the dust mites until they explode. Are you telling me that we need to treat dust mites and humans equally so as not to be 'speciest'? Of course not! Speciesm does not exist! You might say that because human are more intelligent than they are we are therefore more valuable, but what would that mean with just humans? Is someone more intelligent more valuable than one that's less intelligent? So again: Speciesm is not a real thing. Who should be the first we kill if humans have no intrinsic value? Next, you said that we approach a grey area when we look at a one-year old's desire to live, and, because what you assert the thing that gives us the right to live is our desire for it, you really say that killing a one-year old is a grey area. Do you really mean that? And is that what you want everyone to believe? That when a mother drowns her one-year-old child in the bathtub, a court should have a hard time deciding whether what she did was wrong? This is your exchange for my "absurd conclusions"? I want to bring up a very important point. You say that it's the desire to live that gives humans a right to life. Why? You simply assert this like it's fact. Suppose I'm in a terrible car wreck in which I'm placed in a coma for 9 months. The doctors tell me none of my memories will be retained, I will have to touch a hot stove to know not to do that anymore, I won't know who my mother and father are, I'll have to relearn my motor skills, how to walk, how to talk, how to speak English etc. I am now in the same psychological position the fetus is in, right? So am I now allowed to be killed, due to my lack of desire to live? Michael Boonin, from whom it seems you grabbed some of your analogies and arguments would say be forced to say yes. And if you or he said no, what grounds would you have to stand on? It can't be my past experiences like you quoted, rather, it must be my human nature that stays your hands. I have a hypothesis of why our human nature is important to us, but it is from my religous views. So as not to turn this into a religious debate, I will refrain from explaining. I think it's self-evident that we do have this thing called 'human nature' however. Like I explained before, why, if all species are of equal value, would you eat? Eat anything . All animals are animals so they all deserve equal rights, correct? So maybe you're a vegetarian. But are not plants species as well, and aren't they living? So why are you condoning the killing of plants if you don't want to be speciesist? What I'm trying to prove is that why we would rather eat a head of lettuce instead of a head of a girl is because we all have a human nature within us, that absent of a desire to live, gives us the right to life. You said something later on about wanting to kill someone earlier rather than later because later, there will be human attachment. This is also an agrument that can't hold water. You don't have the moral justification to kill a hermit that walks into town from the mountains just because no one knows or cares about him. You can't convince a jury with that. And using that same logic, someone with 6 people showing up to their funeral was more valuable and had more of a right to life than someone with only 5 people. And it'd be better to kill someone who wasn't going to have anyone show up to the fueral than it would be to kill someone with one person coming. Lastly you say that it would be wrong to kill a one-year old because, "it's possible that it could desire to live." So can a fetus! Being conscious, being exposed to the world, having experience, and having concepts and desires for food and water are all things the unborn could possibly desire in the future! So according to your own logic, a fetus would have every right to life a one-year old would have. (I'd also like to point out that in the beginning of the round you said killing a one-year old was a grey area. Now you say it's wrong. What exactly do you believe?) Now the violinist analogy. Stephen Schwarz says, "The very thing that makes it possible to say that the person in bed with the violinist has no duty to sustain him; namely, that he is a stranger unnaturally hooked up to him, is precisely what is absent in the case of the mother and her child." What if the woman woke up connected to her own two-year old? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-line to her own child? And what would we think of her if she did? The analogy you make assumes a mother has no more duty to her own offspring than she does a total stranger. Secondly, the child isn't an intruder. If the child doesn't belong in the womb, where does it belong? Schwarz then says, "That a woman looks upon her child as a burglar or an intruder is already an evil, even if she refreains from killing her." Third, your analogy says abortion is the same as withholding support of the child, when really, it is an extremely violent, proactive murder. It is one thing to withhold support from someone, but it's an entirely different thing to poison, crush, or dismember them. Francis J. Beckwith says, "Euphemistically calling abortion the 'witholding of support' makes about as much sense as calling suffocating someone with a pillow the withdrawing of oxygen." "If the only way you can exercise your right to withhold support is to kill another human being, I may not do it," says Scott Klusendorf. Lastly, barring cases of rape, a woman can't claim she has no responsibility for the child. When a man and woman engage in sex, they engage in the only natural way to create another human being. Hence, she can't be compared to the woman plugged in against her will. In a debate against Dr. Meredith Williams, Scott Klusendorf asked her this, and I'd like to know how you'd respond, since this deals with women having absolute right to bodily autonomy: " Let's say a woman has intractable nausea and vomiting and insists on taking thalidomide to help her symptoms. After having explained the horrific risks of birth defects that have arisen due to this medication, she still insists on taking it based on the fact that the fetus has no right to her body anyway. After being refused thalidomide from her physician, she acquires some and takes it, resulting in her child developing no arms. Do you believe that she did anything wrong? Would you excuse her actions based on her right to bodily autonomy? The fetus after all is an uninvited guest, and has no right even to life, let alone an environment free from pathogens." Please know that I'm not trying to influence anyone with merely quoting someone, I'm only wanting to give him the credit with the question because it wasn't me who came up with it. The reason I say abortion is permissible if the mother's life is in danger, is based only on a factual point of view. Paramedics, firefighters, police, all are trained, in dire situations like a family in a car going over a bridge, to save the most viable first. That means they would try and save the strongest, healthiest looking man before they'd take the woman or child. Why? It's due only on the fact that men are proven to survive more often than women or children, and so to save the most lives, they should make men their first priority. I use the same logic here: the mother has a much higher chance of surviving the pregnancy than the baby does, so measures should be taken to save the mother's life first, but only after all other options are exhausted to save both. I'm not claiming one is more valuable than the other, just that one is more likely to survive. And this would be my same response to the argument of two burning buildings, one with a child, the other with 2 fetuses. The child is statistically more viable. Lastly, when you talk about killing people in permanent comas, please note that first, it's highly controversial. Using an unknown variable to prove the validity of another unknown variable is illogical. Second, note that the fetus has a future to do all the things we value in life, while the person in the permanent coma has used up all of his, and all he has now is sleep, which we know none of us want to live in, and therefore you could argue we're doing him a favor. The comatose person has nothing to look forward to but death, the child has everything to look forward to in life. In conclusion, I have shown the flaws in the violinist analogy and shown that it does not successfully show that abortion is morally permissible, and I have shown that because the fetus is alive and human, it has a right to life becuase of it's human nature.

rugbypro5

Yes, I am being very speciest. If speciesism was a real thing, then we should all be in jail- if you took a shower today and washed your hair, then you commited mass murder against tens of thousands hair mites. Shampoo is absorbed into the bodies of the dust mites until they explode. Are you telling me that we need to treat dust mites and humans equally so as not to be 'speciest'? Of course not! Speciesm does not exist! You might say that because human are more intelligent than they are we are therefore more valuable, but what would that mean with just humans? Is someone more intelligent more valuable than one that's less intelligent? So again: Speciesm is not a real thing. Who should be the first we kill if humans have no intrinsic value? Next, you said that we approach a grey area when we look at a one-year old's desire to live, and, because what you assert the thing that gives us the right to live is our desire for it, you really say that killing a one-year old is a grey area. Do you really mean that? And is that what you want everyone to believe? That when a mother drowns her one-year-old child in the bathtub, a court should have a hard time deciding whether what she did was wrong? This is your exchange for my "absurd conclusions"? I want to bring up a very important point. You say that it's the desire to live that gives humans a right to life. Why? You simply assert this like it's fact. Suppose I'm in a terrible car wreck in which I'm placed in a coma for 9 months. The doctors tell me none of my memories will be retained, I will have to touch a hot stove to know not to do that anymore, I won't know who my mother and father are, I'll have to relearn my motor skills, how to walk, how to talk, how to speak English etc. I am now in the same psychological position the fetus is in, right? So am I now allowed to be killed, due to my lack of desire to live? Michael Boonin, from whom it seems you grabbed some of your analogies and arguments would say be forced to say yes. And if you or he said no, what grounds would you have to stand on? It can't be my past experiences like you quoted, rather, it must be my human nature that stays your hands. I have a hypothesis of why our human nature is important to us, but it is from my religous views. So as not to turn this into a religious debate, I will refrain from explaining. I think it's self-evident that we do have this thing called 'human nature' however. Like I explained before, why, if all species are of equal value, would you eat? Eat anything . All animals are animals so they all deserve equal rights, correct? So maybe you're a vegetarian. But are not plants species as well, and aren't they living? So why are you condoning the killing of plants if you don't want to be speciesist? What I'm trying to prove is that why we would rather eat a head of lettuce instead of a head of a girl is because we all have a human nature within us, that absent of a desire to live, gives us the right to life. You said something later on about wanting to kill someone earlier rather than later because later, there will be human attachment. This is also an agrument that can't hold water. You don't have the moral justification to kill a hermit that walks into town from the mountains just because no one knows or cares about him. You can't convince a jury with that. And using that same logic, someone with 6 people showing up to their funeral was more valuable and had more of a right to life than someone with only 5 people. And it'd be better to kill someone who wasn't going to have anyone show up to the fueral than it would be to kill someone with one person coming. Lastly you say that it would be wrong to kill a one-year old because, "it's possible that it could desire to live." So can a fetus! Being conscious, being exposed to the world, having experience, and having concepts and desires for food and water are all things the unborn could possibly desire in the future! So according to your own logic, a fetus would have every right to life a one-year old would have. (I'd also like to point out that in the beginning of the round you said killing a one-year old was a grey area. Now you say it's wrong. What exactly do you believe?) Now the violinist analogy. Stephen Schwarz says, "The very thing that makes it possible to say that the person in bed with the violinist has no duty to sustain him; namely, that he is a stranger unnaturally hooked up to him, is precisely what is absent in the case of the mother and her child.” What if the woman woke up connected to her own two-year old? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-line to her own child? And what would we think of her if she did? The analogy you make assumes a mother has no more duty to her own offspring than she does a total stranger. Secondly, the child isn't an intruder. If the child doesn't belong in the womb, where does it belong? Schwarz then says, "That a woman looks upon her child as a burglar or an intruder is already an evil, even if she refreains from killing her." Third, your analogy says abortion is the same as withholding support of the child, when really, it is an extremely violent, proactive murder. It is one thing to withhold support from someone, but it's an entirely different thing to poison, crush, or dismember them. Francis J. Beckwith says, "Euphemistically calling abortion the 'witholding of support' makes about as much sense as calling suffocating someone with a pillow the withdrawing of oxygen." "If the only way you can exercise your right to withhold support is to kill another human being, I may not do it," says Scott Klusendorf. Lastly, barring cases of rape, a woman can't claim she has no responsibility for the child. When a man and woman engage in sex, they engage in the only natural way to create another human being. Hence, she can't be compared to the woman plugged in against her will. In a debate against Dr. Meredith Williams, Scott Klusendorf asked her this, and I'd like to know how you'd respond, since this deals with women having absolute right to bodily autonomy: " Let’s say a woman has intractable nausea and vomiting and insists on taking thalidomide to help her symptoms. After having explained the horrific risks of birth defects that have arisen due to this medication, she still insists on taking it based on the fact that the fetus has no right to her body anyway. After being refused thalidomide from her physician, she acquires some and takes it, resulting in her child developing no arms. Do you believe that she did anything wrong? Would you excuse her actions based on her right to bodily autonomy? The fetus after all is an uninvited guest, and has no right even to life, let alone an environment free from pathogens." Please know that I'm not trying to influence anyone with merely quoting someone, I'm only wanting to give him the credit with the question because it wasn't me who came up with it. The reason I say abortion is permissible if the mother's life is in danger, is based only on a factual point of view. Paramedics, firefighters, police, all are trained, in dire situations like a family in a car going over a bridge, to save the most viable first. That means they would try and save the strongest, healthiest looking man before they'd take the woman or child. Why? It's due only on the fact that men are proven to survive more often than women or children, and so to save the most lives, they should make men their first priority. I use the same logic here: the mother has a much higher chance of surviving the pregnancy than the baby does, so measures should be taken to save the mother's life first, but only after all other options are exhausted to save both. I'm not claiming one is more valuable than the other, just that one is more likely to survive. And this would be my same response to the argument of two burning buildings, one with a child, the other with 2 fetuses. The child is statistically more viable. Lastly, when you talk about killing people in permanent comas, please note that first, it's highly controversial. Using an unknown variable to prove the validity of another unknown variable is illogical. Second, note that the fetus has a future to do all the things we value in life, while the person in the permanent coma has used up all of his, and all he has now is sleep, which we know none of us want to live in, and therefore you could argue we're doing him a favor. The comatose person has nothing to look forward to but death, the child has everything to look forward to in life. In conclusion, I have shown the flaws in the violinist analogy and shown that it does not successfully show that abortion is morally permissible, and I have shown that because the fetus is alive and human, it has a right to life becuase of it's human nature.

Society

Abortion-Is-Wrong/46/

Hello, I know this is an old topic, but I like to debate it every now and then to get a fresh perspective on it. I have so far remained mostly against abortion...could someone on here be the one to change my mind? (I admit when it happens.) Let me be clear. I am not saying the clinics should be shut down. I am saying they should only give abortions to people who would either risk their lives to carry, or who were victims of rape or incest. I am arguing that abortion for the purpose of birth control should be illegal, for the following reasons: Social and Parental responsibility. --The message we send to our kids about respecting life and making good decisions. Equality --Men have no choice to either ask for or say no to an abortion, though they will always bear the legal responsibility of a child that is born. It takes one person to carry the baby, but you still need a man to make him/her. If a man wants their child to be born and has means to support it, is it right the mother can still go have an abortion? Lack of pity/sympathy --There are other options, such as the morning after pill, condoms, withdrawal, IUD's, and etc. Seeking an abortion, particularly past the first trimester, is the ultimate reflection of irresponsible behavior and we should treat it as such. Respond however you like to debate. I will work my argument around yours.

Iamthejuan

Hello, I know this is an old topic, but I like to debate it every now and then to get a fresh perspective on it. I have so far remained mostly against abortion...could someone on here be the one to change my mind? (I admit when it happens.) Let me be clear. I am not saying the clinics should be shut down. I am saying they should only give abortions to people who would either risk their lives to carry, or who were victims of rape or incest. I am arguing that abortion for the purpose of birth control should be illegal, for the following reasons: Social and Parental responsibility. --The message we send to our kids about respecting life and making good decisions. Equality --Men have no choice to either ask for or say no to an abortion, though they will always bear the legal responsibility of a child that is born. It takes one person to carry the baby, but you still need a man to make him/her. If a man wants their child to be born and has means to support it, is it right the mother can still go have an abortion? Lack of pity/sympathy --There are other options, such as the morning after pill, condoms, withdrawal, IUD's, and etc. Seeking an abortion, particularly past the first trimester, is the ultimate reflection of irresponsible behavior and we should treat it as such. Respond however you like to debate. I will work my argument around yours.

Society

Abortion-as-birth-control-should-be-illegal./1/

Thanks again con for accepting this debate. I will reply in order with your comments. "Unenforceable" --It wouldn't be difficult to check for things like the age of the mother, how far along she is, and whether or not she was a victim of rape or incest. There would be patient confidentiality as always, of course. Would there still be underground abortions? Maybe...but should we feel bad for people who break the law? If they weren't raped, they put themselves in such a position. "Abortion is a complex issue to which even the opposition to it tends to agree that it's a valid medical procedure, unfortunate, but sometimes necessary." --I completely agree. Such problems are further compounded by high cost of medical care even if nothing goes wrong, which one expert summarized as: "So how much does it cost to have a kid without insurance? According to my experience, just about $12,638.31" --This is a problem with our healthcare industry that needs to be corrected also. That said, many would argue that you should not have a child if you can't afford one. Attempting to have no exceptions to allow abortion, leads to the level of negative intelligence seen in the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology's "legitimate rape" --Do you mean no exceptions other than medical or rape? I already conceded those as morally neutral. However once decent and logical exceptions to allow it are in place, it becomes foolish to try to over regulate under what circumstances a woman is allowed the procedure.. --The problem is figuring out what's decent and logical. "For rape or incest (both illegal in the USA), would a conviction be required before she gets the procedure, or a mere accusation?" --Good point. I would say on accusation for obvious reasons, but if she turns out to be lying she should go to jail. False rape accounts are uncool, whether to hurt a guy or dodge parental responsibility. But I doubt a lot of women would lie about such a thing. "Good decisions include financial decisions. Pregnancy as proven above, is very often a bad decision for such." --So we should address the problem with an easy cop out? This is going to increase responsibility amongst youth and young women? When they know they can have unprotected sex and get pregnant over and over and have abortions? And then one day when they want to get pregnant and find that they can't due to scarring? Is this really teaching them to face their choices head on and do the right thing? "If any man claiming to be the father was enough to prevent (or delay until genetic testing is done) an abortion, there would probably be nutjobs activists going in and claiming to have fathered the child of any woman entering an abortion clinic" --LMAO!! You are probably right. But they get those anyways...and paternity tests are not uncommon especially when applying for state assistance anyways. Tanif requires one, for instance, at the father's expense if the child turns out to be his. Like 90$ "No option is guaranteed. Further getting into these moral areas, some states have inflicted the social experiment of teaching abstinence only, leading directly to increased pregnancy rates among the already financially disadvantaged" --Few things in life are guaranteed, save death and taxes. Birth control methods mentioned above are 90-99% effective. Abortion also has a chance of causing infertility or even infection and death in rare cases. Speaking of the financially disadvantaged, the poor, minorities, and women under 25 are most likely to seek abortions. This is inherently tied to socioeconomics, and THAT is where we should begin in trying to address these issues of birth control, parenthood, and poverty that leads to abortions. " In the United States alone, there are millions of women like me, spending at least some of their waking life in an agony of anxiety and longing and hope and prayer and grief, trying everything from herbal supplements to special lubricants to expensive pills to having holes drilled in their ovaries to get pregnant. They obsessively pee on sticks to the point that it becomes a literal addiction, and many of them suffer repeated, heart-wrenching miscarriages. Meanwhile, every day, 125,000 women a day pay a doctor to murder the miracle we would literally give our right arms for." -- <URL>... "You can look at any chart showing historical fertility rates in the United States and see it bottom out after the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 and staying around those levels. Because fewer and fewer are working for every retiree, our current level of taxation nowhere near covers what the requirements for Social Security and Medicare will soon be." -- <URL>...

Iamthejuan

Thanks again con for accepting this debate. I will reply in order with your comments. "Unenforceable" --It wouldn't be difficult to check for things like the age of the mother, how far along she is, and whether or not she was a victim of rape or incest. There would be patient confidentiality as always, of course. Would there still be underground abortions? Maybe...but should we feel bad for people who break the law? If they weren't raped, they put themselves in such a position. "Abortion is a complex issue to which even the opposition to it tends to agree that it's a valid medical procedure, unfortunate, but sometimes necessary." --I completely agree. Such problems are further compounded by high cost of medical care even if nothing goes wrong, which one expert summarized as: "So how much does it cost to have a kid without insurance? According to my experience, just about $12,638.31" --This is a problem with our healthcare industry that needs to be corrected also. That said, many would argue that you should not have a child if you can't afford one. Attempting to have no exceptions to allow abortion, leads to the level of negative intelligence seen in the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology's "legitimate rape" --Do you mean no exceptions other than medical or rape? I already conceded those as morally neutral. However once decent and logical exceptions to allow it are in place, it becomes foolish to try to over regulate under what circumstances a woman is allowed the procedure.. --The problem is figuring out what's decent and logical. "For rape or incest (both illegal in the USA), would a conviction be required before she gets the procedure, or a mere accusation?" --Good point. I would say on accusation for obvious reasons, but if she turns out to be lying she should go to jail. False rape accounts are uncool, whether to hurt a guy or dodge parental responsibility. But I doubt a lot of women would lie about such a thing. "Good decisions include financial decisions. Pregnancy as proven above, is very often a bad decision for such." --So we should address the problem with an easy cop out? This is going to increase responsibility amongst youth and young women? When they know they can have unprotected sex and get pregnant over and over and have abortions? And then one day when they want to get pregnant and find that they can't due to scarring? Is this really teaching them to face their choices head on and do the right thing? "If any man claiming to be the father was enough to prevent (or delay until genetic testing is done) an abortion, there would probably be nutjobs activists going in and claiming to have fathered the child of any woman entering an abortion clinic" --LMAO!! You are probably right. But they get those anyways...and paternity tests are not uncommon especially when applying for state assistance anyways. Tanif requires one, for instance, at the father's expense if the child turns out to be his. Like 90$ "No option is guaranteed. Further getting into these moral areas, some states have inflicted the social experiment of teaching abstinence only, leading directly to increased pregnancy rates among the already financially disadvantaged" --Few things in life are guaranteed, save death and taxes. Birth control methods mentioned above are 90-99% effective. Abortion also has a chance of causing infertility or even infection and death in rare cases. Speaking of the financially disadvantaged, the poor, minorities, and women under 25 are most likely to seek abortions. This is inherently tied to socioeconomics, and THAT is where we should begin in trying to address these issues of birth control, parenthood, and poverty that leads to abortions. " In the United States alone, there are millions of women like me, spending at least some of their waking life in an agony of anxiety and longing and hope and prayer and grief, trying everything from herbal supplements to special lubricants to expensive pills to having holes drilled in their ovaries to get pregnant. They obsessively pee on sticks to the point that it becomes a literal addiction, and many of them suffer repeated, heart-wrenching miscarriages. Meanwhile, every day, 125,000 women a day pay a doctor to murder the miracle we would literally give our right arms for." -- http://www.lifesitenews.com... "You can look at any chart showing historical fertility rates in the United States and see it bottom out after the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 and staying around those levels. Because fewer and fewer are working for every retiree, our current level of taxation nowhere near covers what the requirements for Social Security and Medicare will soon be." -- http://townhall.com...

Society

Abortion-as-birth-control-should-be-illegal./1/

"Really? Please explain details on this reliable test on the fetus to determine if it was the offspring of rape." --I meant just ask for the police report. Most women aren't going to take it that far just to get an abortion, though I have seen one women file a false rape report before so it is possible. Still, this would effectively reduce abortions and also encourage more rape victims to report the crime. "Currently only an estimated 40% of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement, with only 4% leading to a conviction which is half the rate prosecuted" --Gonna save this one for the end; should make sense when you get there. Of course some anti-abortion legislators actually claim pregnancy is proof that it was not rape . --The "natural defense" argument won't be making an appearance in this debate. ;-) "it shows how scary the legal environment is for the victim." --Yes, our legal system sucks for pretty much everybody except lawyers. Regarding the case of incest, a blood sample is needed from the accused father, throwing confidentiality right out the window. --If he raped his daughter, I couldn't see too many people being concerned with his confidentiality. If she is lying, she should go to jail (or jeuvie). "our health care industry that needs to be corrected also" Irrelevant. While I agree, larger changes to society do not affect the issue as it currently stands. It's along the lines of how rape shouldn't be a factor, since rape really shouldn't happen. --It isn't irrelevent, but I will get to this as well at the end. Proving that she is lying is pretty hard --That's why we have polygraphs and police do rape-kits if reported in time. Again, I doubt too many women would lie about this. Part of the reason conviction rates are so low is that many women wait until after it is too late for a rape kit-- no D.N.A. (or latex), no solid evidence. she's already likely in a bad emotional place regardless of if she is lying or not --While their emotional state is not something to be dismissed, rape victims need to know how important it is to come forward right away, for reasons I just stated. Also, if she is lying, her emotional state is completely irrelevant, unless she has a legitimate psychological disorder. In our legal system, her honesty would probably often be questioned by whomever has a better lawyer; often further victimizing the victim. --This is a problem faced by everyone, not just rape victims. However, rape charges should be taken as seriously as murder charges. It is a very serious claim that can destroy a man's life even if he is acquitted. Giving them a silent abortion and sending them on their way isn't going to help rape victims get justice or feel better in the end. Case1: Woman get's raped, has an abortion. Feels like crap the rest of her life because her attacker got away. Case2: Woman get's raped, has a rape kit, then an abortion, and has her assailant convicted because she came forward. The present is riddled with emotion, but soon she will be able to begin the healing process. R-Kelly ... --You seem to be focusing mostly on problems with our legal system now. This brings me back to something else you said earlier: Currently only an estimated 40% of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement, with only 4% leading to a conviction which is half the rate prosecuted and "our health care industry that needs to be corrected also" Irrelevant. While I agree, larger changes to society do not affect the issue as it currently stands. It's along the lines of how rape shouldn't be a factor, since rape really shouldn't happen. --You are basically arguing that because of a messed up legal system and problems which we can't immediately solve, that we should turn to abortion as an easy out. What this does is not address the problems, but ignores them altogether-- the poverty, the inequality, the sexism and racism. This is why I get mad when women think abortion is an awesome right --it actually blinds them to their rights to enjoy parenthood and live comfortably like the rich people who can have as many kids as they want and not worry about it. Minorities and young women are far more likely to have abortions, as are the poor (who are often one in the same). "many would argue that you should not have a child if you can't afford one" Agreed. --Unfortunately, there is an ever widening income gap in America, while childbearing and sex remain basic human drives. There is also a choice long before the point of considering an abortion, of whether to have sex, with whom, and how.

Iamthejuan

"Really? Please explain details on this reliable test on the fetus to determine if it was the offspring of rape." --I meant just ask for the police report. Most women aren't going to take it that far just to get an abortion, though I have seen one women file a false rape report before so it is possible. Still, this would effectively reduce abortions and also encourage more rape victims to report the crime. "Currently only an estimated 40% of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement, with only 4% leading to a conviction which is half the rate prosecuted" --Gonna save this one for the end; should make sense when you get there. Of course some anti-abortion legislators actually claim pregnancy is proof that it was not rape . --The "natural defense" argument won't be making an appearance in this debate. ;-) "it shows how scary the legal environment is for the victim." --Yes, our legal system sucks for pretty much everybody except lawyers. Regarding the case of incest, a blood sample is needed from the accused father, throwing confidentiality right out the window. --If he raped his daughter, I couldn't see too many people being concerned with his confidentiality. If she is lying, she should go to jail (or jeuvie). "our health care industry that needs to be corrected also" Irrelevant. While I agree, larger changes to society do not affect the issue as it currently stands. It's along the lines of how rape shouldn't be a factor, since rape really shouldn't happen. --It isn't irrelevent, but I will get to this as well at the end. Proving that she is lying is pretty hard --That's why we have polygraphs and police do rape-kits if reported in time. Again, I doubt too many women would lie about this. Part of the reason conviction rates are so low is that many women wait until after it is too late for a rape kit-- no D.N.A. (or latex), no solid evidence. she's already likely in a bad emotional place regardless of if she is lying or not --While their emotional state is not something to be dismissed, rape victims need to know how important it is to come forward right away, for reasons I just stated. Also, if she is lying, her emotional state is completely irrelevant, unless she has a legitimate psychological disorder. In our legal system, her honesty would probably often be questioned by whomever has a better lawyer; often further victimizing the victim. --This is a problem faced by everyone, not just rape victims. However, rape charges should be taken as seriously as murder charges. It is a very serious claim that can destroy a man's life even if he is acquitted. Giving them a silent abortion and sending them on their way isn't going to help rape victims get justice or feel better in the end. Case1: Woman get's raped, has an abortion. Feels like crap the rest of her life because her attacker got away. Case2: Woman get's raped, has a rape kit, then an abortion, and has her assailant convicted because she came forward. The present is riddled with emotion, but soon she will be able to begin the healing process. R-Kelly ... --You seem to be focusing mostly on problems with our legal system now. This brings me back to something else you said earlier: Currently only an estimated 40% of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement, with only 4% leading to a conviction which is half the rate prosecuted and "our health care industry that needs to be corrected also" Irrelevant. While I agree, larger changes to society do not affect the issue as it currently stands. It's along the lines of how rape shouldn't be a factor, since rape really shouldn't happen. --You are basically arguing that because of a messed up legal system and problems which we can't immediately solve, that we should turn to abortion as an easy out. What this does is not address the problems, but ignores them altogether-- the poverty, the inequality, the sexism and racism. This is why I get mad when women think abortion is an awesome right --it actually blinds them to their rights to enjoy parenthood and live comfortably like the rich people who can have as many kids as they want and not worry about it. Minorities and young women are far more likely to have abortions, as are the poor (who are often one in the same). "many would argue that you should not have a child if you can't afford one" Agreed. --Unfortunately, there is an ever widening income gap in America, while childbearing and sex remain basic human drives. There is also a choice long before the point of considering an abortion, of whether to have sex, with whom, and how.

Society

Abortion-as-birth-control-should-be-illegal./1/

The abortion debate has been ongoing for a very long time. There are many perspectives to the matter, but all in all it always opposes to 2 sides of the story, pro-abortion or anti-abortion. I will now state my perspective of the matter, hoping for a good debate opponent to accept the challenge. Basically, I see abortion as murder and to take another human being's life, whether it being a foetus or a living baby i still think it is the same principal, it is murder. And yes my dear opponent, i know that in some extreme cases such as rape, it is not always fitting for a person to have the baby, but in these extreme cases there is special case solutions. It is for instance possible to take prevention pills for the female after she has been raped or has had sex that might lead to a baby. So this is not an argument that is possible to make from your side. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions has been performed in the United States " an average of about 1.4 million abortions per year. At 2008 abortion rates, three in ten US women will have an abortion before age 45. That is a lot of lives STOLEN from the world , do you really not see it as morally extreme incorrect to take the opportunity of a life from a living person? Imagine if that baby would have become the most influential person that has ever lived. Of course that example is quite extreme, but the principal remains the same. To take the life of a foetus that had the potential to become something is and will always be extremely morally incorrect.

Americandick

The abortion debate has been ongoing for a very long time. There are many perspectives to the matter, but all in all it always opposes to 2 sides of the story, pro-abortion or anti-abortion. I will now state my perspective of the matter, hoping for a good debate opponent to accept the challenge. Basically, I see abortion as murder and to take another human being's life, whether it being a foetus or a living baby i still think it is the same principal, it is murder. And yes my dear opponent, i know that in some extreme cases such as rape, it is not always fitting for a person to have the baby, but in these extreme cases there is special case solutions. It is for instance possible to take prevention pills for the female after she has been raped or has had sex that might lead to a baby. So this is not an argument that is possible to make from your side. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions has been performed in the United States " an average of about 1.4 million abortions per year. At 2008 abortion rates, three in ten US women will have an abortion before age 45. That is a lot of lives STOLEN from the world , do you really not see it as morally extreme incorrect to take the opportunity of a life from a living person? Imagine if that baby would have become the most influential person that has ever lived. Of course that example is quite extreme, but the principal remains the same. To take the life of a foetus that had the potential to become something is and will always be extremely morally incorrect.

People

Abortion-is-MURDER/18/

Thank you for accepting my debate. You have some good and free minded points, but you fail to see some very important things in your arguments. Unfortunately in this world everything is not all butterflies and good times, there are some rough points to life. Some people are unfortunate to be born in a poor household, where they might face various issues, for instance the point you make with the family not having the resources to take care of the baby. This problem is unfortunately something that is going to sustain until the end of humanity. It is not a valid reason for people not to have the baby that has been put onto their lives. When a person feels like the child is a burden, the person should not literally kill the baby. Even though the baby is not going to receive the best and rich life, that is how life works and the people involved just has to accept that. In Africa where there is extreme poverty, they still reproduce even though they will have a very rough time taking care of the baby, but they still do it and in a lot of cases that child grows up and lives on. That is how life works, it cannot all be a fairy tale. You also state that some women giving birth go on to have serious injuries or end up dying, and then again, that is just how life works, we as people do not have the right to be "god" and to decide which people has the right of a life. Of course there will always be some downsides to the right things in life, but that is how life is and we as a society just have to accept that life is not perfect and we are not god.

Americandick

Thank you for accepting my debate. You have some good and free minded points, but you fail to see some very important things in your arguments. Unfortunately in this world everything is not all butterflies and good times, there are some rough points to life. Some people are unfortunate to be born in a poor household, where they might face various issues, for instance the point you make with the family not having the resources to take care of the baby. This problem is unfortunately something that is going to sustain until the end of humanity. It is not a valid reason for people not to have the baby that has been put onto their lives. When a person feels like the child is a burden, the person should not literally kill the baby. Even though the baby is not going to receive the best and rich life, that is how life works and the people involved just has to accept that. In Africa where there is extreme poverty, they still reproduce even though they will have a very rough time taking care of the baby, but they still do it and in a lot of cases that child grows up and lives on. That is how life works, it cannot all be a fairy tale. You also state that some women giving birth go on to have serious injuries or end up dying, and then again, that is just how life works, we as people do not have the right to be "god" and to decide which people has the right of a life. Of course there will always be some downsides to the right things in life, but that is how life is and we as a society just have to accept that life is not perfect and we are not god.

People

Abortion-is-MURDER/18/

Hello and Merry Christmas! Welcome to the debate about the highly controversial topic: Abortion. I will be arguing that it's wrong and should not be endorsed at anytime during a pregnancy for any reasons. Go ahead and enter your first argument.

rugbypro5

Hello and Merry Christmas! Welcome to the debate about the highly controversial topic: Abortion. I will be arguing that it's wrong and should not be endorsed at anytime during a pregnancy for any reasons. Go ahead and enter your first argument.

Society

Abortion-is-Wrong/21/

First, I want to say I'm so sorry. I didn't phrase my opening well. I meant to say I want this to be a religious debate... Just kidding. But really, I didn't mean that abortion will be off limits under any circumstance: if the woman's life is in danger, then we should act on trying to save the mother's life. But let me be clear- this is not because the woman is more valuable than the fetus, but rather the mother has a much higher probability of surviving. When I said that abortion shouldn't be endorsed at any time, I was thinking of instances of rape and incest: even in those situations the child should not be killed. You say, "One reason is that it is the parent deciding whether or not to not have the baby." That is equivalent of saying "It's the murderer deciding whether or not to shoot the person. Therefore we should allow him to do it should he decide he wants to." (This analogy of course will be contingent of the fact that the fetus is 1) Human and 2) It's alive. I will prove these later.) After that, you say that it's the parents' responsibility to take care of the baby. Right there you admit that the parents should be responsible to take care of their kid, and the least responsible thing to do would be to have it killed, so why should they be allowed to do it? But let's say that they are not irresponsible enough to abort the baby, but are not responsible enough to give it a good home or raise him/her properly, then what should the do? Well, adoption is an excellent alternative. Many great couples are unable to have children and then go to adoption centers. Abortion is not the only option. MAIN ARGUMENT: My main point will be that the fetus is alive and human. If it is, then we have no right to kill it and decide its fate. The fetus is human: From the very moment of conception, the fetus has all 46 chromosomes to be considered a homosapien sapien (human). And it has its own unique set of DNA that is completely separate from its mother. (This means that the baby cannot be a part of the woman's body, and therefore, this debate cannot revolve around the woman's rights.) So if it is scientifically proven to have its own DNA and all 46 chromosomes, then the fetus is a human being. The fetus is alive: To prove the baby is alive, using Oxfords definition, we have to see that it meets the requirements of "capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." I will argue that the baby has/ will have all of these and therefore is alive. The baby inside of the mother has the capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. From the moment of conception, there is growth, I think we can agree on that. And though the fetus is not, at that moment, capable of reproducing, it will in the future. But if this diminishes its value, and therefore its rights, then it will diminish the value of a girl under the age of 12 (roughly). A girl at that stage in her life is just as incapable of reproducing as a fetus is, but no one will ever argue that we have the right to kill her or give her less value. Functional activity is another one, if we gain our value from being able to move and function, we are stripped of our value once we cannot function. That means those who are in a coma do not have the same rights as you and I, because they aren't able to function at that moment. But certainly we do not propose we can kill at a whim, anyone that is in a coma. Now you might say that the heart is still beating and lungs are still moving, and the fetus does not yet have those capabilities, but once again, it does not have them YET. The value of life is not contingent on a life's level of development, otherwise a 15 year old will have more value than a 14 year old because he is more developed. Lastly, the fetus is changing and will soon die, hopefully about 80 years later, but it will die. So it meets all of the requirements of life. So, if the fetus is a living human, it has its own rights, specifically it's right to life. And its rights are not to be stripped due to its: size, level of dependency, level of development, or environment. This is because we are all changing in size, dependency, development, and environment. So if the fetus' rights will change based on the change of those factors, you must extrapolate from only those living humans, to all living humans, meaning we will be subject to those same changes. I know none of us will volunteer to have our value based on our size, dependency, development, or environment, therefore we should not subject fetus' to the same.

rugbypro5

First, I want to say I'm so sorry. I didn't phrase my opening well. I meant to say I want this to be a religious debate... Just kidding. But really, I didn't mean that abortion will be off limits under any circumstance: if the woman's life is in danger, then we should act on trying to save the mother's life. But let me be clear- this is not because the woman is more valuable than the fetus, but rather the mother has a much higher probability of surviving. When I said that abortion shouldn't be endorsed at any time, I was thinking of instances of rape and incest: even in those situations the child should not be killed. You say, "One reason is that it is the parent deciding whether or not to not have the baby." That is equivalent of saying "It's the murderer deciding whether or not to shoot the person. Therefore we should allow him to do it should he decide he wants to." (This analogy of course will be contingent of the fact that the fetus is 1) Human and 2) It's alive. I will prove these later.) After that, you say that it's the parents' responsibility to take care of the baby. Right there you admit that the parents should be responsible to take care of their kid, and the least responsible thing to do would be to have it killed, so why should they be allowed to do it? But let's say that they are not irresponsible enough to abort the baby, but are not responsible enough to give it a good home or raise him/her properly, then what should the do? Well, adoption is an excellent alternative. Many great couples are unable to have children and then go to adoption centers. Abortion is not the only option. MAIN ARGUMENT: My main point will be that the fetus is alive and human. If it is, then we have no right to kill it and decide its fate. The fetus is human: From the very moment of conception, the fetus has all 46 chromosomes to be considered a homosapien sapien (human). And it has its own unique set of DNA that is completely separate from its mother. (This means that the baby cannot be a part of the woman's body, and therefore, this debate cannot revolve around the woman's rights.) So if it is scientifically proven to have its own DNA and all 46 chromosomes, then the fetus is a human being. The fetus is alive: To prove the baby is alive, using Oxfords definition, we have to see that it meets the requirements of "capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." I will argue that the baby has/ will have all of these and therefore is alive. The baby inside of the mother has the capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. From the moment of conception, there is growth, I think we can agree on that. And though the fetus is not, at that moment, capable of reproducing, it will in the future. But if this diminishes its value, and therefore its rights, then it will diminish the value of a girl under the age of 12 (roughly). A girl at that stage in her life is just as incapable of reproducing as a fetus is, but no one will ever argue that we have the right to kill her or give her less value. Functional activity is another one, if we gain our value from being able to move and function, we are stripped of our value once we cannot function. That means those who are in a coma do not have the same rights as you and I, because they aren't able to function at that moment. But certainly we do not propose we can kill at a whim, anyone that is in a coma. Now you might say that the heart is still beating and lungs are still moving, and the fetus does not yet have those capabilities, but once again, it does not have them YET. The value of life is not contingent on a life's level of development, otherwise a 15 year old will have more value than a 14 year old because he is more developed. Lastly, the fetus is changing and will soon die, hopefully about 80 years later, but it will die. So it meets all of the requirements of life. So, if the fetus is a living human, it has its own rights, specifically it's right to life. And its rights are not to be stripped due to its: size, level of dependency, level of development, or environment. This is because we are all changing in size, dependency, development, and environment. So if the fetus' rights will change based on the change of those factors, you must extrapolate from only those living humans, to all living humans, meaning we will be subject to those same changes. I know none of us will volunteer to have our value based on our size, dependency, development, or environment, therefore we should not subject fetus' to the same.

Society

Abortion-is-Wrong/21/

You may not have read my argument as thoroughly as you should have. First you are wrong in saying the fetus is fully developed at the end. We are not fully developed until we are in our mid 20's. Therefore using your same logic, I wouldn't be killing a 6 year old girl, I'd only be stopping her development. And the ability to feel is only an ability that will develop as well, just like the ability to tie your shoes, or ability to shop online. Let me reiterate, just because someone is not fully developed, it doesn't depreciate their value. Comparing this to a brain-dead person is just as invalid. We are just as incapable of responding, thinking, or acting when we are asleep, or in a coma, but still, we cannot justify killing the person. Lastly, in your main point, you say, "The fetus is partially alive, not fully developed...," but there is no such thing as "partially alive." I already proved that it is alive. And I already proved that you can't kill someone based on its level of development. So there is still no good reason to have an abortion, given that the mother's life is not in danger.

rugbypro5

You may not have read my argument as thoroughly as you should have. First you are wrong in saying the fetus is fully developed at the end. We are not fully developed until we are in our mid 20's. Therefore using your same logic, I wouldn't be killing a 6 year old girl, I'd only be stopping her development. And the ability to feel is only an ability that will develop as well, just like the ability to tie your shoes, or ability to shop online. Let me reiterate, just because someone is not fully developed, it doesn't depreciate their value. Comparing this to a brain-dead person is just as invalid. We are just as incapable of responding, thinking, or acting when we are asleep, or in a coma, but still, we cannot justify killing the person. Lastly, in your main point, you say, "The fetus is partially alive, not fully developed...," but there is no such thing as "partially alive." I already proved that it is alive. And I already proved that you can't kill someone based on its level of development. So there is still no good reason to have an abortion, given that the mother's life is not in danger.

Society

Abortion-is-Wrong/21/

You still are not reading my arguments to their full, your questions will be explained. The only reason I say that you should have an abortion if the woman's life is in danger is because the mother has a much higher probability of survival. It's the same as when a paramedic is diving down to a family in a car under water. The paramedic will always go to save the male in the best shape first, not the women or children. This sounds wrong, but the man has a higher chance of survival, therefore it's more logical to save him first and not the others than to save none at all. Does that make sense now? You still need to give me a reason for abortion. Sadly, I won't have another chance to try and refute it, but feel welcome to post an argument.

rugbypro5

You still are not reading my arguments to their full, your questions will be explained. The only reason I say that you should have an abortion if the woman's life is in danger is because the mother has a much higher probability of survival. It's the same as when a paramedic is diving down to a family in a car under water. The paramedic will always go to save the male in the best shape first, not the women or children. This sounds wrong, but the man has a higher chance of survival, therefore it's more logical to save him first and not the others than to save none at all. Does that make sense now? You still need to give me a reason for abortion. Sadly, I won't have another chance to try and refute it, but feel welcome to post an argument.

Society

Abortion-is-Wrong/21/

For a long time the argument of abortion has been going on. My opinion is that abortion is simply morally wrong. If you think that abortion should be legal, challenge me on this debate.

Heller

For a long time the argument of abortion has been going on. My opinion is that abortion is simply morally wrong. If you think that abortion should be legal, challenge me on this debate.

Politics

Abortion-is-just-morally-wrong./1/

Hey ghatem, Im glad that you joined the debate site. Your right my feeling on abortion should not make a decision on whether there is a law about it or not. It should be majority. Though if I could I would like to ask you a few questions about your statement. You say no one likes abortion. It really should be as simple as that, you don't do things that you don't like. Although I understand what your saying. The problem is, you say " many women who become pregnant are simply unable to afford a decent life for their child. Would you like for your child to live in poverty or in a foster home?" Absolutely, when it comes down to whether I would want to kill a living being then rather them grow up in poverty I will choice life every time. You have to understand that no one has the choice of deciding who dies. Do you believe it is right to say, well I would rather kill my son or daughter then have them grow up in a poor home? To your second statement, "and if abortion was illegal, who would you punish and how would you do it? Although we are not debating the punishment of abortion. I will answer your question. It is homicide, just the same as if you would kill someone walking down the street. You also say, "Simply making abortion illegal is not going to solve any problems." To that I quote Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, " if your daughter comes and says "Dad, I want to kill grandma for the inheritance," you wouldn't say "well, this is not a good idea, but it's your choice." To simply say that it wouldn't work is not an argument. You can't just turn your check on something that you know deep down isn't right. You have to speak up.

Heller

Hey ghatem, Im glad that you joined the debate site. Your right my feeling on abortion should not make a decision on whether there is a law about it or not. It should be majority. Though if I could I would like to ask you a few questions about your statement. You say no one likes abortion. It really should be as simple as that, you don't do things that you don't like. Although I understand what your saying. The problem is, you say " many women who become pregnant are simply unable to afford a decent life for their child. Would you like for your child to live in poverty or in a foster home?" Absolutely, when it comes down to whether I would want to kill a living being then rather them grow up in poverty I will choice life every time. You have to understand that no one has the choice of deciding who dies. Do you believe it is right to say, well I would rather kill my son or daughter then have them grow up in a poor home? To your second statement, "and if abortion was illegal, who would you punish and how would you do it? Although we are not debating the punishment of abortion. I will answer your question. It is homicide, just the same as if you would kill someone walking down the street. You also say, "Simply making abortion illegal is not going to solve any problems." To that I quote Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, " if your daughter comes and says "Dad, I want to kill grandma for the inheritance," you wouldn't say "well, this is not a good idea, but it's your choice." To simply say that it wouldn't work is not an argument. You can't just turn your check on something that you know deep down isn't right. You have to speak up.

Politics

Abortion-is-just-morally-wrong./1/

What you need to realize is that what abortion is, is killing a life. Many people get abortions so its easier for themselves. You kill a human life, because its inconvenient for you at the time. That quote was not so much about killing a grandma, I think you missed the point. It was really about saying if the girl chose to kill her grandma so it would make it easier for her in life by getting the inheritance money, would you simply sit back and let her? Would you do nothing about it? Would you let and innocent human die? I'd like to quote paul tigger, "It is simply the fact that the woman should bear responsibility for her choices namely to have sex. She and a man made that decision to have sex." Thats what its about, don't choose to have sex if you don't want a baby, because it might just happen! A human life isn't just a inconvenience that you may throw away if it isn't working for you at the moment. Thats all it simply comes down to. Thats why I say, your argument just isn't an argument. Even if you know it will still keeping going on, you have to at least try to do something. If you see someone getting bulled on the playground and you do nothing you are just as bad as the bully. Plus you wouldn't say well its gonna keep happening anyway, so lets just not even try to stop it. As for your death penalty argument, again this isn't about the punishments. However I think paul tigger makes another good point, "Furthermore the law supports anti-abortion policy as you see, a drunken person who kills a pregnant woman in a car accident is tried for two murders (or involuntary homicide). Aww you see two murders, not one. If you say life is only life after the birth why then does an intoxicated person get charged for two murders?" " Finally as for the death sentence, it is not as if the United States issues death sentence like they issue free condoms to school children. They have a formal system of appeals, I believe three until they are finally exhausted (not all times) at the US Supreme court. Those on death row have been found guilty of committing a heinous crime against society and after all means of appeals have failed are they sentenced to death for their crimes? Yet once again to bring up, abortion, what crime has the embryo, the infant committed to deserve a death sentence in saline or have his appendages and his body parts ripped from limb to limb?" I understand why you like the "choice" and "conveniences" of being able to say well I'm just not ready,thats human nature, but honestly THINK of what it is your doing. Your killing a life that hasn't even gotten the chance to live yet. That in my book is murder, in fact the worse murder anyone could partake in.

Heller

What you need to realize is that what abortion is, is killing a life. Many people get abortions so its easier for themselves. You kill a human life, because its inconvenient for you at the time. That quote was not so much about killing a grandma, I think you missed the point. It was really about saying if the girl chose to kill her grandma so it would make it easier for her in life by getting the inheritance money, would you simply sit back and let her? Would you do nothing about it? Would you let and innocent human die? I'd like to quote paul tigger, "It is simply the fact that the woman should bear responsibility for her choices namely to have sex. She and a man made that decision to have sex." Thats what its about, don't choose to have sex if you don't want a baby, because it might just happen! A human life isn't just a inconvenience that you may throw away if it isn't working for you at the moment. Thats all it simply comes down to. Thats why I say, your argument just isn't an argument. Even if you know it will still keeping going on, you have to at least try to do something. If you see someone getting bulled on the playground and you do nothing you are just as bad as the bully. Plus you wouldn't say well its gonna keep happening anyway, so lets just not even try to stop it. As for your death penalty argument, again this isn't about the punishments. However I think paul tigger makes another good point, "Furthermore the law supports anti-abortion policy as you see, a drunken person who kills a pregnant woman in a car accident is tried for two murders (or involuntary homicide). Aww you see two murders, not one. If you say life is only life after the birth why then does an intoxicated person get charged for two murders?" " Finally as for the death sentence, it is not as if the United States issues death sentence like they issue free condoms to school children. They have a formal system of appeals, I believe three until they are finally exhausted (not all times) at the US Supreme court. Those on death row have been found guilty of committing a heinous crime against society and after all means of appeals have failed are they sentenced to death for their crimes? Yet once again to bring up, abortion, what crime has the embryo, the infant committed to deserve a death sentence in saline or have his appendages and his body parts ripped from limb to limb?" I understand why you like the "choice" and "conveniences" of being able to say well I'm just not ready,thats human nature, but honestly THINK of what it is your doing. Your killing a life that hasn't even gotten the chance to live yet. That in my book is murder, in fact the worse murder anyone could partake in.

Politics

Abortion-is-just-morally-wrong./1/

Hello Heller, This is my first debate on this site, so I apologize in advance if I should break any unwritten rules of Debate.org. It's one thing to personally feel as though abortion is immoral and should have no place in society, but it's another to legislate it. Your morality does not dictate national policy. The fact is that a majority of Americans support abortion rights, and we have elected legislators that reflect this majority. No one likes abortion. It's a traumatic choice to make. But like it or not, many women who become pregnant are simply unable to afford a decent life for their child. Would you like for your child to live in poverty or in a foster home? And what if the fetus is a product of rape or incest? What if the mother's life is also threatened? The government should not be making these decisions. And if abortion was illegal, who would you punish and how would you do it? Would you punish the mother? Would you throw her in jail? Would you try her for homicide? Would you arrest the doctor? The answer is not to make abortion illegal, but to try to reduce the number of abortions. Our country has a very lackluster sexual education program, favoring abstinence-only education over responsible birth control methods. Abstinence-only education doesn't work, according to a recent congressional study, and as a result, millions of teenagers are confused and irresponsible in their sexual relations. Simply making abortion illegal is not going to solve any problems. Women would still seek out abortions, probably in such a secretive, "back-alley" way that threatens their health. Also, there would be a great financial strain on young families. Simply put, your morality should not determine our national policy.

ghatem

Hello Heller, This is my first debate on this site, so I apologize in advance if I should break any unwritten rules of Debate.org. It's one thing to personally feel as though abortion is immoral and should have no place in society, but it's another to legislate it. Your morality does not dictate national policy. The fact is that a majority of Americans support abortion rights, and we have elected legislators that reflect this majority. No one likes abortion. It's a traumatic choice to make. But like it or not, many women who become pregnant are simply unable to afford a decent life for their child. Would you like for your child to live in poverty or in a foster home? And what if the fetus is a product of rape or incest? What if the mother's life is also threatened? The government should not be making these decisions. And if abortion was illegal, who would you punish and how would you do it? Would you punish the mother? Would you throw her in jail? Would you try her for homicide? Would you arrest the doctor? The answer is not to make abortion illegal, but to try to reduce the number of abortions. Our country has a very lackluster sexual education program, favoring abstinence-only education over responsible birth control methods. Abstinence-only education doesn't work, according to a recent congressional study, and as a result, millions of teenagers are confused and irresponsible in their sexual relations. Simply making abortion illegal is not going to solve any problems. Women would still seek out abortions, probably in such a secretive, "back-alley" way that threatens their health. Also, there would be a great financial strain on young families. Simply put, your morality should not determine our national policy.

Politics

Abortion-is-just-morally-wrong./1/

Heller, Let me address some of your questions. "Do you believe it is right to say, well I would rather kill my son or daughter then have them grow up in a poor home?" Not at all. Abortion can, however, prevent children from growing up in poverty. If a pregnant woman knows that she cannot provide for her child, an abortion would prevent her from giving birth. The difference is that a young fetus is not yet a son or a daughter. I am not necessarily advocating that pregnant women living below the poverty line abort their fetus, but rather providing a rationale for them doing so. "It is homicide, just the same as if you would kill someone walking down the street." Would you really enforce this as a typical homicide? Would you hand a life sentence to a doctor who preformed an abortion? Would you send a young woman to jail or to the electric chair? What if she never had that abortion but rather, she just sought one. She would still be pregnant, but she would also be on trial for homicide. Would you throw a teenage girl in jail for taking a morning after pill if her boyfriend's condom ripped the previous night? It's such a difficult line to draw, you can't just dish out homicide sentences. "if your daughter comes and says "Dad, I want to kill grandma for the inheritance," you wouldn't say "well, this is not a good idea, but it's your choice." First off, Alan Keyes is a far-right fringe candidate with little common sense. This quotation illustrates that point. To compare a grandmother who has lived for 60+ years to an unborn fetus is a false analogy. The fetus is not yet a person, and the grandmother has lived a long and fruitful life. Another false analogy is the idea of an inheritance being compared to a life without a disadvanted child. An inheritance has a positive connotation, whereas an abortion is perhaps the hardest choice a woman would ever have to make. The analogy just isn't there, and neither is Alan Keyes' brain! "To simply say that it wouldn't work is not an argument. " No, it's a very good argument. If a woman really wants an abortion and is convinced that she cannot have a child, there is nothing that you or I or a law could do to stop her. At least if the abortion is legal, she will be able to have it done in a clean, safe environment. If abortion was illegal, she would risk getting an infection or doing serious damage to her body in some shady "back-alley" scenario. Do you really want the government making this decision? What would you do about miscarriages? How would you differentiate the two in the eyes of the law? What if a woman who had an honest-to-god miscarriage was tried as a homicidal abortionist? There's a lot of room for error.

ghatem

Heller, Let me address some of your questions. "Do you believe it is right to say, well I would rather kill my son or daughter then have them grow up in a poor home?" Not at all. Abortion can, however, prevent children from growing up in poverty. If a pregnant woman knows that she cannot provide for her child, an abortion would prevent her from giving birth. The difference is that a young fetus is not yet a son or a daughter. I am not necessarily advocating that pregnant women living below the poverty line abort their fetus, but rather providing a rationale for them doing so. "It is homicide, just the same as if you would kill someone walking down the street." Would you really enforce this as a typical homicide? Would you hand a life sentence to a doctor who preformed an abortion? Would you send a young woman to jail or to the electric chair? What if she never had that abortion but rather, she just sought one. She would still be pregnant, but she would also be on trial for homicide. Would you throw a teenage girl in jail for taking a morning after pill if her boyfriend's condom ripped the previous night? It's such a difficult line to draw, you can't just dish out homicide sentences. "if your daughter comes and says "Dad, I want to kill grandma for the inheritance," you wouldn't say "well, this is not a good idea, but it's your choice." First off, Alan Keyes is a far-right fringe candidate with little common sense. This quotation illustrates that point. To compare a grandmother who has lived for 60+ years to an unborn fetus is a false analogy. The fetus is not yet a person, and the grandmother has lived a long and fruitful life. Another false analogy is the idea of an inheritance being compared to a life without a disadvanted child. An inheritance has a positive connotation, whereas an abortion is perhaps the hardest choice a woman would ever have to make. The analogy just isn't there, and neither is Alan Keyes' brain! "To simply say that it wouldn't work is not an argument. " No, it's a very good argument. If a woman really wants an abortion and is convinced that she cannot have a child, there is nothing that you or I or a law could do to stop her. At least if the abortion is legal, she will be able to have it done in a clean, safe environment. If abortion was illegal, she would risk getting an infection or doing serious damage to her body in some shady "back-alley" scenario. Do you really want the government making this decision? What would you do about miscarriages? How would you differentiate the two in the eyes of the law? What if a woman who had an honest-to-god miscarriage was tried as a homicidal abortionist? There's a lot of room for error.

Politics

Abortion-is-just-morally-wrong./1/

A young fetus is not a person. It has no ability to experience pleasure or pain, no human traits. Your opening argument was that abortion should be outlawed on the basis that it is "morally wrong." Since then, we have agreed that one's morality in of itself is not enough to warrant legislation. Let me address some other points that you have raised. "Would you let and innocent human die?" No, of course not. But a young fetus is not a person, not at all comparable to someone who can experience the joys and pains of life. ""It is simply the fact that the woman should bear responsibility for her choices namely to have sex. She and a man made that decision to have sex." In many cultures and households, the woman has no say in whether or not she has sex. Patriarchal societies hand such decisions to men, unfairly so. Even when the woman is a willing participant, her unwanted pregnancy is most likely due to misinformation or ignorance regarding responsible birth control techniques. This ignorance is largely because of ineffective sexual education programs, particularly the flawed "abstinence only" education prevalent in our country. In conclusion, abortions should be reduced. But the way to reduce abortions is to educate teenagers on how to have sex responsibly and how to plan financially for a family. You can't just change the law without changing social structures. The government should not make decisions for a woman about her body. We should not be governed by the morality of one, but rather by democratic elections.

ghatem

A young fetus is not a person. It has no ability to experience pleasure or pain, no human traits. Your opening argument was that abortion should be outlawed on the basis that it is "morally wrong." Since then, we have agreed that one's morality in of itself is not enough to warrant legislation. Let me address some other points that you have raised. "Would you let and innocent human die?" No, of course not. But a young fetus is not a person, not at all comparable to someone who can experience the joys and pains of life. ""It is simply the fact that the woman should bear responsibility for her choices namely to have sex. She and a man made that decision to have sex." In many cultures and households, the woman has no say in whether or not she has sex. Patriarchal societies hand such decisions to men, unfairly so. Even when the woman is a willing participant, her unwanted pregnancy is most likely due to misinformation or ignorance regarding responsible birth control techniques. This ignorance is largely because of ineffective sexual education programs, particularly the flawed "abstinence only" education prevalent in our country. In conclusion, abortions should be reduced. But the way to reduce abortions is to educate teenagers on how to have sex responsibly and how to plan financially for a family. You can't just change the law without changing social structures. The government should not make decisions for a woman about her body. We should not be governed by the morality of one, but rather by democratic elections.

Politics

Abortion-is-just-morally-wrong./1/

Yes, human life is dear to everyone and hopefully cherished, but abortion is not killing an infant. The so called "baby" is called a fetus, which is just another part of a woman's body. A fetus is going to become a human being, it is not a human yet. And by law a fetus is not a baby until it is out of the mother's womb and has it's first breath(with help or not). Abortion, is just a women getting rid of a part of her body, like and appendix, but what people don't realize is that people who get abortions are setting the future to what is going to be, and people against abortions are living in the "what could have been" times. Also, abortion is not always about the unwanted child, but sometimes about the unwanted pregnancy. Some women were raped and got pregnant because of it and just wanted to get rid of the thought. Is that so wrong? Plus, some of the women who get abortions are mainly teens, drinkers, druggies, and abusive women. Would not it be better if the future child was not born if it's mother was to young to take care of it? Or if it is going to end up abused, raped, murdered, or traveling between foster homes. Wouldn't it be better if that kid wasn't born to have a terrible future? Although, women usually know what they are getting into before they get pregnant, it is their choice, and their choice alone it they wants to, or are going to have the baby.

Hickmangirl2

Yes, human life is dear to everyone and hopefully cherished, but abortion is not killing an infant. The so called "baby" is called a fetus, which is just another part of a woman's body. A fetus is going to become a human being, it is not a human yet. And by law a fetus is not a baby until it is out of the mother's womb and has it's first breath(with help or not). Abortion, is just a women getting rid of a part of her body, like and appendix, but what people don't realize is that people who get abortions are setting the future to what is going to be, and people against abortions are living in the "what could have been" times. Also, abortion is not always about the unwanted child, but sometimes about the unwanted pregnancy. Some women were raped and got pregnant because of it and just wanted to get rid of the thought. Is that so wrong? Plus, some of the women who get abortions are mainly teens, drinkers, druggies, and abusive women. Would not it be better if the future child was not born if it's mother was to young to take care of it? Or if it is going to end up abused, raped, murdered, or traveling between foster homes. Wouldn't it be better if that kid wasn't born to have a terrible future? Although, women usually know what they are getting into before they get pregnant, it is their choice, and their choice alone it they wants to, or are going to have the baby.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-Illegal./1/

I am currently changing my opinion thanks to <URL>... which showed what happened to the baby. It was a good debate thank you.

Hickmangirl2

I am currently changing my opinion thanks to http://www.teenbreaks.com... which showed what happened to the baby. It was a good debate thank you.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-Illegal./1/

Thanks for debating with me. To those who think I am a poser, think again! I just say some horrifying pictures, and the website I posted wasn't even mine. Thank you for your time.

Hickmangirl2

Thanks for debating with me. To those who think I am a poser, think again! I just say some horrifying pictures, and the website I posted wasn't even mine. Thank you for your time.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-Illegal./1/

very simple, but i will divide my points up: 1. It has nothing to do with woman's rights. If it IS a life, you have no right to kill it, if it ISN'T a life, than nobody's argueing. therefore the question is, whether or not it's a life NOT whether women have control over their body. 2. There is no way to scientifically tell when a fetus becomes a life, and therefore nobody (except God) is qualified to state when it may be killed. In order to say it's NOT a life you have to back up WHY somehow, how do you do this? What makes it a "life"? Why is it a life AFTER it's born, but not a second before? pretty simple...good luck, and please keep it concise (short), i don't want to deal with 40 pages of a reply.

midgetjoe

very simple, but i will divide my points up: 1. It has nothing to do with woman's rights. If it IS a life, you have no right to kill it, if it ISN'T a life, than nobody's argueing. therefore the question is, whether or not it's a life NOT whether women have control over their body. 2. There is no way to scientifically tell when a fetus becomes a life, and therefore nobody (except God) is qualified to state when it may be killed. In order to say it's NOT a life you have to back up WHY somehow, how do you do this? What makes it a "life"? Why is it a life AFTER it's born, but not a second before? pretty simple...good luck, and please keep it concise (short), i don't want to deal with 40 pages of a reply.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-Illegal./1/

"Yes, human life is dear to everyone and hopefully cherished, " good, i'm glad that is agreed on.. "but abortion is not killing an infant. The so called "baby" is called a fetus, which is just another part of a woman's body. A fetus is going to become a human being, it is not a human yet." ok this is the crucial question....at what POINT does it become a baby? please explain not only when, but WHY... "And by law a fetus is not a baby until it is out of the mother's womb and has it's first breath(with help or not)." Current Law is irelevant in this debate as the question is what the law SHOULD be, not what it is... "Abortion, is just a women getting rid of a part of her body, like and appendix, but what people don't realize is that people who get abortions are setting the future to what is going to be, and people against abortions are living in the "what could have been" times. Also, abortion is not always about the unwanted child, but sometimes about the unwanted pregnancy. Some women were raped and got pregnant because of it and just wanted to get rid of the thought. Is that so wrong? Plus, some of the women who get abortions are mainly teens, drinkers, druggies, and abusive women. Would not it be better if the future child was not born if it's mother was to young to take care of it? Or if it is going to end up abused, raped, murdered, or traveling between foster homes. Wouldn't it be better if that kid wasn't born to have a terrible future? Although, women usually know what they are getting into before they get pregnant, it is their choice, and their choice alone it they wants to, or are going to have the baby." you are sidestepping the issue.... as i pointed out in my first arguement.... the point i made is, IS IT A BABY? you have yet to bring up any evidence that is is. If it is NOT a baby than all this is true.... but if it IS a baby than it doesn't matter if it was rape or incest or what-have-you it would be murder. so my question again is: AT WHAT POINT DOES IT BECOME A BABY? AND WHY?? on a side note...wierdest coincidence in the world....we live about 2 miles apart...i live in Denair

midgetjoe

"Yes, human life is dear to everyone and hopefully cherished, " good, i'm glad that is agreed on.. "but abortion is not killing an infant. The so called "baby" is called a fetus, which is just another part of a woman's body. A fetus is going to become a human being, it is not a human yet." ok this is the crucial question....at what POINT does it become a baby? please explain not only when, but WHY... "And by law a fetus is not a baby until it is out of the mother's womb and has it's first breath(with help or not)." Current Law is irelevant in this debate as the question is what the law SHOULD be, not what it is... "Abortion, is just a women getting rid of a part of her body, like and appendix, but what people don't realize is that people who get abortions are setting the future to what is going to be, and people against abortions are living in the "what could have been" times. Also, abortion is not always about the unwanted child, but sometimes about the unwanted pregnancy. Some women were raped and got pregnant because of it and just wanted to get rid of the thought. Is that so wrong? Plus, some of the women who get abortions are mainly teens, drinkers, druggies, and abusive women. Would not it be better if the future child was not born if it's mother was to young to take care of it? Or if it is going to end up abused, raped, murdered, or traveling between foster homes. Wouldn't it be better if that kid wasn't born to have a terrible future? Although, women usually know what they are getting into before they get pregnant, it is their choice, and their choice alone it they wants to, or are going to have the baby." you are sidestepping the issue.... as i pointed out in my first arguement.... the point i made is, IS IT A BABY? you have yet to bring up any evidence that is is. If it is NOT a baby than all this is true.... but if it IS a baby than it doesn't matter if it was rape or incest or what-have-you it would be murder. so my question again is: AT WHAT POINT DOES IT BECOME A BABY? AND WHY?? on a side note...wierdest coincidence in the world....we live about 2 miles apart...i live in Denair

Politics

Abortion-should-be-Illegal./1/

First of all, I'm aware that there are already many debates on this topic, but most of them were either poorly contrived or the debaters just forfeited. I think abortion deserves a real debate, so please don't accept if you don't have the time. Secondly, my stance does not include circumstances where the woman (and possible the newborn) would likely die as a result of childbirth. There is not sense in risking two lives. With that said, you may either use the first round for acceptance or you can begin presenting your points.

IHateThinkingOfNames

First of all, I'm aware that there are already many debates on this topic, but most of them were either poorly contrived or the debaters just forfeited. I think abortion deserves a real debate, so please don't accept if you don't have the time. Secondly, my stance does not include circumstances where the woman (and possible the newborn) would likely die as a result of childbirth. There is not sense in risking two lives. With that said, you may either use the first round for acceptance or you can begin presenting your points.

Philosophy

Abortion-should-be-illegal-in-the-United-States/4/

Thank you for accepting the challenge. Those are very good questions: "1. What is your exact stance on abortion? Are you against abortion for ALL reasons other than that the mother's life is at risk?" Yes, my stance is that an abortion should only be performed in the event that the mother's probability of death is high. "2. What definition of 'fetus' will you be using? (i.e. At what stage in development is it considered a fetus, do you consider it a fetus at the moment of conception, etc.)" I'm not too concerned about the definition of "fetus". Technically, it is not a fetus until after eight weeks. My stance is that it does not matter whether it is classified as an zygote, embryo, or a fetus so long as it is a *human* zygote, embryo, or fetus. "3. Are you against the use of emergency contraception (commonly known as 'morning-after pills'?" No, because it simply prevents a pregnancy from occurring. I am strictly against the termination of an existing pregnancy. On to my argument: Abortion should be illegal in the United States because murder is illegal in the United States. Murder: n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.(1) At conception, we all acquire the necessary chromosomes to be considered human (generally 46, although there are slight variations to that number). For example, a human could not have 94 chromosomes because he or she would not be a human, but a goldfish. These chromosomes come with specific genes, or instructions, that are innate to humans. So it stands to reason that if you have human chromosomes with human genes, you are a human. Human life begins at conception. So, looking at the definition of murder, if the zygote (initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined) has human genes and therefore is a human being, to terminate that life at any stage during development is murder. The mothers who get an abortion and doctors who perform the abortion knowingly terminate the human being ("with intent") and planned it out ("malice aforethought"). As I have mentioned, the only "legal excuse" a mother could have is if her own life is at stake. "I don't want it" is not an excuse. SOURCES 1. <URL>...

IHateThinkingOfNames

Thank you for accepting the challenge. Those are very good questions: "1. What is your exact stance on abortion? Are you against abortion for ALL reasons other than that the mother's life is at risk?" Yes, my stance is that an abortion should only be performed in the event that the mother's probability of death is high. "2. What definition of 'fetus' will you be using? (i.e. At what stage in development is it considered a fetus, do you consider it a fetus at the moment of conception, etc.)" I'm not too concerned about the definition of "fetus". Technically, it is not a fetus until after eight weeks. My stance is that it does not matter whether it is classified as an zygote, embryo, or a fetus so long as it is a *human* zygote, embryo, or fetus. "3. Are you against the use of emergency contraception (commonly known as 'morning-after pills'?" No, because it simply prevents a pregnancy from occurring. I am strictly against the termination of an existing pregnancy. On to my argument: Abortion should be illegal in the United States because murder is illegal in the United States. Murder: n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.(1) At conception, we all acquire the necessary chromosomes to be considered human (generally 46, although there are slight variations to that number). For example, a human could not have 94 chromosomes because he or she would not be a human, but a goldfish. These chromosomes come with specific genes, or instructions, that are innate to humans. So it stands to reason that if you have human chromosomes with human genes, you are a human. Human life begins at conception. So, looking at the definition of murder, if the zygote (initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined) has human genes and therefore is a human being, to terminate that life at any stage during development is murder. The mothers who get an abortion and doctors who perform the abortion knowingly terminate the human being ("with intent") and planned it out ("malice aforethought"). As I have mentioned, the only "legal excuse" a mother could have is if her own life is at stake. "I don't want it" is not an excuse. SOURCES 1. http://dictionary.law.com...

Philosophy

Abortion-should-be-illegal-in-the-United-States/4/

"Currently, abortion (providing that certain restrictions are met) is legal in the United States." My argument is that, despite the current legality of abortion, it is still murder because there is no "legal excuse or authority". A legal excuse for murder is self-defense - it is justifiable to kill someone if they are putting your life in danger (likewise, the only legal excuse for abortion is the probable death of the mother as that puts her life in danger). Additionally, abortion has no legal authority. Soldiers have legal authority from their government to kill enemies in order to defend their nation. In both instances (legal excuse and authority) an individual kills to protect themselves or others from harm. Abortion, on the other hand, terminates a human life merely because the mother did not want that human life. The legality of abortion implies that it is okay to kill a human being because you don't want them to be alive. By that logic, one could kill any human being they felt was an "inconvenience" on their existence. Obviously, not wanting a human being to be alive is not an excuse for murder. So just because abortion is legal, doesn't mean it should be, which is what I am arguing. "Generally speaking, in a human pregnancy, the fetus is not considered 'alive' until EEG waves are detectable." This is not factual. Life is life, whether it is within the womb or not. A single cell is "alive", meaning it meets the criteria for life (1). Whether or not a being is alive is not contingent upon whether or not its EEG waves are detectable. Obviously one would not be able to detect EEG waves on a single cell, but that does not mean it is not alive. A human zygote is not only composed of living cells, but *human* cells that reproduce and differentiate into *human* tissues, organs, and so on. Therefore it is both human and alive. " Also, it a myth that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks." I am not at all concerned about whether or not a fetus can feel pain. That does not make him or her any less of a human. Besides, I do not see how this makes killing the fetus excusable. There is a condition known as congenital analgesia in which the sufferer cannot feel pain (2). If someone were to kill them, would it be justifiable since they do not feel pain? Before I go on, I think it is important to mention that all humans are entitled to the same human rights, one of which includes life. The definition of human rights is : "rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status." (3) Notice how the definition of human rights does not exclude unborn humans. Now, to address your special circumstances: "-Cases in which the fetus was conceived through rape or incest" While rape is a horrific crime that should be met with a just punishment, I don't see why an unborn human should pay someone else's price. Aborting the unborn will not erase the rape, nor punish the rapist. A rape does not justify the murder of an uninvolved party. Let's look at this in a different context: You're arguing that it is justifiable for a woman to kill a human being (the unborn) because she was raped. What if a woman killed a human being (the rapist) because he raped her? In the second scenario, the woman would still be classified as a murderer and prosecuted even though the human being she killed personally wronged her because it was not in self defense (the rape had already occurred) and she had no legal authority. So if it is illegal for an individual to murder a human who personally wronged them, why is it justifiable to kill an unborn human considering that s/he is innocent of any crime? If the mother does not wish raise or even see the baby (which is completely understandable), adoption is the answer, not murder. As for incest, while it is troubling to think about what condition could occur as a result of it, it does not justify murder. I know the ensuing argument might be, "They baby could have a disorder or deformity and live a hard life," but that does not make him/her any less human. It is not for anyone else but the unborn individual to decide whether life with a disorder or deformity is worth living or not. "-Cases in which the mother is grossly underage" Most grossly underage pregnancies I am aware of occur as a result of rape, for which I have already stated my argument. The age of the mother does not make the unborn any less human, therefore the abortion would be no less a murder, unless, of course, the young mother was unlikely to survive childbirth. "-Cases in which contraception methods were used but failed" It should be known by those who engage in sexual intercourse that contraceptives are not 100% effective. No condom or contraceptive pill company reports their products as preventing pregnancy 100% of the time. If two individuals choose to ignore this risk, they should not be able to murder the newly created human being because he/she is inconvenient. An unborn human being can not be held responsible for the failure of contraceptives. "-Cases in which there is evidence of a physical or cognitive birth defect in the fetus" This ties in to my argument against abortion in the event of incest. One human being does not get to kill another human being just because they have a defect. My only concession is this: there is no reason to give birth to a stillborn or a baby who will die so shortly after birth that they may as well be a stillborn. Otherwise, what this argument is saying is that it is okay to kill a human being because they have a defect. This would open the door to parents killing their children upon learning they have a disability. If the mother feels she is unable to take on the medical costs of a child with special needs, there are many people all across the U.S. who are willing to take in these children with open arms (as evinced by the establishment of the Adopt America Network which specifically places special needs children in loving homes). Murdering a fetus with a defect need not be an option. "Although I personally would not get an abortion unless I were to be raped and it resulted in a pregnancy before I finish my studies, I don't believe anyone should be forced to go through with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to and there is a good reason." So, in essence, what you are saying is that although you would personally never murder a human being, you don't believe someone's "right" to murder an unwanted human being should be restricted. Well, murder is murder, whether you would personally do it or not. Further, the problem with saying "unless there's a good reason" is that people will stretch what a good reason is. A woman may have engaged in unsafe sex, became pregnant, and had an abortion because she "didn't want it", which was a "good reason" to her. I understand that I come off as extremely unsympathetic to the mother's situation, but it's simply because I acknowledge that the mother's situation is not the only one to be considered. I am acutely aware that it is difficult to carry an unwanted fetus to term, but murder is not excusable just because something is hard. I know that making abortion illegal will not prevent its occurrence - but just because people murder doesn't mean there should't be a law against it. My belief that abortion should be illegal in most cases is not because I don't care about the mother, but because I also care about the newly created human. Murder is murder and the definition should not be tainted by emotional circumstances or flimsy excuses. Human life is human life and its definition should not be forgotten or twisted to justify a morally and (by definition of murder) legally unjustifiable act. SOURCES 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>...

IHateThinkingOfNames

"Currently, abortion (providing that certain restrictions are met) is legal in the United States." My argument is that, despite the current legality of abortion, it is still murder because there is no "legal excuse or authority". A legal excuse for murder is self-defense - it is justifiable to kill someone if they are putting your life in danger (likewise, the only legal excuse for abortion is the probable death of the mother as that puts her life in danger). Additionally, abortion has no legal authority. Soldiers have legal authority from their government to kill enemies in order to defend their nation. In both instances (legal excuse and authority) an individual kills to protect themselves or others from harm. Abortion, on the other hand, terminates a human life merely because the mother did not want that human life. The legality of abortion implies that it is okay to kill a human being because you don't want them to be alive. By that logic, one could kill any human being they felt was an "inconvenience" on their existence. Obviously, not wanting a human being to be alive is not an excuse for murder. So just because abortion is legal, doesn't mean it should be, which is what I am arguing. "Generally speaking, in a human pregnancy, the fetus is not considered 'alive' until EEG waves are detectable." This is not factual. Life is life, whether it is within the womb or not. A single cell is "alive", meaning it meets the criteria for life (1). Whether or not a being is alive is not contingent upon whether or not its EEG waves are detectable. Obviously one would not be able to detect EEG waves on a single cell, but that does not mean it is not alive. A human zygote is not only composed of living cells, but *human* cells that reproduce and differentiate into *human* tissues, organs, and so on. Therefore it is both human and alive. " Also, it a myth that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks." I am not at all concerned about whether or not a fetus can feel pain. That does not make him or her any less of a human. Besides, I do not see how this makes killing the fetus excusable. There is a condition known as congenital analgesia in which the sufferer cannot feel pain (2). If someone were to kill them, would it be justifiable since they do not feel pain? Before I go on, I think it is important to mention that all humans are entitled to the same human rights, one of which includes life. The definition of human rights is : "rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status." (3) Notice how the definition of human rights does not exclude unborn humans. Now, to address your special circumstances: "-Cases in which the fetus was conceived through rape or incest" While rape is a horrific crime that should be met with a just punishment, I don't see why an unborn human should pay someone else's price. Aborting the unborn will not erase the rape, nor punish the rapist. A rape does not justify the murder of an uninvolved party. Let's look at this in a different context: You're arguing that it is justifiable for a woman to kill a human being (the unborn) because she was raped. What if a woman killed a human being (the rapist) because he raped her? In the second scenario, the woman would still be classified as a murderer and prosecuted even though the human being she killed personally wronged her because it was not in self defense (the rape had already occurred) and she had no legal authority. So if it is illegal for an individual to murder a human who personally wronged them, why is it justifiable to kill an unborn human considering that s/he is innocent of any crime? If the mother does not wish raise or even see the baby (which is completely understandable), adoption is the answer, not murder. As for incest, while it is troubling to think about what condition could occur as a result of it, it does not justify murder. I know the ensuing argument might be, "They baby could have a disorder or deformity and live a hard life," but that does not make him/her any less human. It is not for anyone else but the unborn individual to decide whether life with a disorder or deformity is worth living or not. "-Cases in which the mother is grossly underage" Most grossly underage pregnancies I am aware of occur as a result of rape, for which I have already stated my argument. The age of the mother does not make the unborn any less human, therefore the abortion would be no less a murder, unless, of course, the young mother was unlikely to survive childbirth. "-Cases in which contraception methods were used but failed" It should be known by those who engage in sexual intercourse that contraceptives are not 100% effective. No condom or contraceptive pill company reports their products as preventing pregnancy 100% of the time. If two individuals choose to ignore this risk, they should not be able to murder the newly created human being because he/she is inconvenient. An unborn human being can not be held responsible for the failure of contraceptives. "-Cases in which there is evidence of a physical or cognitive birth defect in the fetus" This ties in to my argument against abortion in the event of incest. One human being does not get to kill another human being just because they have a defect. My only concession is this: there is no reason to give birth to a stillborn or a baby who will die so shortly after birth that they may as well be a stillborn. Otherwise, what this argument is saying is that it is okay to kill a human being because they have a defect. This would open the door to parents killing their children upon learning they have a disability. If the mother feels she is unable to take on the medical costs of a child with special needs, there are many people all across the U.S. who are willing to take in these children with open arms (as evinced by the establishment of the Adopt America Network which specifically places special needs children in loving homes). Murdering a fetus with a defect need not be an option. "Although I personally would not get an abortion unless I were to be raped and it resulted in a pregnancy before I finish my studies, I don't believe anyone should be forced to go through with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to and there is a good reason." So, in essence, what you are saying is that although you would personally never murder a human being, you don't believe someone's "right" to murder an unwanted human being should be restricted. Well, murder is murder, whether you would personally do it or not. Further, the problem with saying "unless there's a good reason" is that people will stretch what a good reason is. A woman may have engaged in unsafe sex, became pregnant, and had an abortion because she "didn't want it", which was a "good reason" to her. I understand that I come off as extremely unsympathetic to the mother's situation, but it's simply because I acknowledge that the mother's situation is not the only one to be considered. I am acutely aware that it is difficult to carry an unwanted fetus to term, but murder is not excusable just because something is hard. I know that making abortion illegal will not prevent its occurrence - but just because people murder doesn't mean there should't be a law against it. My belief that abortion should be illegal in most cases is not because I don't care about the mother, but because I also care about the newly created human. Murder is murder and the definition should not be tainted by emotional circumstances or flimsy excuses. Human life is human life and its definition should not be forgotten or twisted to justify a morally and (by definition of murder) legally unjustifiable act. SOURCES 1. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu... 2. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... 3. http://www.ohchr.org...

Philosophy

Abortion-should-be-illegal-in-the-United-States/4/

You say that abortion is killing a baby, but abortion is the termination of a fetus, not a baby. A fetus is simply a template which has yet to develop any form of emotion or sentience. I guarantee a chicken has more intelligence than a fetus, yet judging from your profile picture I bet you eat a lot of chicken. So how can you defend the existence of a template while eating the flesh of a butchered animal? I know chicken is tasty, but you can't speak about morals and "A right to live" when you're devouring flesh like a feral beast! If a woman can't look after this template properly then why should we wait until it develops sentience? It would be given the ability to feel, yet be bough into a world to feel only pain. That is truly barbaric and that is the evil you so wrongfully defend. To be pro-life you must be pro-suffering. People don't get abortions casually, they get them due to personal reasons that will alter their life. Maybe their dad raped them and couldn't pull out in time to jizz on their belly. To this I ask, who the f**k are you to tell any woman that she has to give birth?

Masterful

You say that abortion is killing a baby, but abortion is the termination of a fetus, not a baby. A fetus is simply a template which has yet to develop any form of emotion or sentience. I guarantee a chicken has more intelligence than a fetus, yet judging from your profile picture I bet you eat a lot of chicken. So how can you defend the existence of a template while eating the flesh of a butchered animal? I know chicken is tasty, but you can't speak about morals and "A right to live" when you're devouring flesh like a feral beast! If a woman can't look after this template properly then why should we wait until it develops sentience? It would be given the ability to feel, yet be bough into a world to feel only pain. That is truly barbaric and that is the evil you so wrongfully defend. To be pro-life you must be pro-suffering. People don't get abortions casually, they get them due to personal reasons that will alter their life. Maybe their dad raped them and couldn't pull out in time to jizz on their belly. To this I ask, who the f**k are you to tell any woman that she has to give birth?

Society

Abortion-should-be-illegal-world-wide/1/

"whether you kill ,terminate , destroy fact of the matter is my friend the fetus which was living was dead." First of all, why are you making friends with a fetus? Also, where did you get a fetus from to befriend one? These are the real questions... A fetus can't be your friend, but commas can... "when people say shes pregnant they dont say shes pregnant with a fetus , they say shes pregnant with a baby?" A fetus by defintion is an unborn mammal after 8 weeks of conception. Your point is moot. <URL>... "how does any peron who agrees with abortions or helps with that horrible procedure know what a fetus,s emotions are or sentience." <URL>... This article is telling us that a toddler is less intelligent than a chicken! Considering a fetus is even less intelligent than a toddler it's very clear they're not self-aware. The argument is simple, they're not self-aware in their current development, so don't wait until they're born into poverty with a mother that can't provide, look after or teach them, because they will likely suffer and end up resorting to crime. This is typical of being born into poverty. Just look at black neighbourhoods for example, it's an absolute rat pit. Some mothers, typically black mothers, can't give the fetus a real life, while sacrificing so much of their own. You have no right to force humans to be born into such conditions, without any exception. "The most outrageous thing you stated which should get you disqualified for making assumptions like quote: I LOOK LIKE I EAT CHICKEN lol.Bad news brother i dont im actually a vegetarian . NO ONE CAN LOOK LIKE THEY EAT CHICKEN." How can I be disqualified for stating what you look like? It's the truth, It's not my fault black people eat a lot of chicken and it's certainly not my fault you're black. Much like a fetus, a carrot is a living thing too, yet as a vegetarian, you kill and eat carrots. Why are you so ignorant of a carrots life? They have every right to live yet you devour them like a fiendish monster, where they lay dissolving in your bloated vegan gut, awaiting further digestion as they slowly turn to fecal matter, what a grim fate. Unlike an animal a carrot can't run, nor hide, they sit there, helpless, stuck in place unable to escape your fat grubby fingers, at which point you begin to pull it out the ground, severing it from it's roots, which act as it's nervous system, the pain it must feel as it's no longer able to extract nourishment from the ground, or how it loses its ability to breath carbon dioxide. All of this because you don't value its existence, nothing more than a simple carrot. Tell me how you know this innocent little carrot doesn't feel pain, or stress or even fear? If you can't tell me how this matured carrot has no right to live, then how can you tell me a template to a human has a right to live? Give me proof that these fetus's are self-aware. You can't because they're not. "You said that quote: That is truly barbaric and that is the evil you so wrongfully defend. To be pro-life you must be pro-suffering? lmaoooo wow and you believe and back that statement ." Yes bringing a baby into this world despite the fact the mother can't support, nor raise that baby means it will suffer. Especially if that baby has a chronic painful illness that will create torture and agony everyday it's are alive. You want them to live, but you don't care for their suffering. "THAT WAS DUM AS HELL BRO! read what you write before you make dum contradictions online ." You rather hypocritically misspelt "dumb" so the question is, how can someone who can't spell a 4 letter word, have any insight into the level of sentience of a fetus? Just to make it clear to you, if a fetus is not self-aware then terminating it's life has no consequence unless you're stupid enough to believe in a spirit, or some other religiously induced bull s**t. "and to answer you r question im just a man wanting to see a baby live and not murdered in a evil and truly barbaric way ." Then you can start by sorting out your ghetto youth who are constantly shooting each other to death. Why bring more of them to be drug selling little crack heads into the world? We have enough, I understand you feel an instinctive need to breed like fat, chicken bloated rats, but take a step back for a second and realise all the black neighbourhoods are in shambles. No racism only honesty. "now remember dont make statements like YOU LOOK LIKE YOU EAT CHICKEN lmaooo" Then don't wear a flat cap like a stereotypical wannabe gangster and then I won't stereotype you. If you were clean shaven and wearing respectable societal clothes, then I'd assume you were a respectful individual who perhaps doesn't gorge upon the flesh of chicken like a ravenous barbarian.

Masterful

"whether you kill ,terminate , destroy fact of the matter is my friend the fetus which was living was dead." First of all, why are you making friends with a fetus? Also, where did you get a fetus from to befriend one? These are the real questions... A fetus can't be your friend, but commas can... "when people say shes pregnant they dont say shes pregnant with a fetus , they say shes pregnant with a baby?" A fetus by defintion is an unborn mammal after 8 weeks of conception. Your point is moot. https://www.google.co.uk... "how does any peron who agrees with abortions or helps with that horrible procedure know what a fetus,s emotions are or sentience." http://www.dailymail.co.uk... This article is telling us that a toddler is less intelligent than a chicken! Considering a fetus is even less intelligent than a toddler it's very clear they're not self-aware. The argument is simple, they're not self-aware in their current development, so don't wait until they're born into poverty with a mother that can't provide, look after or teach them, because they will likely suffer and end up resorting to crime. This is typical of being born into poverty. Just look at black neighbourhoods for example, it's an absolute rat pit. Some mothers, typically black mothers, can't give the fetus a real life, while sacrificing so much of their own. You have no right to force humans to be born into such conditions, without any exception. "The most outrageous thing you stated which should get you disqualified for making assumptions like quote: I LOOK LIKE I EAT CHICKEN lol.Bad news brother i dont im actually a vegetarian . NO ONE CAN LOOK LIKE THEY EAT CHICKEN." How can I be disqualified for stating what you look like? It's the truth, It's not my fault black people eat a lot of chicken and it's certainly not my fault you're black. Much like a fetus, a carrot is a living thing too, yet as a vegetarian, you kill and eat carrots. Why are you so ignorant of a carrots life? They have every right to live yet you devour them like a fiendish monster, where they lay dissolving in your bloated vegan gut, awaiting further digestion as they slowly turn to fecal matter, what a grim fate. Unlike an animal a carrot can't run, nor hide, they sit there, helpless, stuck in place unable to escape your fat grubby fingers, at which point you begin to pull it out the ground, severing it from it's roots, which act as it's nervous system, the pain it must feel as it's no longer able to extract nourishment from the ground, or how it loses its ability to breath carbon dioxide. All of this because you don't value its existence, nothing more than a simple carrot. Tell me how you know this innocent little carrot doesn't feel pain, or stress or even fear? If you can't tell me how this matured carrot has no right to live, then how can you tell me a template to a human has a right to live? Give me proof that these fetus's are self-aware. You can't because they're not. "You said that quote: That is truly barbaric and that is the evil you so wrongfully defend. To be pro-life you must be pro-suffering? lmaoooo wow and you believe and back that statement ." Yes bringing a baby into this world despite the fact the mother can't support, nor raise that baby means it will suffer. Especially if that baby has a chronic painful illness that will create torture and agony everyday it's are alive. You want them to live, but you don't care for their suffering. "THAT WAS DUM AS HELL BRO! read what you write before you make dum contradictions online ." You rather hypocritically misspelt "dumb" so the question is, how can someone who can't spell a 4 letter word, have any insight into the level of sentience of a fetus? Just to make it clear to you, if a fetus is not self-aware then terminating it's life has no consequence unless you're stupid enough to believe in a spirit, or some other religiously induced bull s**t. "and to answer you r question im just a man wanting to see a baby live and not murdered in a evil and truly barbaric way ." Then you can start by sorting out your ghetto youth who are constantly shooting each other to death. Why bring more of them to be drug selling little crack heads into the world? We have enough, I understand you feel an instinctive need to breed like fat, chicken bloated rats, but take a step back for a second and realise all the black neighbourhoods are in shambles. No racism only honesty. "now remember dont make statements like YOU LOOK LIKE YOU EAT CHICKEN lmaooo" Then don't wear a flat cap like a stereotypical wannabe gangster and then I won't stereotype you. If you were clean shaven and wearing respectable societal clothes, then I'd assume you were a respectful individual who perhaps doesn't gorge upon the flesh of chicken like a ravenous barbarian.

Society

Abortion-should-be-illegal-world-wide/1/

If you actually bothered to read my argument you'd realise you're done. I totally expected you to be unable to read a couple of paragraphs, considering blacks have difficulties reading and writing. Your sad excuse for a response shows how little you actually care for the debate subject. You keep bringing up that chicken comment, it's almost like it hit a nerve.

Masterful

If you actually bothered to read my argument you'd realise you're done. I totally expected you to be unable to read a couple of paragraphs, considering blacks have difficulties reading and writing. Your sad excuse for a response shows how little you actually care for the debate subject. You keep bringing up that chicken comment, it's almost like it hit a nerve.

Society

Abortion-should-be-illegal-world-wide/1/

Abortion is rang no one should murder there unborn child. If a women has a right to the choice of the abortion ,,well the baby has a choice and should have the right to live. Its Evil to kill a baby .there should be no argument because any rebuttal means your stance is kill a child infant you created. it makes no sense religious wise, morally makes no sense at all, and it shouldn't make legal sense because murders illegal.

Tmacdagreat

Abortion is rang no one should murder there unborn child. If a women has a right to the choice of the abortion ,,well the baby has a choice and should have the right to live. Its Evil to kill a baby .there should be no argument because any rebuttal means your stance is kill a child infant you created. it makes no sense religious wise, morally makes no sense at all, and it shouldn't make legal sense because murders illegal.

Society

Abortion-should-be-illegal-world-wide/1/

lmaoooo This is so easy , whether you kill ,terminate , destroy fact of the matter is my friend the fetus which was living was dead. Excuse me for saying baby then ill use your term which is fetus ok , i hate to tell you the truth but the fetus is living, when people say shes pregnant they dont say shes pregnant with a fetus , they say shes pregnant with a baby? also how does any peron who agrees with abortions or helps with that horrible procedure know what a fetus,s emotions are or sentience. You have no facts to prove that point therefore you should not use that excuse. The most outrageous thing you stated which should get you disqualified for making assumptions like quote: I LOOK LIKE I EAT CHICKEN lol.Bad news brother i dont im actually a vegetarian . NO ONE CAN LOOK LIKE THEY EAT CHICKEN. Some one message him and tell him that? My debate subject not about chicken sir its about a baby ,oh my fault should i say, a fetus which is living until terminated. Wow you actually said a chicken has more intelligence than a fetus ? its an excuse and its not a Fact. But back to subject at hand which is a mother murdering her fetus aka baby. You said that quote: That is truly barbaric and that is the evil you so wrongfully defend. To be pro-life you must be pro-suffering? lmaoooo wow and you believe and back that statement . So im saying make abortions illegal so these babys live the lives that the 2 idiots who get the abortions make a grown choice to create and im barbaric and evil for that opinion ? But you agree with fetus termination ? Whos truly more barbaric and evil? and suffering is having the physical abortion and emotional stress that the parents go through after it . If they baby lives how does it suffer and from what? dont say ignorant things like diseases and neglect etc because the ability to live single handedly over rules it. THAT WAS DUM AS HELL BRO! read what you write before you make dum contradictions online . and to answer you r question im just a man wanting to see a baby live and not murdered in a evil and truly barbaric way . have you ever seen an abortion King Kong ? thats not evil and barbaric? now remember dont make statements like YOU LOOK LIKE YOU EAT CHICKEN lmaooo

Tmacdagreat

lmaoooo This is so easy , whether you kill ,terminate , destroy fact of the matter is my friend the fetus which was living was dead. Excuse me for saying baby then ill use your term which is fetus ok , i hate to tell you the truth but the fetus is living, when people say shes pregnant they dont say shes pregnant with a fetus , they say shes pregnant with a baby? also how does any peron who agrees with abortions or helps with that horrible procedure know what a fetus,s emotions are or sentience. You have no facts to prove that point therefore you should not use that excuse. The most outrageous thing you stated which should get you disqualified for making assumptions like quote: I LOOK LIKE I EAT CHICKEN lol.Bad news brother i dont im actually a vegetarian . NO ONE CAN LOOK LIKE THEY EAT CHICKEN. Some one message him and tell him that? My debate subject not about chicken sir its about a baby ,oh my fault should i say, a fetus which is living until terminated. Wow you actually said a chicken has more intelligence than a fetus ? its an excuse and its not a Fact. But back to subject at hand which is a mother murdering her fetus aka baby. You said that quote: That is truly barbaric and that is the evil you so wrongfully defend. To be pro-life you must be pro-suffering? lmaoooo wow and you believe and back that statement . So im saying make abortions illegal so these babys live the lives that the 2 idiots who get the abortions make a grown choice to create and im barbaric and evil for that opinion ? But you agree with fetus termination ? Whos truly more barbaric and evil? and suffering is having the physical abortion and emotional stress that the parents go through after it . If they baby lives how does it suffer and from what? dont say ignorant things like diseases and neglect etc because the ability to live single handedly over rules it. THAT WAS DUM AS HELL BRO! read what you write before you make dum contradictions online . and to answer you r question im just a man wanting to see a baby live and not murdered in a evil and truly barbaric way . have you ever seen an abortion King Kong ? thats not evil and barbaric? now remember dont make statements like YOU LOOK LIKE YOU EAT CHICKEN lmaooo

Society

Abortion-should-be-illegal-world-wide/1/

Bad news bro , lmaooo did i rattle you fact is you can right ya 500000 word bullcrap responses but you a baby Kiiler . lol I got to when I responded lol I spit Facts you spit baby killing garbage. but hey you have to live with yaself not us pro life people. were happy . Fact is Im for Life abortion should be illegalized. hey everybody , he got mad because i called him on his quote :I look like I eat chicken comment lol. you were done then buddy .

Tmacdagreat

Bad news bro , lmaooo did i rattle you fact is you can right ya 500000 word bullcrap responses but you a baby Kiiler . lol I got to when I responded lol I spit Facts you spit baby killing garbage. but hey you have to live with yaself not us pro life people. were happy . Fact is Im for Life abortion should be illegalized. hey everybody , he got mad because i called him on his quote :I look like I eat chicken comment lol. you were done then buddy .

Society

Abortion-should-be-illegal-world-wide/1/

Abortion is very dangerous, because, it kills the baby. We think by having abortions, we aren't killing the child. But the truth is that we are. Once a women gets pregnant, the child is already developing, therefore the child is alive not dead. We think that, yes, it's our body, but that doesn't mean that you have to kill an innocent life. Instead of having abortions, we could give the child up for adoption and/or putting the child into foster care. Don't kill a life just because you don't want to have a child or something. There are thousands of families out there, who would love to have a child, but couldn't have one themselves....

PrincessMizukiAshiya

Abortion is very dangerous, because, it kills the baby. We think by having abortions, we aren't killing the child. But the truth is that we are. Once a women gets pregnant, the child is already developing, therefore the child is alive not dead. We think that, yes, it's our body, but that doesn't mean that you have to kill an innocent life. Instead of having abortions, we could give the child up for adoption and/or putting the child into foster care. Don't kill a life just because you don't want to have a child or something. There are thousands of families out there, who would love to have a child, but couldn't have one themselves....

News

Abortion-should-be-illegal/38/

Ok then. I'll try to be careful in what I say then. But life begins at conception, so unborn babies are human beings with a right to life. Upon fertilization, a human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. Jerome Lejeune, the French geneticist who discovered the chromosome abnormality that causes Down syndrome, stated that "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion... The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."

PrincessMizukiAshiya

Ok then. I'll try to be careful in what I say then. But life begins at conception, so unborn babies are human beings with a right to life. Upon fertilization, a human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. Jerome Lejeune, the French geneticist who discovered the chromosome abnormality that causes Down syndrome, stated that "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion... The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."

News

Abortion-should-be-illegal/38/

Alright then. But even so, it's a new life about to be born. Would the mother of the child really want to just give up and kill it. Giving the child up for adoption and/or giving the child to a foster care family, would be better, because that way the child can live on. Why kill a child, just because you can't handle it? Plus, abortion can result in medical complications and psychological trauma for women." Abortion should be outlawed because it causes long lasting physical and emotional pain. However you look at it a woman who has an abortion and a doctor who provides one are responsible for the termination of a life." This is true whether you believe that life starts at conception or starts at birth (because aborting a healthy fetus denies it the opportunity of life and birth)." Perhaps because women who have an abortion have to live with this knowledge (which may come back to haunt them strongly on the anniversaries of the abortion and the expected birth date) they can be at increased risk of suffering from depression." This effect can last at least five years after the abortion takes place." Women who have had an abortion are also at greater risk of suicide in the years following the event (154% more likely than women who give birth to their babies)." It is not just women who experience psychological problems following an abortion; the termination can have a negative effect on their partner as well. Abortions can cause physical as well as psychological trauma with research showing an increased likelihood of miscarriage" and placenta previa in any subsequent pregnancies." Abortions are also shown to increase the risk of breast cancer." These risks are typically not discussed with women who attend abortion clinics where they are assured that the procedure is both safe and no more painful than having a tooth extraction. Abortion reduces the number of babies available for adoption. Abortion should be illegal because it prevents people from adopting. Hmmm". Pretty sure there are lots of available babies. Oh well. Many families today struggle with the trauma and misery of infertility, they would do almost anything to have a baby and would love to be able to adopt an unwanted baby, as of 2002 there were approximately 2.6 million women or 14% of American women waiting to adopt children, only just over 1% managed to complete an adoption. Prior to 1973 9% of all babies born in the US were put up for adoption and given to happy and supportive homes." After the decision in Roe v Wade this number dropped dramatically to 1%. These statistics show that there would be many homes available to babies carried to term, giving them an opportunity to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These babies are, however, not given this opportunity as the rights of the mother to enjoy a "disposable" culture are deemed more important than the rights of the unborn baby and its potential family."Fetuses are capable of feeling pain. Abortion should be illegal because fetuses feel pain and abortion is cruel and unusual. Look at some of the new 4d scans of very young fetuses." As early as 12 weeks they are, if small, fully formed human beings, they have eyes, fingers, toes, heart and a nervous system." By 8 weeks gestation a fetus can flex their spine, an indication that enough of a nervous system exists to enable it to feel pain." While fetuses of that age lack a fully developed cortex experiments on animals lacking a cortex show that they withdraw from painful stimuli." Dr Nathanson, an early proponent of abortion became a pro-life campaigner after he saw 12 week fetuses shrink from instruments and open their mouths in a scream during an abortion. While the majority of abortions that take place in the US and around the world are either medical (procured through drugs) or simple vacuum extractions abortions at a later stage of pregnancy are more difficult." These are properly called dilation and extraction abortions but are often referred to as Partial Birth Abortions." The procedure is truly horrendous for the fetus." It is turned in the womb and all of the body bar the head is delivered (the delivery of the head would imply a live birth)." At this stage the fetus is completely alive and healthy." The surgeon then pierces the head and extracts the brain killing the baby." The body is then delivered." This is not a sanitized procedure, it is not humane and itis not always performed on a fetus who can feel no pain, many of the babies on whom this procedure is performed are capable of a viable birth." If the baby"s head were delivered and the procedure subsequently carried out it would be characterized as murder." This type of abortion is subject to bans and legal challenges." As a result many providers now stop the baby"s heart with a lethal injection prior to dismembering the fetus in utero." This does not, however, detract from the fact that the fetus is alive and capable of life just seconds before the injection takes effect. Of course there are certain circumstances where difficult and heartbreaking decisions have to be made; we are not, however, discussing those here." We are considering whether the easy access to abortion on demand should be a fundamental human right." Abortion, whether through partial birth or otherwise is, quite simply horrific." In a society where we have easy access to contraceptives which if used properly or in combination would prevent an unwanted pregnancy there is simply no excuse for abortion, particularly not of one in four viable pregnancies." However, we live in a throwaway society, one where the rights of a woman to "choose" are seen as more important than those of the baby she is carrying, the baby"s father and potential parents who could love and nurture it. Doctors who perform an abortion take a living human being, capable of breathing, capable of crying and nursing and cut its life short before it has the opportunity to realize its potential." The mother who is supposed to love it more than anyone else in the world, who is supposed to protect it is complicit in its pain, suffering and death." It is for these reasons that abortion should be illegal.

PrincessMizukiAshiya

Alright then. But even so, it's a new life about to be born. Would the mother of the child really want to just give up and kill it. Giving the child up for adoption and/or giving the child to a foster care family, would be better, because that way the child can live on. Why kill a child, just because you can't handle it? Plus, abortion can result in medical complications and psychological trauma for women." Abortion should be outlawed because it causes long lasting physical and emotional pain. However you look at it a woman who has an abortion and a doctor who provides one are responsible for the termination of a life." This is true whether you believe that life starts at conception or starts at birth (because aborting a healthy fetus denies it the opportunity of life and birth)." Perhaps because women who have an abortion have to live with this knowledge (which may come back to haunt them strongly on the anniversaries of the abortion and the expected birth date) they can be at increased risk of suffering from depression." This effect can last at least five years after the abortion takes place." Women who have had an abortion are also at greater risk of suicide in the years following the event (154% more likely than women who give birth to their babies)." It is not just women who experience psychological problems following an abortion; the termination can have a negative effect on their partner as well. Abortions can cause physical as well as psychological trauma with research showing an increased likelihood of miscarriage" and placenta previa in any subsequent pregnancies." Abortions are also shown to increase the risk of breast cancer." These risks are typically not discussed with women who attend abortion clinics where they are assured that the procedure is both safe and no more painful than having a tooth extraction. Abortion reduces the number of babies available for adoption. Abortion should be illegal because it prevents people from adopting. Hmmm". Pretty sure there are lots of available babies. Oh well. Many families today struggle with the trauma and misery of infertility, they would do almost anything to have a baby and would love to be able to adopt an unwanted baby, as of 2002 there were approximately 2.6 million women or 14% of American women waiting to adopt children, only just over 1% managed to complete an adoption. Prior to 1973 9% of all babies born in the US were put up for adoption and given to happy and supportive homes." After the decision in Roe v Wade this number dropped dramatically to 1%. These statistics show that there would be many homes available to babies carried to term, giving them an opportunity to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These babies are, however, not given this opportunity as the rights of the mother to enjoy a "disposable" culture are deemed more important than the rights of the unborn baby and its potential family."Fetuses are capable of feeling pain. Abortion should be illegal because fetuses feel pain and abortion is cruel and unusual. Look at some of the new 4d scans of very young fetuses." As early as 12 weeks they are, if small, fully formed human beings, they have eyes, fingers, toes, heart and a nervous system." By 8 weeks gestation a fetus can flex their spine, an indication that enough of a nervous system exists to enable it to feel pain." While fetuses of that age lack a fully developed cortex experiments on animals lacking a cortex show that they withdraw from painful stimuli." Dr Nathanson, an early proponent of abortion became a pro-life campaigner after he saw 12 week fetuses shrink from instruments and open their mouths in a scream during an abortion. While the majority of abortions that take place in the US and around the world are either medical (procured through drugs) or simple vacuum extractions abortions at a later stage of pregnancy are more difficult." These are properly called dilation and extraction abortions but are often referred to as Partial Birth Abortions." The procedure is truly horrendous for the fetus." It is turned in the womb and all of the body bar the head is delivered (the delivery of the head would imply a live birth)." At this stage the fetus is completely alive and healthy." The surgeon then pierces the head and extracts the brain killing the baby." The body is then delivered." This is not a sanitized procedure, it is not humane and itis not always performed on a fetus who can feel no pain, many of the babies on whom this procedure is performed are capable of a viable birth." If the baby"s head were delivered and the procedure subsequently carried out it would be characterized as murder." This type of abortion is subject to bans and legal challenges." As a result many providers now stop the baby"s heart with a lethal injection prior to dismembering the fetus in utero." This does not, however, detract from the fact that the fetus is alive and capable of life just seconds before the injection takes effect. Of course there are certain circumstances where difficult and heartbreaking decisions have to be made; we are not, however, discussing those here." We are considering whether the easy access to abortion on demand should be a fundamental human right." Abortion, whether through partial birth or otherwise is, quite simply horrific." In a society where we have easy access to contraceptives which if used properly or in combination would prevent an unwanted pregnancy there is simply no excuse for abortion, particularly not of one in four viable pregnancies." However, we live in a throwaway society, one where the rights of a woman to "choose" are seen as more important than those of the baby she is carrying, the baby"s father and potential parents who could love and nurture it. Doctors who perform an abortion take a living human being, capable of breathing, capable of crying and nursing and cut its life short before it has the opportunity to realize its potential." The mother who is supposed to love it more than anyone else in the world, who is supposed to protect it is complicit in its pain, suffering and death." It is for these reasons that abortion should be illegal.

News

Abortion-should-be-illegal/38/

Thank you. I am debating under the assumption that you believe a fetus is not human. I agree with with all your statements, unless the fetus is human. If the fetus is a human, then we do not have the right to kill it. Now shall we look at the differences between a fetus and a 2 year old human? 1) Level of Dependency 2) Size 3)Level of Development 4)Location 1 .(Level of Dependency) Just because a fetus depends on its mother doesn't make it any less human than a 2 year old. Certain kids with disabilities depend on a trace in their throat to live, we don't deny there right to life. 2. (Size) Someone who is 2 feet tall is no less of a human than someone who is 5 feet tall. 3. (Level of Development) A fetus isn't as developed as a 2 year old. Nor is a 2 year as far developed as a 10 year old. High development doesn't make people any more human than someone who is less developed. 4. (Location) Where someone is doesn't determine whether they are human or not. I am no less human in my bed than I am at school. Your argument s that people should have the right to do what they want with their body. I agree! Go out and have all the sex you want! But actions have consequences! And just because you have the freedom to do things does not mean you can just take away the consequences. If you have a child, you cannot deny their right to life. I Just told you my argument on why a fetus is a human. If you can disprove that, then you win.

BrandonSiler2044

Thank you. I am debating under the assumption that you believe a fetus is not human. I agree with with all your statements, unless the fetus is human. If the fetus is a human, then we do not have the right to kill it. Now shall we look at the differences between a fetus and a 2 year old human? 1) Level of Dependency 2) Size 3)Level of Development 4)Location 1 .(Level of Dependency) Just because a fetus depends on its mother doesn't make it any less human than a 2 year old. Certain kids with disabilities depend on a trace in their throat to live, we don't deny there right to life. 2. (Size) Someone who is 2 feet tall is no less of a human than someone who is 5 feet tall. 3. (Level of Development) A fetus isn't as developed as a 2 year old. Nor is a 2 year as far developed as a 10 year old. High development doesn't make people any more human than someone who is less developed. 4. (Location) Where someone is doesn't determine whether they are human or not. I am no less human in my bed than I am at school. Your argument s that people should have the right to do what they want with their body. I agree! Go out and have all the sex you want! But actions have consequences! And just because you have the freedom to do things does not mean you can just take away the consequences. If you have a child, you cannot deny their right to life. I Just told you my argument on why a fetus is a human. If you can disprove that, then you win.

Health

Abortion/123/

Your argument is saying that a man shouldn't have to go through pain if she was raped. Then why should the baby have to go through pain when NOTHING happened to it? Secondly, where is your definition of a human come from? You said this "What's a human being, the ability to reason, to understand and reproduce compassion" Your argument is silly. A baby just born out of the womb cannot reason, nor can it even talk!! Who are you to tell me that they can't understand and reproduce compassion? You don't know that. A child in a coma cannot understand compassion? Do we deny their right to life? Again, level of development doesn't make less developed people any less human than more developed people. I told you the difference between a fetus and a two year old boy and showed you how their differences do not make one any less human than the other.

BrandonSiler2044

Your argument is saying that a man shouldn't have to go through pain if she was raped. Then why should the baby have to go through pain when NOTHING happened to it? Secondly, where is your definition of a human come from? You said this "What's a human being, the ability to reason, to understand and reproduce compassion" Your argument is silly. A baby just born out of the womb cannot reason, nor can it even talk!! Who are you to tell me that they can't understand and reproduce compassion? You don't know that. A child in a coma cannot understand compassion? Do we deny their right to life? Again, level of development doesn't make less developed people any less human than more developed people. I told you the difference between a fetus and a two year old boy and showed you how their differences do not make one any less human than the other.

Health

Abortion/123/

The reason it should be illegal is because the constitution allows the government to protect peoples right to life! If a fetus is a human then it should have the right to life! You never disproved and told me how a fetus wasn't a human. How did healthcare get into this argument? It was about abortion. Please stay on topic. I rest my case.

BrandonSiler2044

The reason it should be illegal is because the constitution allows the government to protect peoples right to life! If a fetus is a human then it should have the right to life! You never disproved and told me how a fetus wasn't a human. How did healthcare get into this argument? It was about abortion. Please stay on topic. I rest my case.

Health

Abortion/123/

About 205 million pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Over a third are unintended and about a fifth end in induced abortion. Most abortions result from unintended pregnancies. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selective reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy. Also a spontaneous abortion, is just a miscarriage. An abortion(just abortion) is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons. I am Christian and understand this conflict, but if God intended the fetus to be born then it would still be alive. Adoption is great, but you just shouldn't be controlling another woman's choices, or even her body. It wasn't you who decided to have the sex with your spouse, and it was most definitely not you/spouse's egg/sperm that produced that fetus. <URL>...

williamcarter

About 205 million pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Over a third are unintended and about a fifth end in induced abortion. Most abortions result from unintended pregnancies. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selective reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy. Also a spontaneous abortion, is just a miscarriage. An abortion(just abortion) is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons. I am Christian and understand this conflict, but if God intended the fetus to be born then it would still be alive. Adoption is great, but you just shouldn't be controlling another woman's choices, or even her body. It wasn't you who decided to have the sex with your spouse, and it was most definitely not you/spouse's egg/sperm that produced that fetus. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Health

Abortion/123/

All our choices have consequences, yes they do. Hey that's have every women who is raped and can have the baby, forced to go through pain just like being raped and have her give birth to an innocent baby, who is the son/girl of her reaper. A fetus is the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation. What's a human being, the ability to reason, to understand and reproduce compassion. In addition, a human being is someone in some way can contribute positively to the planet no matter what their station or condition is. Guess what that most likely will cause stress, which hey means she needed to have an induced abortion. Remember our first round?

williamcarter

All our choices have consequences, yes they do. Hey that's have every women who is raped and can have the baby, forced to go through pain just like being raped and have her give birth to an innocent baby, who is the son/girl of her reaper. A fetus is the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation. What's a human being, the ability to reason, to understand and reproduce compassion. In addition, a human being is someone in some way can contribute positively to the planet no matter what their station or condition is. Guess what that most likely will cause stress, which hey means she needed to have an induced abortion. Remember our first round?

Health

Abortion/123/

My second part of this was interrupted because of a little problem that's happening right now in my house. I was just writing ideas when it came up, my apologies. You are right, but I don't understand why it should be illegal. Hey, if she wants to put it up for adoption or not it's her choice. Maybe the only way to solve this is, having elective/voluntary abortions illegal, the woman puts the baby up for adoption, and then she gets health care money something for giving birth to another human being who might help the world.

williamcarter

My second part of this was interrupted because of a little problem that's happening right now in my house. I was just writing ideas when it came up, my apologies. You are right, but I don't understand why it should be illegal. Hey, if she wants to put it up for adoption or not it's her choice. Maybe the only way to solve this is, having elective/voluntary abortions illegal, the woman puts the baby up for adoption, and then she gets health care money something for giving birth to another human being who might help the world.

Health

Abortion/123/

Preventing abortion is often categorized as preventing a woman to do as she pleases with her body, but doing something to your individual body is a completely different thing than doing something to another human being, especially if youre killing it.

Tobariche

Preventing abortion is often categorized as preventing a woman to do as she pleases with her body, but doing something to your individual body is a completely different thing than doing something to another human being, especially if youre killing it.

People

Abortion/437/

I will argue that Abortion is not at all okay. A reason for this is that in an abortion what you are doing is essentially killing a human being, taking away a life. The reason for unwanted pregnancy may or not be negligence, rape, simply unprotected relations. None of these cause justify that taking away of a life in any way. The most arguable cause would be rape, but you could give it to abortion, considering that giving a life is better than taking one away.

Tobariche

I will argue that Abortion is not at all okay. A reason for this is that in an abortion what you are doing is essentially killing a human being, taking away a life. The reason for unwanted pregnancy may or not be negligence, rape, simply unprotected relations. None of these cause justify that taking away of a life in any way. The most arguable cause would be rape, but you could give it to abortion, considering that giving a life is better than taking one away.

People

Abortion/437/

LOL! It looks like you're about to get beaten by an idiot. 1.It's just a user name. Just look at your username. According to your statement, you're an idiot since the 'g' in greenriver8 isn't capitalized. 2.This website is hardly credible when it comes to debating seeing as how cheating is rather easy. Not to mention that none of my "judges" have presented any documents to show that they are qualified judges. 3.People of the age 52 years old are stupid? Albert Einstein lived for over 70 years and made plenty of mistakes in the eyes of the public, yet he is commonly known for his intelligence. 4.Your conclusion is non sequitur. Easiest debate I've ever won!

Adolph_Hitler_Rules

LOL! It looks like you're about to get beaten by an idiot. 1.It's just a user name. Just look at your username. According to your statement, you're an idiot since the ‘g' in greenriver8 isn't capitalized. 2.This website is hardly credible when it comes to debating seeing as how cheating is rather easy. Not to mention that none of my "judges" have presented any documents to show that they are qualified judges. 3.People of the age 52 years old are stupid? Albert Einstein lived for over 70 years and made plenty of mistakes in the eyes of the public, yet he is commonly known for his intelligence. 4.Your conclusion is non sequitur. Easiest debate I've ever won!

Society

Adolph-Hitler-Rules-is-an-idiot./1/

#1. Strawman fallacy. I never said that the topic was about your username. I said that by your same logic, you'd be an idiot too since it breaks one of the laws of our language. My username was created on a whim too, so what applies to me must apply to you as well. #2. Strawman fallacy. Who said I was a cheater? I said cheating was possible, thus negating the credibility of my past debates. You obviously have horrible reading comprehension as I suggested nothing that would give you a reason to counter by claiming that I have no papers to show that I am idiot. #3. Syllogism form of your argument: 1) greenriver8 doesn't know anyone as outspoken as Adolph Hitler Rules. 2) Therefore, Adolph Hitler Rules must be lying about his age. This is an obvious non sequitur. Thank you for helping me flesh out that point. You lose. Try again? Yes | (No) *insert another coin*

Adolph_Hitler_Rules

#1. Strawman fallacy. I never said that the topic was about your username. I said that by your same logic, you'd be an idiot too since it breaks one of the laws of our language. My username was created on a whim too, so what applies to me must apply to you as well. #2. Strawman fallacy. Who said I was a cheater? I said cheating was possible, thus negating the credibility of my past debates. You obviously have horrible reading comprehension as I suggested nothing that would give you a reason to counter by claiming that I have no papers to show that I am idiot. #3. Syllogism form of your argument: 1) greenriver8 doesn't know anyone as outspoken as Adolph Hitler Rules. 2) Therefore, Adolph Hitler Rules must be lying about his age. This is an obvious non sequitur. Thank you for helping me flesh out that point. You lose. Try again? Yes | (No) *insert another coin*

Society

Adolph-Hitler-Rules-is-an-idiot./1/

1) LOL! Strawman fallacy. I never said we both were idiots. I said that you would also be an idiot according to your pitiful logic. By the way, you misspelled the following words in your reply: Yours. Capitalize. Courtesy. Piece. For. Themselves. So this isn't just a grammatical issue on your part. LOL! Me? I know errors are bound to happen which is why I don't use them as a reason to call someone an idiot. 2. I don't assume it. I know it to be fact. If I wanted to, I could create a dozen email addresses and then create a dozen accounts on this site. I could then use these accounts to "vote" for all of my arguments and against the arguments of the people I don't like. 3. Yes, I'm sorry that you've never heard of a person named "Adolph Hitler Rules" in real life. It is a good thing everyone has there user names for names in real life. LOL! Did you honestly just say that? 4. You don't know what I look like, you don't know what I think, and you certainly don't know how I live my life. You're just an adolescent child who wass out of his league before this little rave of yours even began. You lose. Now get off my Internet.

Adolph_Hitler_Rules

1) LOL! Strawman fallacy. I never said we both were idiots. I said that you would also be an idiot according to your pitiful logic. By the way, you misspelled the following words in your reply: Yours. Capitalize. Courtesy. Piece. For. Themselves. So this isn't just a grammatical issue on your part. LOL! Me? I know errors are bound to happen which is why I don't use them as a reason to call someone an idiot. 2. I don't assume it. I know it to be fact. If I wanted to, I could create a dozen email addresses and then create a dozen accounts on this site. I could then use these accounts to "vote" for all of my arguments and against the arguments of the people I don't like. 3. Yes, I'm sorry that you've never heard of a person named "Adolph Hitler Rules" in real life. It is a good thing everyone has there user names for names in real life. LOL! Did you honestly just say that? 4. You don't know what I look like, you don't know what I think, and you certainly don't know how I live my life. You're just an adolescent child who wass out of his league before this little rave of yours even began. You lose. Now get off my Internet.

Society

Adolph-Hitler-Rules-is-an-idiot./1/

1. You spelled Adolf Hitler wrong 2. You're 0-5 (pathetic) 3. You're "52 years old" Conclusion- you're an idiot.

greenriver8

1. You spelled Adolf Hitler wrong 2. You're 0-5 (pathetic) 3. You're "52 years old" Conclusion- you're an idiot.

Society

Adolph-Hitler-Rules-is-an-idiot./1/

1. The topic isn't about me or my user name, your username suggests that you don't know how to spell hitler's name, since you respect him highly (as shown in past debates), then you would owe the courtesy to spell his name right. My username was created on a whim, a lack or creativity if you will. 2. It's hard to believe that you are a cheater on this website when you've lost all of your debates. You have no papers shown to say that you're not an idiot, nor do I, such 'papers' I don't believe exist. 3. It's easy for me to assume that you're lying about your age, since I don't know anyone as outspoken as you being so old (52 is old to me, I'm 15). I don't think this is the easiest debate you've ever won, because you have yet to win one.

greenriver8

1. The topic isn't about me or my user name, your username suggests that you don't know how to spell hitler's name, since you respect him highly (as shown in past debates), then you would owe the courtesy to spell his name right. My username was created on a whim, a lack or creativity if you will. 2. It's hard to believe that you are a cheater on this website when you've lost all of your debates. You have no papers shown to say that you're not an idiot, nor do I, such 'papers' I don't believe exist. 3. It's easy for me to assume that you're lying about your age, since I don't know anyone as outspoken as you being so old (52 is old to me, I'm 15). I don't think this is the easiest debate you've ever won, because you have yet to win one.

Society

Adolph-Hitler-Rules-is-an-idiot./1/