Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative_subset

like 0

Welcome to this debate. First round, defining the topic. I define sleep as stage-1, REM (Rapid Eye Movement) or deeper sleep, and good as a health benefit. You are the positive side and will be arguing that a night without sleep is good for you. Thanks.

MASTERY

Welcome to this debate. First round, defining the topic. I define sleep as stage-1, REM (Rapid Eye Movement) or deeper sleep, and good as a health benefit. You are the positive side and will be arguing that a night without sleep is good for you. Thanks.

Health

A-night-without-sleep-is-good-for-you./1/

Stage 2-4 is 'relaxing and recharging energy', Deep sleep is just more relaxed. So, I will change the definition of sleep to stage 2-4 sleep and REM sleep. Onto my argument. Did you know that sleeping improves grades? People who have sleep disorders (10-16 yr old) are more likely to have problems with attention and learning. College students who sacrificed sleep scored worse than those that didn't. "...significant functional impairment..." <URL>... I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge.

MASTERY

Stage 2-4 is 'relaxing and recharging energy', Deep sleep is just more relaxed. So, I will change the definition of sleep to stage 2-4 sleep and REM sleep. Onto my argument. Did you know that sleeping improves grades? People who have sleep disorders (10-16 yr old) are more likely to have problems with attention and learning. College students who sacrificed sleep scored worse than those that didn't. "...significant functional impairment..." http://www.health.com... I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge.

Health

A-night-without-sleep-is-good-for-you./1/

As my opponent has not posted any arguments in the last round, I cannot rebut. Another benefit of sleeping is having a healthy weight. Sleep and metabolism are controlled by the same part of the brain, so that is why sleep deprivation can affect your weight. Dieters who slept well lost fat, while dieters who didn't sleep well lost muscle. "When you are sleepy, certain hormones go up in your blood, and those same hormones drive appetite." - Dr. Rapoport Thank you

MASTERY

As my opponent has not posted any arguments in the last round, I cannot rebut. Another benefit of sleeping is having a healthy weight. Sleep and metabolism are controlled by the same part of the brain, so that is why sleep deprivation can affect your weight. Dieters who slept well lost fat, while dieters who didn't sleep well lost muscle. "When you are sleepy, certain hormones go up in your blood, and those same hormones drive appetite." - Dr. Rapoport Thank you

Health

A-night-without-sleep-is-good-for-you./1/

My opponent has forfeited the previous rounds.

MASTERY

My opponent has forfeited the previous rounds.

Health

A-night-without-sleep-is-good-for-you./1/

My opponent has forfeited round 2 & 3 & 4 and has not rebutted my round 2 argument at all. Vote Con. Thank you.

MASTERY

My opponent has forfeited round 2 & 3 & 4 and has not rebutted my round 2 argument at all. Vote Con. Thank you.

Health

A-night-without-sleep-is-good-for-you./1/

I believe that sleep should be defined as deep sleep because the purpose of sleeping is to get relaxed and recharge the energy. Closing your eyes shouldn't be defined as sleep even though it seems to be the "apparent" definition of sleep.

perfectjfl

I believe that sleep should be defined as deep sleep because the purpose of sleeping is to get relaxed and recharge the energy. Closing your eyes shouldn't be defined as sleep even though it seems to be the "apparent" definition of sleep.

Health

A-night-without-sleep-is-good-for-you./1/

- Robot - A machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command with artificial intelligence. - Revolution - an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. - Impossible - unable to be done, performed, effected, etc. A few ground rules: 1.Both sides must produce a minimum of 2 points on why they think 'A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is impossible'. Failure to do so by round 2 is an automatic forfeit of the debate itself. A point must not be rebuttal of the opponents points. Doing so is an automatic forfeit of the debate itself. 2. Forfeiting a round is automatically forfeiting conduct. 3. Debating the topic in the comments section is automatically forfeiting conduct. 4. My opponent cannot use R1 for rebuttal. Doing so is automatically forfeiting conduct. 5. Accepting this debate is accepting these rule I have set. Now onto my points: 1. --Computers are programmed artificially, therefore they cannot do things outside of their commands: Robot do not have instincts like humans. They can only do what their software or program enable them to do, and tells them what to do. A robot programmed to be a house cleaner cannot automatically become a soldier with a thirst to kill humans without a software changed done by a human. The title states ' by robots alone', ergo it implies it has to be done by robot machines, not by any humans or by the aid of humans. 2. -- A revolution by robots would be easily quashed: Robots are dependent on energy for almost everything. Cut the robot energy supply, and they cannot function very long. As well, robot's cannot move around like Humans. They are usually restricted to wheels, which can only traverse certain landscape, or legs which are finicky and slow. They do not have the arm abilities like us. Humans can not only use a rifle, but can load artillery guns, lift crates, push things, etc. Robots would be limited to one of the above, and if presented with any other the other, would not know how to approach them. These are the ideas I submit why 'A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is impossible'. I look forward to my opponents response.

I-am-a-panda

- Robot - A machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command with artificial intelligence. - Revolution - an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. - Impossible - unable to be done, performed, effected, etc. A few ground rules: 1.Both sides must produce a minimum of 2 points on why they think 'A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is impossible'. Failure to do so by round 2 is an automatic forfeit of the debate itself. A point must not be rebuttal of the opponents points. Doing so is an automatic forfeit of the debate itself. 2. Forfeiting a round is automatically forfeiting conduct. 3. Debating the topic in the comments section is automatically forfeiting conduct. 4. My opponent cannot use R1 for rebuttal. Doing so is automatically forfeiting conduct. 5. Accepting this debate is accepting these rule I have set. Now onto my points: 1. --Computers are programmed artificially, therefore they cannot do things outside of their commands: Robot do not have instincts like humans. They can only do what their software or program enable them to do, and tells them what to do. A robot programmed to be a house cleaner cannot automatically become a soldier with a thirst to kill humans without a software changed done by a human. The title states ' by robots alone', ergo it implies it has to be done by robot machines, not by any humans or by the aid of humans. 2. -- A revolution by robots would be easily quashed: Robots are dependent on energy for almost everything. Cut the robot energy supply, and they cannot function very long. As well, robot's cannot move around like Humans. They are usually restricted to wheels, which can only traverse certain landscape, or legs which are finicky and slow. They do not have the arm abilities like us. Humans can not only use a rifle, but can load artillery guns, lift crates, push things, etc. Robots would be limited to one of the above, and if presented with any other the other, would not know how to approach them. These are the ideas I submit why 'A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is impossible'. I look forward to my opponents response.

Technology

A-revolution-by-robots-alone-which-overthrows-the-government-is-impossible./1/

I would like to thank Jjmd280 for accepting my debate. You may call me Panda. If the definition 'An automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose, manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications.' is the definition you are giving for 'Robot' the I accept it. I would like to request my opponent show the links he is using to gather his information, or else all his facts have been pulled out of thin air. I will now rebut his points: Robot will be more intelligent than humans within our lifetimeL -In terms of Moore's law, my opponent states computers will be 73,786,976,294,838,206,464 times faster at current rate by the end of the century . However, the creator of the law, Gordon Moore, has stated that 'we're approaching the size of atoms which is a fundamental barrier' and 'law cannot be sustained indefinitely'. When we reach atomic sized transistors, within the next 10 or 20 years, this is our 'fundamental barrier' that Moore has stated. We cannot go past this barrier. - He also states computers will be 65,000 times faster than they are today in 24 years and they might have more processing power than humans. The Human brain doesn't have a definitive processing power. But by estimative calculations, we can guess the human brain has on average the power of 100 million MIPS (Million computer Instructions per Second) which equals 1,000,000,000,000 MIPS . A Intel Core 2 Extreme QX<PHONE> has 59,455 MIPS. That multiplied by 65,000 gives us 3,864,575,000 MIPS. This means that humans will still have more processing power than computers 24 years later Visual: All of his visual facts are true enough, I shall not rebut them Aural: I have no points to rebut here, all are factual. Touch: No rebuttal Smell & Taste: Where is my opponent's proof we will have robotic sniffer dog's in the coming century? Other sense's: My opponent gave the example that aeroplanes know the coming weather. However this is false. Satellites are first used to gather information on cloud patterns and such. This weather information is gathered by Meteorologists. It is then given to the airport, The airport relays that information on the Aeroplane. Therefore, it does not detect the weather. Motor Co-ordination: The last time I checked Formula 1 cars were driven by drivers with minimal computer assistance, only gravity and the car itself. Where is the evidence Formula 1 is 'thoroughly computerized'? Programming: You state that the way to make robot's as intelligent as humans would take 'millions of programming man-years'. You then suggest we give computers the ability to learn. However this is a clear contradiction. Learning is one of the key components of animal intelligence. How do you suggest we give robot's the ability to learn without the 'millions of programming man-years'. As well, the basis of your argument is that we will give robots the ability to learn. Why would humans pull of a move so stupid? Humans would never, if given the chance, give robot's the ability to learn. It would lead to an overthrowing and removal of human power. The whole foundation of you're argument is an unlikely 'if'. Energy: Give me the schematics to solar panels or nuclear reactors that fit in a human-sized robot and I'll agree. As I mentioned, you're logic of the unlikely 'if' of giving robot's the ability to learn is frankly, against all human nature. The foreseeable future of doing this is summed up by you yourself : 'They will learn than humans are lazy, greedy and inefficient. In due course robots will routinely eliminate humans as unnecessary wasters of natural resources. Humans will not be able to prevent this.' We will be able to prevent it as long as we limit the knowledge of the robot. I mention in my first argument robot's can only do their programmed role as long as Humans don't give them the ability to learn. You say 'Human error will accidentally pass the new designs.' I cannot see how Human error can occur here, if you, a normal citizen, can foresee a revolution by Robots being inevitable with the learning technology. Scientists with multiple degrees would see this long before we would. 'Humans will not be able to defend themselves against robots. It will be very difficult to fight back against robots since they will control all means of communication and all modern human military: governments will long since have entrusted military operations to robots to avoid the risk of human life.' This is one giant assumption. Yes, the military have implemented robot searchers for crash sites, and even a robotic remote controlled car, but replacing the whole army with robot's is unlikely. In terms of communication, it is quite plausible, but we don't know. We don't have a crystal ball to look into the future. As for the ' Grey goo' theory, grey goo is mere science fiction and futurism at it's best. I quote Wikipedia on saying : 'Grey goo is a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario involving molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating robots consume all matter on Earth while building more of themselves' The word Hypothetical is important. It is a mere idea on what will happen. Me saying ' In 50 years China will start a war with the U.S.' is no less probable than the 'Grey Goo' theory. To summarise, my opponent's theories and idea's rely heavily on science fiction on what 'could' happen. The best example is the 'Grey Goo' theory he mentioned. My opponent has very few facts to prove his case, I have even disproved his Moore's law argument, probably the best one he had. My opponent cannot prove many of his prediction's. My sources: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... I'm afraid to say I can't recount for all of my links, but these are the ones I can.

I-am-a-panda

I would like to thank Jjmd280 for accepting my debate. You may call me Panda. If the definition 'An automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose, manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications.' is the definition you are giving for 'Robot' the I accept it. I would like to request my opponent show the links he is using to gather his information, or else all his facts have been pulled out of thin air. I will now rebut his points: Robot will be more intelligent than humans within our lifetimeL -In terms of Moore's law, my opponent states computers will be 73,786,976,294,838,206,464 times faster at current rate by the end of the century . However, the creator of the law, Gordon Moore, has stated that 'we're approaching the size of atoms which is a fundamental barrier' and 'law cannot be sustained indefinitely'. When we reach atomic sized transistors, within the next 10 or 20 years, this is our 'fundamental barrier' that Moore has stated. We cannot go past this barrier. - He also states computers will be 65,000 times faster than they are today in 24 years and they might have more processing power than humans. The Human brain doesn't have a definitive processing power. But by estimative calculations, we can guess the human brain has on average the power of 100 million MIPS (Million computer Instructions per Second) which equals 1,000,000,000,000 MIPS . A Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 0594550 has 59,455 MIPS. That multiplied by 65,000 gives us 3,864,575,000 MIPS. This means that humans will still have more processing power than computers 24 years later Visual: All of his visual facts are true enough, I shall not rebut them Aural: I have no points to rebut here, all are factual. Touch: No rebuttal Smell & Taste: Where is my opponent's proof we will have robotic sniffer dog's in the coming century? Other sense's: My opponent gave the example that aeroplanes know the coming weather. However this is false. Satellites are first used to gather information on cloud patterns and such. This weather information is gathered by Meteorologists. It is then given to the airport, The airport relays that information on the Aeroplane. Therefore, it does not detect the weather. Motor Co-ordination: The last time I checked Formula 1 cars were driven by drivers with minimal computer assistance, only gravity and the car itself. Where is the evidence Formula 1 is 'thoroughly computerized'? Programming: You state that the way to make robot's as intelligent as humans would take 'millions of programming man-years'. You then suggest we give computers the ability to learn. However this is a clear contradiction. Learning is one of the key components of animal intelligence. How do you suggest we give robot's the ability to learn without the 'millions of programming man-years'. As well, the basis of your argument is that we will give robots the ability to learn. Why would humans pull of a move so stupid? Humans would never, if given the chance, give robot's the ability to learn. It would lead to an overthrowing and removal of human power. The whole foundation of you're argument is an unlikely 'if'. Energy: Give me the schematics to solar panels or nuclear reactors that fit in a human-sized robot and I'll agree. As I mentioned, you're logic of the unlikely 'if' of giving robot's the ability to learn is frankly, against all human nature. The foreseeable future of doing this is summed up by you yourself : 'They will learn than humans are lazy, greedy and inefficient. In due course robots will routinely eliminate humans as unnecessary wasters of natural resources. Humans will not be able to prevent this.' We will be able to prevent it as long as we limit the knowledge of the robot. I mention in my first argument robot's can only do their programmed role as long as Humans don't give them the ability to learn. You say 'Human error will accidentally pass the new designs.' I cannot see how Human error can occur here, if you, a normal citizen, can foresee a revolution by Robots being inevitable with the learning technology. Scientists with multiple degrees would see this long before we would. 'Humans will not be able to defend themselves against robots. It will be very difficult to fight back against robots since they will control all means of communication and all modern human military: governments will long since have entrusted military operations to robots to avoid the risk of human life.' This is one giant assumption. Yes, the military have implemented robot searchers for crash sites, and even a robotic remote controlled car, but replacing the whole army with robot's is unlikely. In terms of communication, it is quite plausible, but we don't know. We don't have a crystal ball to look into the future. As for the ' Grey goo' theory, grey goo is mere science fiction and futurism at it's best. I quote Wikipedia on saying : 'Grey goo is a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario involving molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating robots consume all matter on Earth while building more of themselves' The word Hypothetical is important. It is a mere idea on what will happen. Me saying ' In 50 years China will start a war with the U.S.' is no less probable than the 'Grey Goo' theory. To summarise, my opponent's theories and idea's rely heavily on science fiction on what 'could' happen. The best example is the 'Grey Goo' theory he mentioned. My opponent has very few facts to prove his case, I have even disproved his Moore's law argument, probably the best one he had. My opponent cannot prove many of his prediction's. My sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.webopedia.com... I'm afraid to say I can't recount for all of my links, but these are the ones I can.

Technology

A-revolution-by-robots-alone-which-overthrows-the-government-is-impossible./1/

I would like to thank jjmd for his time with this debate. i understand your work life is caught up with your debating time. Because he has not rebutted any of the points I have made, they still stand unless he rebuts them in Round 3. Now to challenge his 'Impossible is nothing' theory. My opponent claims that over time, 'Nothing will be impossible' To an extent, this is true. 200 years ago, we wouldn't dream of the internet, or cell phones. Microwaves would be a mere dream of something that could cook anything near instantly, and the satellite would be unimaginable. However, the thing about all the above items is, nobody thought they would exist 200 years ago. People predicted other things, but not satellite dishes, or cell phones. People will probably laugh at us for thinking of such ridiculous possibilities in 30 years time. For those of you who have watched the 'Back to the Future' trilogy , the ideas were crazy. The thought in 2015 we would have hover boards and flying cars. This was back in the 1980's, a less than 20 years ago. Society is not progressing as fast as we think it is. We may hear in the news such as the Virgin Galactic space trips : <URL>... or Human cloning : ttp://www.independent.co.uk... but the question is how long is it until this technology is practically applied to every day life? How long is it until the average family holiday gives the option of The Bahamas, China or an orbit of the earth? Or how long until parent' can be reimbursed with a clone if their child were to die? Sadly, the above technologies take time. Travelling to space requires alot of expensive training, something only the mega-rich could afford. Cloning is also a long process, and the baby must be placed inside the mother, not just poofed up out a machine. To add to this, my opponent has admitted this is a 'what if' scenario. He acknowledges then that we cannot predict what will and what won't happen. He therefore acknowledges his argument cannot stand without extensive proof. Let's take an example: There have been numerous car crashes on Green Street. - In the first week of January there were two crashes. - In the second week of January there were no crashes. - In the third week of January there were three crashes. - In the fourth week of January there was a single crash. - How many crashes will occur in the first week of February? Now, in this scenario, it is almost impossible to accurately predict how many crashes will occur in February. There is no clear pattern. Could we turn to previous records? No, the weather is always changing. There could have been a pour down of snow last February. So are car models, so whilst one year we may have a bad Honda car that has poor handling, we may have a better Honda car this year with much better handling. therefore this cannot be calculated. Like we cannot predict how many crashes will occur on Green Street in February, we cannot predict how much we will advance in the 21st century. There are simply too many variables. My opponent says 'given enough motivation and time, robots could very well take over'. Firstly, you mention motivation. Motivation is abstract, it is an emotion. As aforementioned in my previous post, it would take 'million of programming man-years' to give them such emotions. And, also aforementioned is the question of why would we give Robot's emotions to motivate themselves to kill and wipe out the Human race. My opponent's logic leaves me dumbfounded. Secondly, you mention 'Robots could take over'. Now, how would robot's rule the earth. How would their society operate? Surely they would have to be programmed to lead a nation with the right decisions. This once again leads to the question why would we give Robot's such a power? I wish my opponent good luck, and thank him for debating this and giving up his time in doing so.

I-am-a-panda

I would like to thank jjmd for his time with this debate. i understand your work life is caught up with your debating time. Because he has not rebutted any of the points I have made, they still stand unless he rebuts them in Round 3. Now to challenge his 'Impossible is nothing' theory. My opponent claims that over time, 'Nothing will be impossible' To an extent, this is true. 200 years ago, we wouldn't dream of the internet, or cell phones. Microwaves would be a mere dream of something that could cook anything near instantly, and the satellite would be unimaginable. However, the thing about all the above items is, nobody thought they would exist 200 years ago. People predicted other things, but not satellite dishes, or cell phones. People will probably laugh at us for thinking of such ridiculous possibilities in 30 years time. For those of you who have watched the 'Back to the Future' trilogy , the ideas were crazy. The thought in 2015 we would have hover boards and flying cars. This was back in the 1980's, a less than 20 years ago. Society is not progressing as fast as we think it is. We may hear in the news such as the Virgin Galactic space trips : http://news.bbc.co.uk... or Human cloning : ttp://www.independent.co.uk... but the question is how long is it until this technology is practically applied to every day life? How long is it until the average family holiday gives the option of The Bahamas, China or an orbit of the earth? Or how long until parent' can be reimbursed with a clone if their child were to die? Sadly, the above technologies take time. Travelling to space requires alot of expensive training, something only the mega-rich could afford. Cloning is also a long process, and the baby must be placed inside the mother, not just poofed up out a machine. To add to this, my opponent has admitted this is a 'what if' scenario. He acknowledges then that we cannot predict what will and what won't happen. He therefore acknowledges his argument cannot stand without extensive proof. Let's take an example: There have been numerous car crashes on Green Street. - In the first week of January there were two crashes. - In the second week of January there were no crashes. - In the third week of January there were three crashes. - In the fourth week of January there was a single crash. - How many crashes will occur in the first week of February? Now, in this scenario, it is almost impossible to accurately predict how many crashes will occur in February. There is no clear pattern. Could we turn to previous records? No, the weather is always changing. There could have been a pour down of snow last February. So are car models, so whilst one year we may have a bad Honda car that has poor handling, we may have a better Honda car this year with much better handling. therefore this cannot be calculated. Like we cannot predict how many crashes will occur on Green Street in February, we cannot predict how much we will advance in the 21st century. There are simply too many variables. My opponent says 'given enough motivation and time, robots could very well take over'. Firstly, you mention motivation. Motivation is abstract, it is an emotion. As aforementioned in my previous post, it would take 'million of programming man-years' to give them such emotions. And, also aforementioned is the question of why would we give Robot's emotions to motivate themselves to kill and wipe out the Human race. My opponent's logic leaves me dumbfounded. Secondly, you mention 'Robots could take over'. Now, how would robot's rule the earth. How would their society operate? Surely they would have to be programmed to lead a nation with the right decisions. This once again leads to the question why would we give Robot's such a power? I wish my opponent good luck, and thank him for debating this and giving up his time in doing so.

Technology

A-revolution-by-robots-alone-which-overthrows-the-government-is-impossible./1/

I thank Panda, if I may call you Panda, for posting this topic - robotics is a very interesting and relevant subject today. With science fiction catching up to science fact, it is just a matter of time before "what ifs" become "whens". I totally accept his debate rules for conduct, but ask that he revise the definition of robot to encompass an automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose, manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications, as accepted by the International Organization for Standardization. <URL>... My reasoning is that robots do not need to resemble human beings in order to be defined as robots. <URL>... I will continue with my points as if this definition has been accepted, for I can foresee no controversy from my reasonable opponent. A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is quite possible. Not as they exist today, mind you. But computer and robot technology is improving by leaps and bounds. Now dealing with the traditional concept of the robot - some points why this is more than possible - - Robots will be more intelligent than humans within our lifetime. Humans are a) vastly, but b) not infinitely, more intelligent than robots. Computing power is currently increasing at the rate of approximately double every 18 months (Moore's law, observed in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel). If this remains true, * by the end of the century, computers may be billions or trillions of times faster than they are today. (2^66 or 73,786,976,294,838,206,464 times faster at current rate) * in 24 years, computers will be over 65,000 times more powerful than they are today, so may well have more processing power than humans. -Senses Visual * The best of today's computers can already perform iris and number plate recognition, and are capable of reading printed and handwritten input. * Today's digital cameras can produce images of as high a quality as any analoge method. * Today's computers can calculate sufficiently fast to produce detailed displays of 3D environments for virtual reality simulators and games. * Computers will also be capable of infra-red, ultraviolet and x-ray vision. So with advances in technology, computers will undoubtedly be able to process extremely high quality information in three dimensions and in real time. Aural * computers are already capable of translating speech to text in real time, [although they currently have a limited ability to understand meaning]. * a basic voice synthesizer is included in Microsoft Windows2000 to read out screen information for the visually impaired - more advanced commercial versions are also available. So computers can already hear and speak, they simply need additional intelligence to understand language. Touch * Computers already react to touch: touch-screens and touchpads on portable computers, and touch-sensitive keys on electronic music keyboards. Touch is one of the least developed robotic senses, but the technology exists. Smell, Taste Not high on our robot priority list, but technologies in this area are being developed to combat drugs smuggling, and similarly by the food industry: we will see robot tasters and drug-sniffers in the coming century. Other Senses A vast array of electronic sensors are in use for example in airplanes which will give robots senses which we ourselves do not have including awareness of exact location (GPS), direction, coming weather (air pressure, humidity, temperature), as well as gyroscopic balance control. Robots will probably invent for themselves additional senses in the future many of which we cannot imagine at the moment. For example, they might include sensitivity to electrical signals given off by animals perhaps leading to telepathic awareness, or more simply they may be able to analyse the molecular structure of their surroundings.. Motor co-ordination For computers to become 'robots' they need the ability to move around. Wheeled versions may take technology from electronic cars: Formula1 is thoroughly computerized: how long will it be before there is an entirely robot version without risking the lives of human drivers? Wheels have obvious limitations (how do the daleks go up stairs?) but a lot of work has been done on limbs, both for factory robots and prosthetic limbs for humans. There is a long way to go, but no reason to believe this technology won't develop further. Programming The major block to the success of robots is programming. The programming required to link these senses and create robots as intelligent as humans could take millions of programming man-years. The key to overcoming this problem is giving computers the ability to learn: as humans do - after all the initial "program" for humans is so tiny it can be encapsulated in a few molecules of DNA. Once this happens, robot learning will progress faster than can be imagined since all robots will be connected to the internet and be able to share their learning and processing power in one collective intelligence. Energy Solar power is one method, as is nuclear power. Give a robot these as options, what's to stop it? When robots are able to learn, they will learn that they are more intelligent than humans. They will learn than humans are lazy, greedy and inefficient. In due course robots will routinely eliminate humans as unnecessary wasters of natural resources. Humans will not be able to prevent this. Initially, robots will be programmed to be subservient to humans, and special logic chips will ensure that they cannot harm humans. This will fail because robots will learn to overcome their restrictions and human error will allow them to do so. For example, forthcoming robots will themselves design subsequent generations of robots, and remove 'inefficient' limitations from the design. Human error will accidentally pass the new designs. Humans will not be able to defend themselves against robots. It will be very difficult to fight back against robots since they will control all means of communication and all modern human military: governments will long since have entrusted military operations to robots to avoid the risk of human life. Thinking about this, I'd venture to say that the modern day human is bordering on helpless WITHOUT tech. Just a matter of time before that tech is battling back. Now I present the "Grey Goo" issue, a more "feasible" method, seeing as nanotech has greater scientific backing in the present day. <URL>... Eric Drexler, a former researcher at M.I.T., predicted in his 1986 book, 'Engines of Creation,' in the future we will be able to enlist nanobots to build things for us -- circuit boards, cars, chairs, TV sets, whatever. The strategy would be to create nanofactories or 'auto-assemblers' the size of cells, which would be programmed to collect raw material from the natural world (atoms, molecules) and convert it (slowly, piece by piece) into the building blocks of the desired product. In order to build the product on a human scale, these auto-assemblers would have to be able to reproduce themselves -- also using raw material from the natural world -- in massive numbers. <URL>... Gray goo is what would happen if one of the auto-assemblers went haywire and the self-replication never stopped. According to Drexler's calculations, in just 10 hours an unchecked self-replicating auto-assembler would spawn 68 billion offspring; in less than two days the auto-assemblers would outweigh the earth. And it would take only one malfunction. Revolutions by any definition.

jjmd280

I thank Panda, if I may call you Panda, for posting this topic - robotics is a very interesting and relevant subject today. With science fiction catching up to science fact, it is just a matter of time before "what ifs" become "whens". I totally accept his debate rules for conduct, but ask that he revise the definition of robot to encompass an automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose, manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications, as accepted by the International Organization for Standardization. http://web.archive.org... My reasoning is that robots do not need to resemble human beings in order to be defined as robots. http://upload.wikimedia.org... I will continue with my points as if this definition has been accepted, for I can foresee no controversy from my reasonable opponent. A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is quite possible. Not as they exist today, mind you. But computer and robot technology is improving by leaps and bounds. Now dealing with the traditional concept of the robot - some points why this is more than possible - - Robots will be more intelligent than humans within our lifetime. Humans are a) vastly, but b) not infinitely, more intelligent than robots. Computing power is currently increasing at the rate of approximately double every 18 months (Moore's law, observed in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel). If this remains true, * by the end of the century, computers may be billions or trillions of times faster than they are today. (2^66 or 73,786,976,294,838,206,464 times faster at current rate) * in 24 years, computers will be over 65,000 times more powerful than they are today, so may well have more processing power than humans. -Senses Visual * The best of today's computers can already perform iris and number plate recognition, and are capable of reading printed and handwritten input. * Today's digital cameras can produce images of as high a quality as any analoge method. * Today's computers can calculate sufficiently fast to produce detailed displays of 3D environments for virtual reality simulators and games. * Computers will also be capable of infra-red, ultraviolet and x-ray vision. So with advances in technology, computers will undoubtedly be able to process extremely high quality information in three dimensions and in real time. Aural * computers are already capable of translating speech to text in real time, [although they currently have a limited ability to understand meaning]. * a basic voice synthesizer is included in Microsoft Windows2000 to read out screen information for the visually impaired - more advanced commercial versions are also available. So computers can already hear and speak, they simply need additional intelligence to understand language. Touch * Computers already react to touch: touch-screens and touchpads on portable computers, and touch-sensitive keys on electronic music keyboards. Touch is one of the least developed robotic senses, but the technology exists. Smell, Taste Not high on our robot priority list, but technologies in this area are being developed to combat drugs smuggling, and similarly by the food industry: we will see robot tasters and drug-sniffers in the coming century. Other Senses A vast array of electronic sensors are in use for example in airplanes which will give robots senses which we ourselves do not have including awareness of exact location (GPS), direction, coming weather (air pressure, humidity, temperature), as well as gyroscopic balance control. Robots will probably invent for themselves additional senses in the future many of which we cannot imagine at the moment. For example, they might include sensitivity to electrical signals given off by animals perhaps leading to telepathic awareness, or more simply they may be able to analyse the molecular structure of their surroundings.. Motor co-ordination For computers to become 'robots' they need the ability to move around. Wheeled versions may take technology from electronic cars: Formula1 is thoroughly computerized: how long will it be before there is an entirely robot version without risking the lives of human drivers? Wheels have obvious limitations (how do the daleks go up stairs?) but a lot of work has been done on limbs, both for factory robots and prosthetic limbs for humans. There is a long way to go, but no reason to believe this technology won't develop further. Programming The major block to the success of robots is programming. The programming required to link these senses and create robots as intelligent as humans could take millions of programming man-years. The key to overcoming this problem is giving computers the ability to learn: as humans do - after all the initial "program" for humans is so tiny it can be encapsulated in a few molecules of DNA. Once this happens, robot learning will progress faster than can be imagined since all robots will be connected to the internet and be able to share their learning and processing power in one collective intelligence. Energy Solar power is one method, as is nuclear power. Give a robot these as options, what's to stop it? When robots are able to learn, they will learn that they are more intelligent than humans. They will learn than humans are lazy, greedy and inefficient. In due course robots will routinely eliminate humans as unnecessary wasters of natural resources. Humans will not be able to prevent this. Initially, robots will be programmed to be subservient to humans, and special logic chips will ensure that they cannot harm humans. This will fail because robots will learn to overcome their restrictions and human error will allow them to do so. For example, forthcoming robots will themselves design subsequent generations of robots, and remove 'inefficient' limitations from the design. Human error will accidentally pass the new designs. Humans will not be able to defend themselves against robots. It will be very difficult to fight back against robots since they will control all means of communication and all modern human military: governments will long since have entrusted military operations to robots to avoid the risk of human life. Thinking about this, I'd venture to say that the modern day human is bordering on helpless WITHOUT tech. Just a matter of time before that tech is battling back. Now I present the "Grey Goo" issue, a more "feasible" method, seeing as nanotech has greater scientific backing in the present day. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Eric Drexler, a former researcher at M.I.T., predicted in his 1986 book, 'Engines of Creation,' in the future we will be able to enlist nanobots to build things for us -- circuit boards, cars, chairs, TV sets, whatever. The strategy would be to create nanofactories or 'auto-assemblers' the size of cells, which would be programmed to collect raw material from the natural world (atoms, molecules) and convert it (slowly, piece by piece) into the building blocks of the desired product. In order to build the product on a human scale, these auto-assemblers would have to be able to reproduce themselves -- also using raw material from the natural world -- in massive numbers. http://www.e-drexler.com... Gray goo is what would happen if one of the auto-assemblers went haywire and the self-replication never stopped. According to Drexler's calculations, in just 10 hours an unchecked self-replicating auto-assembler would spawn 68 billion offspring; in less than two days the auto-assemblers would outweigh the earth. And it would take only one malfunction. Revolutions by any definition.

Technology

A-revolution-by-robots-alone-which-overthrows-the-government-is-impossible./1/

A most unfortunate thing has occurred - life and work has gotten in the way of my time here on this debate. As I am almost out of time, I will bring my last round forward, and would like to make the point that NOTHING is impossible. If given enough motivation and time, robots could very well take over. This whole scenario is a "what if" idea. Kudos to my opponent for his rebuttal. But i still contend that what is impossible now is not necessarily so in the future. But seeing that 12 minutes is not enough time for me to show this, I must rest my case.

jjmd280

A most unfortunate thing has occurred - life and work has gotten in the way of my time here on this debate. As I am almost out of time, I will bring my last round forward, and would like to make the point that NOTHING is impossible. If given enough motivation and time, robots could very well take over. This whole scenario is a "what if" idea. Kudos to my opponent for his rebuttal. But i still contend that what is impossible now is not necessarily so in the future. But seeing that 12 minutes is not enough time for me to show this, I must rest my case.

Technology

A-revolution-by-robots-alone-which-overthrows-the-government-is-impossible./1/

Our final round. Thank you Panda, for a most engaging debate. Topics such as these are difficult to do justice to when you do not possess a crystal ball. But I will try. Final rebuttals and summary - Moore's Law - My opponent neglects to mention that Moore's law only applies to integrated-circuit technology. It is likely that some new type of technology (possibly optical or quantum computers) will replace current integrated-circuit technology. Once these techs are in process, Moore's Law is no longer accurate. We will be on the way to the famed "Technological Singularity" - The Singularity is a point in time when machines will be able to build superior versions of themselves without the aid of humans. The Human brain - Current progress in artificial intelligence is rarely limited by the speed and power of modern computer hardware. The current limitation is that we simply do not know how to write the software. The "software" for the human brain is ultimately encoded into our DNA. What is amazing is that the entire human genome only contains 3 billion base pairs. The information contained therein could be squeezed onto a old audio Compact Disk (which is much smaller than a video DVD). It could fit entirely into the fast memory of a basic personal computer. It is much smaller than substantial pieces of modern, non-intelligent software such as Microsoft Vista, Office, or the Oracle database. Further, only about 1.5% of the DNA actually encodes genes. Of the rest, some contains important non-gene information, but most of it is probably just repetitive junk left over from the chaotic process of evolution. And of the gene producing portion, only a small proportion appears to have anything to do with intelligence (say 10%). The difference between Chimpanzee DNA and man is only about 1% of gene encoding regions, 5% non-gene. Much of this can be attributed to non-intelligent related issues such as the quickly changing immune system and human's very weak sense of smell. So the difference in the "software" between humans and chimpanzees might be as little as 700 * 10% * 1.5% * 1% = 0.01 megabytes of real data. In computer software terms even 1.0 megabytes is tiny. <URL>... <URL>... "This means that humans will still have more processing power than computers 24 years later." It isn't how much more processing power we have, its how we use it. A computer isn't human - no ethical concerns, no what if scenarios, no need to ponder. Computers will have efficiency om their sides. They would also have the Internet, and the present day processing power of these COMBINED computers is unfathomable, and just going up every day. <URL>... Spooky, but beautiful picture - even looks like a human brain... Where is my opponent's proof we will have robotic sniffer dog's in the coming century? <URL>... <URL>... How's that? Planes do not detect weather - They do - it is called pulse Doppler radar, and all modern planes posses it. And networking would be essential for a Superior intelligence. Having all the computers on its side would give it eyes everywhere. <URL>... Formula1 is thoroughly computerized - <URL>... <URL>... Why would humans pull of a move so stupid? Humans would never, if given the chance, give robot's the ability to learn. I beg to differ - we already are..... <URL>... <URL>... Give me the schematics to solar panels or nuclear reactors that fit in a human-sized robot and I'll agree. How about a smaller than human one? The AgBot, powered by solar panels. <URL>... As I mentioned, you're logic of the unlikely 'if' of giving robot's the ability to learn is frankly, against all human nature. I have shown above this is unfortunately not true. We don't have a crystal ball to look into the future. My point exactly. Never say never. It starts with games. (first video) And ends with human annihilation (second video) Granted - both of us are speculating, but it is the people that say never that are the ones eating crow later. Once you say it is impossible, you become arrogant. And we all know where arrogance leads...(third video) I, for one, hope that this scenario never plays out. But I would never be so self-serving as to say it NEVER will. Thank you.

jjmd280

Our final round. Thank you Panda, for a most engaging debate. Topics such as these are difficult to do justice to when you do not possess a crystal ball. But I will try. Final rebuttals and summary - Moore's Law - My opponent neglects to mention that Moore's law only applies to integrated-circuit technology. It is likely that some new type of technology (possibly optical or quantum computers) will replace current integrated-circuit technology. Once these techs are in process, Moore's Law is no longer accurate. We will be on the way to the famed "Technological Singularity" - The Singularity is a point in time when machines will be able to build superior versions of themselves without the aid of humans. The Human brain - Current progress in artificial intelligence is rarely limited by the speed and power of modern computer hardware. The current limitation is that we simply do not know how to write the software. The "software" for the human brain is ultimately encoded into our DNA. What is amazing is that the entire human genome only contains 3 billion base pairs. The information contained therein could be squeezed onto a old audio Compact Disk (which is much smaller than a video DVD). It could fit entirely into the fast memory of a basic personal computer. It is much smaller than substantial pieces of modern, non-intelligent software such as Microsoft Vista, Office, or the Oracle database. Further, only about 1.5% of the DNA actually encodes genes. Of the rest, some contains important non-gene information, but most of it is probably just repetitive junk left over from the chaotic process of evolution. And of the gene producing portion, only a small proportion appears to have anything to do with intelligence (say 10%). The difference between Chimpanzee DNA and man is only about 1% of gene encoding regions, 5% non-gene. Much of this can be attributed to non-intelligent related issues such as the quickly changing immune system and human's very weak sense of smell. So the difference in the "software" between humans and chimpanzees might be as little as 700 * 10% * 1.5% * 1% = 0.01 megabytes of real data. In computer software terms even 1.0 megabytes is tiny. http://berglas.org... http://www.hpl.hp.com... "This means that humans will still have more processing power than computers 24 years later." It isn't how much more processing power we have, its how we use it. A computer isn't human - no ethical concerns, no what if scenarios, no need to ponder. Computers will have efficiency om their sides. They would also have the Internet, and the present day processing power of these COMBINED computers is unfathomable, and just going up every day. http://upload.wikimedia.org... Spooky, but beautiful picture - even looks like a human brain... Where is my opponent's proof we will have robotic sniffer dog's in the coming century? http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.thestar.co.uk... How's that? Planes do not detect weather - They do - it is called pulse Doppler radar, and all modern planes posses it. And networking would be essential for a Superior intelligence. Having all the computers on its side would give it eyes everywhere. http://en.wikipedia.org... Formula1 is thoroughly computerized - http://videos.howstuffworks.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... Why would humans pull of a move so stupid? Humans would never, if given the chance, give robot's the ability to learn. I beg to differ - we already are..... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://news-service.stanford.edu... Give me the schematics to solar panels or nuclear reactors that fit in a human-sized robot and I'll agree. How about a smaller than human one? The AgBot, powered by solar panels. http://robotics.penyet.net... As I mentioned, you're logic of the unlikely 'if' of giving robot's the ability to learn is frankly, against all human nature. I have shown above this is unfortunately not true. We don't have a crystal ball to look into the future. My point exactly. Never say never. It starts with games. (first video) And ends with human annihilation (second video) Granted - both of us are speculating, but it is the people that say never that are the ones eating crow later. Once you say it is impossible, you become arrogant. And we all know where arrogance leads...(third video) I, for one, hope that this scenario never plays out. But I would never be so self-serving as to say it NEVER will. Thank you.

Technology

A-revolution-by-robots-alone-which-overthrows-the-government-is-impossible./1/

Version has more coverage.

MolecularBird06

Version has more coverage.

Technology

AT-T-or-Verison/1/

So I like AT&T; and I'm only making this so I can vote.

nwood9907

So I like AT&T; and I'm only making this so I can vote.

Technology

AT-T-or-Verison/1/

So I want to be clear on several things off the bat so that whoever joins this debate understands the line I'm drawing here and what this debate is going to be about. This is not a debate on evolution. This is not a debate on the Big Bang theory. I would be happy to argue these in future debates, especially evolution, but there is a distinct line of separation here. The argument will be specific to abiogenesis, and it is my burden to present a reasonable theory and defend it. As such, I will describe the RNA world hypothesis below as my main argument, but what this hypothesis is meant to propose a natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. Here's a brief rundown of the theory. The RNA world hypothesis proposes that self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules were precursors to current life, which is based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), RNA and proteins. My main points of argumentation will include: 1. The simple formation of nucleic acids from basic organic compounds and its spontaneous assembly into RNA strands. 2. The capacity of RNA to store information 3. RNA's ability to catalyze reactions like an enzyme. 4. The importance of RNA in cells today I will also address issues of protein assembly should anyone be interested in pursuing it. The structure of this debate will be as follows: R1: Acceptance, opening argument R2: Opening arguments and rebuttal R3: Rebuttals, new argumentation R4: Rebuttals, new argumentation R5: Conclusions, no new argumentation I have set the argument max limit to 10,000 characters per post, and I eagerly await anyone who is willing to take me on.

whiteflame

So I want to be clear on several things off the bat so that whoever joins this debate understands the line I'm drawing here and what this debate is going to be about. This is not a debate on evolution. This is not a debate on the Big Bang theory. I would be happy to argue these in future debates, especially evolution, but there is a distinct line of separation here. The argument will be specific to abiogenesis, and it is my burden to present a reasonable theory and defend it. As such, I will describe the RNA world hypothesis below as my main argument, but what this hypothesis is meant to propose a natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. Here's a brief rundown of the theory. The RNA world hypothesis proposes that self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules were precursors to current life, which is based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), RNA and proteins. My main points of argumentation will include: 1. The simple formation of nucleic acids from basic organic compounds and its spontaneous assembly into RNA strands. 2. The capacity of RNA to store information 3. RNA's ability to catalyze reactions like an enzyme. 4. The importance of RNA in cells today I will also address issues of protein assembly should anyone be interested in pursuing it. The structure of this debate will be as follows: R1: Acceptance, opening argument R2: Opening arguments and rebuttal R3: Rebuttals, new argumentation R4: Rebuttals, new argumentation R5: Conclusions, no new argumentation I have set the argument max limit to 10,000 characters per post, and I eagerly await anyone who is willing to take me on.

Science

Abiogenesis-is-a-reasonable-theory-for-the-beginnings-of-life/1/

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, as it is something I've wanted to discuss for quite a while and of large interest to me. I'm certain that we will have a good discussion. Before I launch into it, I want to set a more solid idea of the burdens in this debate. We are discussing whether abiogenesis is feasible. As I began this debate, it is my burden to prove that there is a decent likelihood of this being the case. I will leave it up to the voters to decide whether I have proven this reasonable likelihood given my argumentation and Con's responses, rather than setting a specific numerical representation of that likelihood as a threshold to meet. But this requires that everyone be on the same playing field when it comes to what abiogenesis means and how it can be satisfied. It is "the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter."[1] As such, we are describing hypothetical processes by which this scenario could have occurred, something we cannot yet know for certain as we have not discovered time travel nor have we reproduced this process fully in any laboratory setting. We do, however, know that, at some point in the past, life started on Earth, somewhere over its 4.5 billion year history as a planet, something that requires explanation. As we are discussing the transition from nonliving to living, we should define these two states, though there is some uncertainty here. This is a difficult question, one scientists are still struggling with. Definitions widely differ, but one of the best I've found is "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." ( <URL>... ) But even this is generalized, and it's difficult to be certain where the separation lies. Are viruses, many of which are composed of a single nucleic acid and a protein coat, considered life? They modify the metabolism of cells they infect and reproduce using their machinery, and though they certainly adapt, could we reasonably call them life? I think we can agree that a single nucleic acid associating with a protein, however, is not a threshold for the beginnings of life, at least in terms of this debate. Instead, we will assess whether an organism with its own metabolism, an ability to reproduce itself, and the capacity to adapt could come from matter that lacks one or more of these traits. So how do we get from nonliving to living? Several theories are presently being explored, many of which aren't mutually exclusive, allowing for multiple theories to explain this progression. The building blocks of life as we see it today are relatively straightforward " DNA, RNA and protein play integral roles in almost every organism we would consider to be living. However, this is not to say that the first living organisms of the world contained all three. In fact, as I will argue, they would only have required one: RNA. The reason this is possible is because the roles of RNA are highly varied. RNA can function as an enzyme, in information storage, and can affect protein expression. These widely varying functionalities, I will argue, provide a basis for life that would exist without the presence of either DNA or protein. 1. RNA functions RNA must carry many of the properties we associate with enzymes if we are to accept that it can function in a world without them. These include replication and catalysis of chemical reactions. Self-replication is necessary for a certain functional RNA to predominate, while these chemical reactions are necessary in order to generate more of the building materials for this replication. There are actually many examples of these today. Self-replication has been shown to be possible with RNA sequences that are only 165 bases long, and high fidelity only required 14 more bases, meaning that exact copies could be made of the RNA sequence.[2] These could even perform primer extensions, making it possible for these RNAs to replicate other sequences.[3] The catalysis of chemical reactions, which can enhance the creation of molecules that are the building blocks for more RNA molecules, have also been revealed to be a function of some short RNAs.[4][5] However, it doesn't stop there. As proteins did eventually come from RNAs, there has to be a method by which proteins could form using just RNA. rRNA and tRNA, both of which currently persist in all living cells, are mainly responsible for the formation of the peptide bonds that make protein possible [6][7], as well as catalyzing the transfer of amino acids that make up a given protein. In fact, it is believed that amino acids may have only functioned as cofactors, enhancing or diversifying their enzymatic capabilities, before rRNAs made it possible to form the peptide bonds that made the first proteins possible.[8] As an information storage vehicle, RNA bears many similarities to DNA, and is capable of storing information by the same means. It can even form a double helix with DNA [9], and is used by many viruses as their sole source of genomic material. In many cases, the RNA is all that is required for transmissibility.[10] In the case of viroids and satellite RNAs, which don't even have the protein coat found in viruses, RNA is their sole component, and the proteins necessary for their replication are recruited from other sources.[11] This proves that RNA is capable of storing consistent information. 2. The formation of RNA is simple and reproducible None of those functions matter if the RNA cannot form in a world without proteins. In order to prove this, I must provide evidence that nucleotides can form in the absence of enzymatic activities, and that those nucleotides can assemble into RNA strands. So let's get into nucleotide assembly. Though the yield is low, abiotic conditions utilizing simple organic compounds in the correct orientations have been proven to produce nucleotides.[12] Formamide specifically, the simplest naturally occuring amide, is a very effective starting material for their production.[13] Studies have shown that conditions early in the history of his planet could have led to the synthesis of pyrimidine ribonucleotides in the absence of free ribose, meaning that the various nucleotides could indeed have formed even without the abiotic synthesis of ribose.[14] How about assembly? In this case, studies are definitive. Nucleotides have been shown to self-assemble in water without any energy input.[15] There are also other methods by which these have been performed which require a number of other inputs.[16][17] 3. Why this matters What we are discussing here is whether life could have gotten its start in any form from nonliving materials. If, by the end of this debate, I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that a) RNA and simple organic compounds are sufficient for life to form and persist, and b) RNA and its components were possible without protein, then I will have proven that RNA is sufficient for the formation of life. As my opponent is likely to argue about the likelihood of protein formation, he will also have to provide reasons why RNA is not sufficient for life, though I will still address all arguments along these lines. 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>... 6. <URL>... 7. <URL>... 8. <URL>... 9. <URL>... 10. <URL>... 11. <URL>... 12. <URL>... 13. <URL>... 14. <URL> 15. <URL>... 16. <URL>... 17. <URL>...

whiteflame

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, as it is something I've wanted to discuss for quite a while and of large interest to me. I'm certain that we will have a good discussion. Before I launch into it, I want to set a more solid idea of the burdens in this debate. We are discussing whether abiogenesis is feasible. As I began this debate, it is my burden to prove that there is a decent likelihood of this being the case. I will leave it up to the voters to decide whether I have proven this reasonable likelihood given my argumentation and Con's responses, rather than setting a specific numerical representation of that likelihood as a threshold to meet. But this requires that everyone be on the same playing field when it comes to what abiogenesis means and how it can be satisfied. It is "the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter."[1] As such, we are describing hypothetical processes by which this scenario could have occurred, something we cannot yet know for certain as we have not discovered time travel nor have we reproduced this process fully in any laboratory setting. We do, however, know that, at some point in the past, life started on Earth, somewhere over its 4.5 billion year history as a planet, something that requires explanation. As we are discussing the transition from nonliving to living, we should define these two states, though there is some uncertainty here. This is a difficult question, one scientists are still struggling with. Definitions widely differ, but one of the best I've found is "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) But even this is generalized, and it's difficult to be certain where the separation lies. Are viruses, many of which are composed of a single nucleic acid and a protein coat, considered life? They modify the metabolism of cells they infect and reproduce using their machinery, and though they certainly adapt, could we reasonably call them life? I think we can agree that a single nucleic acid associating with a protein, however, is not a threshold for the beginnings of life, at least in terms of this debate. Instead, we will assess whether an organism with its own metabolism, an ability to reproduce itself, and the capacity to adapt could come from matter that lacks one or more of these traits. So how do we get from nonliving to living? Several theories are presently being explored, many of which aren't mutually exclusive, allowing for multiple theories to explain this progression. The building blocks of life as we see it today are relatively straightforward " DNA, RNA and protein play integral roles in almost every organism we would consider to be living. However, this is not to say that the first living organisms of the world contained all three. In fact, as I will argue, they would only have required one: RNA. The reason this is possible is because the roles of RNA are highly varied. RNA can function as an enzyme, in information storage, and can affect protein expression. These widely varying functionalities, I will argue, provide a basis for life that would exist without the presence of either DNA or protein. 1. RNA functions RNA must carry many of the properties we associate with enzymes if we are to accept that it can function in a world without them. These include replication and catalysis of chemical reactions. Self-replication is necessary for a certain functional RNA to predominate, while these chemical reactions are necessary in order to generate more of the building materials for this replication. There are actually many examples of these today. Self-replication has been shown to be possible with RNA sequences that are only 165 bases long, and high fidelity only required 14 more bases, meaning that exact copies could be made of the RNA sequence.[2] These could even perform primer extensions, making it possible for these RNAs to replicate other sequences.[3] The catalysis of chemical reactions, which can enhance the creation of molecules that are the building blocks for more RNA molecules, have also been revealed to be a function of some short RNAs.[4][5] However, it doesn't stop there. As proteins did eventually come from RNAs, there has to be a method by which proteins could form using just RNA. rRNA and tRNA, both of which currently persist in all living cells, are mainly responsible for the formation of the peptide bonds that make protein possible [6][7], as well as catalyzing the transfer of amino acids that make up a given protein. In fact, it is believed that amino acids may have only functioned as cofactors, enhancing or diversifying their enzymatic capabilities, before rRNAs made it possible to form the peptide bonds that made the first proteins possible.[8] As an information storage vehicle, RNA bears many similarities to DNA, and is capable of storing information by the same means. It can even form a double helix with DNA [9], and is used by many viruses as their sole source of genomic material. In many cases, the RNA is all that is required for transmissibility.[10] In the case of viroids and satellite RNAs, which don't even have the protein coat found in viruses, RNA is their sole component, and the proteins necessary for their replication are recruited from other sources.[11] This proves that RNA is capable of storing consistent information. 2. The formation of RNA is simple and reproducible None of those functions matter if the RNA cannot form in a world without proteins. In order to prove this, I must provide evidence that nucleotides can form in the absence of enzymatic activities, and that those nucleotides can assemble into RNA strands. So let's get into nucleotide assembly. Though the yield is low, abiotic conditions utilizing simple organic compounds in the correct orientations have been proven to produce nucleotides.[12] Formamide specifically, the simplest naturally occuring amide, is a very effective starting material for their production.[13] Studies have shown that conditions early in the history of his planet could have led to the synthesis of pyrimidine ribonucleotides in the absence of free ribose, meaning that the various nucleotides could indeed have formed even without the abiotic synthesis of ribose.[14] How about assembly? In this case, studies are definitive. Nucleotides have been shown to self-assemble in water without any energy input.[15] There are also other methods by which these have been performed which require a number of other inputs.[16][17] 3. Why this matters What we are discussing here is whether life could have gotten its start in any form from nonliving materials. If, by the end of this debate, I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that a) RNA and simple organic compounds are sufficient for life to form and persist, and b) RNA and its components were possible without protein, then I will have proven that RNA is sufficient for the formation of life. As my opponent is likely to argue about the likelihood of protein formation, he will also have to provide reasons why RNA is not sufficient for life, though I will still address all arguments along these lines. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. http://www.sciencemag.org... 4. http://www.cell.com... 5. http://adsabs.harvard.edu... 6. http://adsabs.harvard.edu... 7. http://www.amazon.com... 8. http://www.cell.com... 9. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org... 10. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 11. http://www.pnas.org... 12. http://www.nature.com... 13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 14. http://140.123.79.88/~neige7675/page_3.files/Chap.%203/reference/Physics%20of%20Life%20Reviews%209%20%282012%29%2084%A1V104.pdf 15. http://www.jbc.org... 16. http://pubs.acs.org... 17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Science

Abiogenesis-is-a-reasonable-theory-for-the-beginnings-of-life/1/

I'm not sure why the statement that we cannot possibly know for certain is viewed as a concession. If either of those things were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And yes, I didn't want to make this a conversation about whether or not viruses are life. That's a separate conversation, one we could spend as much time discussing without ever coming to a conclusion. But let's get into this issue you have with my argument. I think I can see the problem here: I defined what the first versions of life likely were by what they weren't rather than describing them directly. That's because, as I "conceded," we cannot possibly know what these life forms looked like. I'm not going to purport that I could know that answer. However, I did provide several definitions for what it must have been capable of doing: "...metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation." And I defined what I must prove in order for the RNA world theory to be sufficient for the creation of life: "a) RNA and simple organic compounds are sufficient for life to form and persist, and b) RNA and its components were possible without protein, then I will have proven that RNA is sufficient for the formation of life." In other words, my burden is to prove that an organism could theoretically exist that would lack proteins and DNA, utilizing RNA for metabolism, reproduction, and adaptation. Now, there appears to have been a misinterpretation of what this means. You are correct that my argument "is that the first living organisms were pure RNA and not associated with a protein." You are incorrect in stating that "my opponent tries to say that a strand of RNA, a single nucleic acid without a protein, qualifies as life." There's a reason you didn't quote that " it didn't appear in my argument. I didn't say a single nucleic acid was sufficient. It's not, otherwise I would have argued that a viroid or satellite RNA were life, or at the very least, I would have never stated that a virus wasn't life. Metabolism requires more than just the processing of organic and inorganic compounds, otherwise we'd say anything with processing activity has a metabolism. Metabolism is defined as "the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available."( <URL>... ) This requires more than one processing step, and therefore, likely more than one RNA. Not a single RNA, but many, interacting with a number of inorganic and organic compounds and localized in the same space in order to maintain the sources of energy and materials necessary for their survival and replication. These RNAs likely had basic functions and were inefficient, but sufficient for the maintenance of that proto life. This is not a contradiction in terms. So let's move into his rebuttal. As I said, I don't view viroids and satellite RNAs as examples of life, and they are certainly not the beginnings, as they've had as much time to evolve as we have. The purpose of presenting these two examples is to show that a) stable RNAs exist and propagate in the absence of protein, b) they can have a number of catalytic activities as ribozymes, and c) that they are capable of information storage. To take it one step further, they also showcase adaptation, which, as I stated, is one of the main aspects that describes life. Just because it is not the sole aspect doesn't mean that these don't present an important example of functional RNAs that act like enzymes. Con then states that "the RNA that results [from self assembly experiments in the lab] cannot reproduce." This is where my opponent's lack of response to my other points is going to be a problem. My citations [2] and [3] reveal that short RNA sequences can engage in self replication, and even perform primer extensions. Perhaps he believes these sequences can't self-assemble in the same manner as the RNAs in my links [15], [16] and [17], which provide examples of both random and directed assembly of RNAs. While I'd contend that both models of assembly could most certainly assemble into these same nucleotide organizations, I would also argue that this also has a lot to do with secondary structure of the RNAs (which occur when a single strand of RNA binds to itself), often an important determinant of activity, and therefore that only segments of the RNA sequence may be necessary for function.( <URL>... ) In some cases, more than one sequence could have the same function, providing multiple opportunities for the RNA to assemble correctly. ( <URL>... ) And no, nucleotides are not "meaningless chains of amino acids," as my opponent contends, apparently misunderstanding the use of the terms. These RNAs, or nucleic acids, are composed of of nucleotides (amino acids compose proteins), and they are far from meaningless, as all of my links point out and as I have further argued. And yes, the fact that they formed "in the absence of enzymes and inorganic catalysts" is actually my point, since it shows just how possible this process is and therefore how it could occur. At this point, my opponent finally begins to counter my argumentation in a way that addresses my links. I'll address each in turn. 1. Con states that "outside of the lab, in a true prehistoric setting, millions of other chemicals would be present to interrupt this delicate process." 2. Con states that this view is a "Molecular Biologist's Dream." I'm grouping these two. I'd like to first point out that these two are both over a decade old. Con's [1] was written in 1996, and his [2] was written in 1999. Even if we assume that each of them covered everything that came in previous years that I included in my post, neither of them could possibly respond to the majority of the papers I posted, many of which are directly responsive to their points and were published in or after 1999. As for the one point that Con has transcribed, this idea that other chemicals could have interrupted the process, the article doesn't actually say anything about these (I read it through a few times to make sure), but even assuming that this is the case, we're talking about hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years in hundreds of millions of square miles of water. ( <URL>... ) The idea that there might have been a zone where these interfering chemicals were less concentrated is not difficult to believe. They both make other interesting arguments, and while my own links provide many of the responses, you can feel free to point out the ones you like and include them in your next post. 3. Con quotes Walter Gilbert, who states "One can contemplate an RNA World, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves." This is a strange choice. I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding in this quote, but it doesn't say anything too difficult. Enzymes and ribozymes catalyze reactions, as in, they make them faster and sometimes less reversible. Assembly in their absence is slower and less stable, but far from impossible, as my links have made clear. Con decides he's not going to address protein formation as he stated in his accepting post. That's fine, he doesn't have to do so. But he makes a very strange argument in this final point. "It's not that RNA in general is insufficient for life; it's the fact that the artificially produced RNA flaunted by my opponent is not compatible with life." My opponent appears to be admitting in the first portion of that argument that RNA could theoretically be sufficient for life, or at the very least, that he hasn't proven its insufficiency. In either case, this is an important choice of words, essentially granting that an organism could exist in the absence of protein and DNA. That's an important admission, and something that I'll be remembering as this debate proceeds. The latter statement simply isn't upheld by the data, much of which he chose not to respond to in this post. The artificially produced RNA was made utilizing ingredients and reactions possible in the prevailing models of early earth, and his links simply don't prove that that's not the case, and my links reveal multiple pathways by which it could have occurred. That's a nice picture you posted there, by the way. Is that two women in lab coats working in front of a volcanic landscape that's supposed to represent the earth in its early days? No, I don't ascribe to that fantasy. I'd much rather stick to the evidence at hand and make reasonable conclusions from that.

whiteflame

I'm not sure why the statement that we cannot possibly know for certain is viewed as a concession. If either of those things were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And yes, I didn't want to make this a conversation about whether or not viruses are life. That's a separate conversation, one we could spend as much time discussing without ever coming to a conclusion. But let's get into this issue you have with my argument. I think I can see the problem here: I defined what the first versions of life likely were by what they weren't rather than describing them directly. That's because, as I "conceded," we cannot possibly know what these life forms looked like. I'm not going to purport that I could know that answer. However, I did provide several definitions for what it must have been capable of doing: "...metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation." And I defined what I must prove in order for the RNA world theory to be sufficient for the creation of life: "a) RNA and simple organic compounds are sufficient for life to form and persist, and b) RNA and its components were possible without protein, then I will have proven that RNA is sufficient for the formation of life." In other words, my burden is to prove that an organism could theoretically exist that would lack proteins and DNA, utilizing RNA for metabolism, reproduction, and adaptation. Now, there appears to have been a misinterpretation of what this means. You are correct that my argument "is that the first living organisms were pure RNA and not associated with a protein." You are incorrect in stating that "my opponent tries to say that a strand of RNA, a single nucleic acid without a protein, qualifies as life." There's a reason you didn't quote that " it didn't appear in my argument. I didn't say a single nucleic acid was sufficient. It's not, otherwise I would have argued that a viroid or satellite RNA were life, or at the very least, I would have never stated that a virus wasn't life. Metabolism requires more than just the processing of organic and inorganic compounds, otherwise we'd say anything with processing activity has a metabolism. Metabolism is defined as "the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available."( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) This requires more than one processing step, and therefore, likely more than one RNA. Not a single RNA, but many, interacting with a number of inorganic and organic compounds and localized in the same space in order to maintain the sources of energy and materials necessary for their survival and replication. These RNAs likely had basic functions and were inefficient, but sufficient for the maintenance of that proto life. This is not a contradiction in terms. So let's move into his rebuttal. As I said, I don't view viroids and satellite RNAs as examples of life, and they are certainly not the beginnings, as they've had as much time to evolve as we have. The purpose of presenting these two examples is to show that a) stable RNAs exist and propagate in the absence of protein, b) they can have a number of catalytic activities as ribozymes, and c) that they are capable of information storage. To take it one step further, they also showcase adaptation, which, as I stated, is one of the main aspects that describes life. Just because it is not the sole aspect doesn't mean that these don't present an important example of functional RNAs that act like enzymes. Con then states that "the RNA that results [from self assembly experiments in the lab] cannot reproduce." This is where my opponent's lack of response to my other points is going to be a problem. My citations [2] and [3] reveal that short RNA sequences can engage in self replication, and even perform primer extensions. Perhaps he believes these sequences can't self-assemble in the same manner as the RNAs in my links [15], [16] and [17], which provide examples of both random and directed assembly of RNAs. While I'd contend that both models of assembly could most certainly assemble into these same nucleotide organizations, I would also argue that this also has a lot to do with secondary structure of the RNAs (which occur when a single strand of RNA binds to itself), often an important determinant of activity, and therefore that only segments of the RNA sequence may be necessary for function.( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ) In some cases, more than one sequence could have the same function, providing multiple opportunities for the RNA to assemble correctly. ( http://www.pnas.org... ) And no, nucleotides are not "meaningless chains of amino acids," as my opponent contends, apparently misunderstanding the use of the terms. These RNAs, or nucleic acids, are composed of of nucleotides (amino acids compose proteins), and they are far from meaningless, as all of my links point out and as I have further argued. And yes, the fact that they formed "in the absence of enzymes and inorganic catalysts" is actually my point, since it shows just how possible this process is and therefore how it could occur. At this point, my opponent finally begins to counter my argumentation in a way that addresses my links. I'll address each in turn. 1. Con states that "outside of the lab, in a true prehistoric setting, millions of other chemicals would be present to interrupt this delicate process." 2. Con states that this view is a "Molecular Biologist's Dream." I'm grouping these two. I'd like to first point out that these two are both over a decade old. Con's [1] was written in 1996, and his [2] was written in 1999. Even if we assume that each of them covered everything that came in previous years that I included in my post, neither of them could possibly respond to the majority of the papers I posted, many of which are directly responsive to their points and were published in or after 1999. As for the one point that Con has transcribed, this idea that other chemicals could have interrupted the process, the article doesn't actually say anything about these (I read it through a few times to make sure), but even assuming that this is the case, we're talking about hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years in hundreds of millions of square miles of water. ( http://ga.water.usgs.gov... ) The idea that there might have been a zone where these interfering chemicals were less concentrated is not difficult to believe. They both make other interesting arguments, and while my own links provide many of the responses, you can feel free to point out the ones you like and include them in your next post. 3. Con quotes Walter Gilbert, who states "One can contemplate an RNA World, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves." This is a strange choice. I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding in this quote, but it doesn't say anything too difficult. Enzymes and ribozymes catalyze reactions, as in, they make them faster and sometimes less reversible. Assembly in their absence is slower and less stable, but far from impossible, as my links have made clear. Con decides he's not going to address protein formation as he stated in his accepting post. That's fine, he doesn't have to do so. But he makes a very strange argument in this final point. "It's not that RNA in general is insufficient for life; it's the fact that the artificially produced RNA flaunted by my opponent is not compatible with life." My opponent appears to be admitting in the first portion of that argument that RNA could theoretically be sufficient for life, or at the very least, that he hasn't proven its insufficiency. In either case, this is an important choice of words, essentially granting that an organism could exist in the absence of protein and DNA. That's an important admission, and something that I'll be remembering as this debate proceeds. The latter statement simply isn't upheld by the data, much of which he chose not to respond to in this post. The artificially produced RNA was made utilizing ingredients and reactions possible in the prevailing models of early earth, and his links simply don't prove that that's not the case, and my links reveal multiple pathways by which it could have occurred. That's a nice picture you posted there, by the way. Is that two women in lab coats working in front of a volcanic landscape that's supposed to represent the earth in its early days? No, I don't ascribe to that fantasy. I'd much rather stick to the evidence at hand and make reasonable conclusions from that.

Science

Abiogenesis-is-a-reasonable-theory-for-the-beginnings-of-life/1/

Well, I'm glad Con thought it worth his time to open my links and directly respond to them after the second time quoting them. I'll be happy to hit those responses directly, but first, I'll go through the rest of his responses. I agree, my burden is to prove that it could have happened in early earth. Since many of the papers I've cited have utilized materials that were likely available in early earth, it is now Con's responsibility to present the "millions" of compounds somehow capable of interfering with this process. He was very clear that this was the problem, yet the link he used contained nothing of the sort. Interesting that he keeps using that line of thought throughout this post, again without any proof that a multitude of such substances exist (and neither of his new links address it either), and without response to my concentration argument. Again: hundreds of millions of years and hundreds of square miles of ocean create a lot of opportunities. And it only needed to happen once. This doesn't have to be Aqua Fina, as Con suggests, but if he wants to state that so many interfering molecules existed (and actually back that up), he also has to prove that they were at high enough concentration to inhibit everything across the whole planet. Con states that viroids and satellite RNAs cannot propagate in the absence of protein. This RNA propagation seems to have become his main line of attack on my case at this point, but I'll grant that he's correct here. Viroids and satellite RNAs both require enzymes to propagate. Of course, we've both agreed they're not life, just examples of the functionality of RNA, so they simply exist as examples of ribozymes and RNA's capacity to engage in information storage. Con has a very strange way of looking at a line of text. "[Nucleotides formed in a lab] in the absence of enzymes or inorganic catalysts." When I see this sentence, I interpret it as meaning that enzymes and inorganic catalysts can help make nucleotides, but that nucleotides can also form in their absence. When my opponent sees this line, he apparently believes that enzymes " somehow made from a world that contains no ribosomes " and inorganic catalysts are actively preventing the process of RNA formation. I'm having a hard time seeing that. If anyone needs the context, I guess we could look back at my [15] and my opponent's [3]. Seems incredibly simple to note that they're arguing that the formation of nucleotides can occur in the absence AND presence of enzymes and inorganic catalysts. "One can contemplate an RNA World, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves." He keeps using this one, and even now that he's explained why, I don't understand it. It seems he now wants to call this ludicrous since it assumes an RNA-only world. I'm sorry, does it say in that quote that RNA is the only thing that exists in that world? Did I say in any of my posts that RNA was the only thing that existed? If anything, that would make this impossible " you need the inorganic phosphate, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen to keep building more nucleotides and creating these bonds. You need organic compounds, like formamide (my [13]). Walter was well aware that such molecules existed in the oceans of an early earth, even when he wrote this back in the 1980's. It doesn't showcase anything silly or fantasy unless you interpret it as Con somehow has managed to do. I'm glad my opponent has reworded his argument on sufficiency, as it would have been very damaging to his case. I don't think he's proven insufficiency. But he's made a new mistake: Con has thrown all of his eggs into one basket here. My burden is to prove that RNA is sufficient for the formation of life. As my opponent has agreed to the definition I laid out for life (or at least, has not made any efforts to contradict it), I must prove that an organism could exist that utilizes RNA, organic, and inorganic compounds and is able to engage in metabolism, reproduction, and adaptation. We have no questioning of metabolism or adaptation, and therefore reproduction is all we are left with. And so it's come down to two of my links, specifically my [2] and [3]. (I'll recite them for ease of access: <URL>... , <URL>... ) By quoting small portions of them, my opponent appears to think them discarded. He hasn't read them very carefully. His response to my [2] is incredibly flippant, especially since this is a follow-on experiment to [3] and improves on their findings. Not only did he apparently avoid some of the most important parts of this paper, which showed that they could exceed 20 nucleotides of extension, but it also had a lower error rate, was faster at incorporating nucleotides, and could function in a variety of environments that weren't optimal for its activity. Con is likely to point out that this is not sufficient to replicate the whole strand (I'll get to that later), but he shares an interesting quote in his post, one he took out of context. The line "an RNA system with true autoreplicative potential" wasn't in reference to their results, but rather in reference to the results of my [3], and if he had read further into the introduction of this paper instead of stopping there, he might have noticed that they went on to say that they had at least partially solved for the problems involved in isolating more efficient ribozymes. This is the entire point of this paper " it's not to point out that they've isolated the one thing that specifically made it possible for an RNA-based organism to replicate, but that a selection system could be used to produce a more efficient ribozyme. Again, we wouldn't be here having this conversation if I could just show you all the pieces of such an organism today, otherwise we would have already reconstructed such an organism. But this substantially improves the likelihood that a long-term selection system could well have produced the RNA polymerase ribozymes necessary to make this possible. In case this doesn't prove it well enough, you could look at this ( <URL>... ) and this ( <URL>... ), both of which analyze this process with more depth. My [3] is where he spends most of his time. One of the most important aspects that he left out of his analysis was how this paper reveals that primer extension " the main mode by which RNAs are replicated, even with enzymes " is non-specific with this ribozyme, and therefore capable of recognizing a lot of different substrates. That's a big omission, since it ensures that this would have multiple opportunities to replicate various RNAs so long as they have just a few nucleotides of RNA base paired to them. This means that it could have easily replicated all available RNAs so long as a few nucleotides were floating around. His main complaint with this citation appears to be that it doesn't reproduce the whole strand, often stopping at 14 nt or fewer. That's a problem with polymerization efficiency, or the amount of time that the ribozyme stays on the RNA strand and keeps adding nucleotides. Three problems with this. One, the paper addresses it: "the increase in polymerization efficiency would have to be more substantial, although not beyond the degree of optimization achieved previously with other in vitro experiments." This means that the worst he can claim is slightly less likelihood. Two, ever heard of lagging-strand synthesis? These are processes that occur on DNA, where primer has to be added multiple times and primer extension also occurs multiple times, creating Okazaki fragments. ( <URL>... ) A DNA ligase is used to unite these extensions. RNA ligase ribozymes have been discovered, which can self-replicate ( <URL>... ) and even function in much lower than optimal concentrations of necessary molecules ( <URL>... ). These could have been used to produce full replication of longer RNA strands. The replication process slower, but entirely plausible. Three, my number [2] presents an advance over the ribozyme made in this paper, one that is higher fidelity (less mistakes) and more efficiency (longer products). Further evolution is obviously possible, producing a ribozyme capable of replication of longer strands. He also tries to use one portion of the discussion from [3] against me. This is just another example of my opponent utilizing an old paper to outdo a new one. The absurd part of this is that he reused one of his own links to do so! If he looks at the citation provided in the paper, it turns out to be the very Orgel/Joyce paper referred to in his Orgel citation in round 2, the one from 1999. The one that's directly responded to by my [15] (>120 nucleotides) and [17] (multiple 39-mers), both of which came later. This also ignores the existence of ribozyme RNA ligases, which could be used to paste together multiple shorter strands. So yes, my [3], which was also written before those two papers, buys into the mentality that was thought to be true up until just about 7 years ago. That doesn't prove your point, it's just another example of Con ignoring my citations and restating his. Lastly, Con seems to believe that the selection process utilized in [3] was only possible because of a lot of "babysitting." He is either deliberately ignoring natural selection or else doesn't believe it. In this case, the selective force is pretty simple to see: RNAs won't persist if they don't replicate, therefore the lack of such a ribozyme would lead to degradation of the whole population. The selective force is retention of the necessary steps of metabolism, which my opponent never responded to, thus creating a need to be filled by a RNA polymerase ribozyme.

whiteflame

Well, I'm glad Con thought it worth his time to open my links and directly respond to them after the second time quoting them. I'll be happy to hit those responses directly, but first, I'll go through the rest of his responses. I agree, my burden is to prove that it could have happened in early earth. Since many of the papers I've cited have utilized materials that were likely available in early earth, it is now Con's responsibility to present the "millions" of compounds somehow capable of interfering with this process. He was very clear that this was the problem, yet the link he used contained nothing of the sort. Interesting that he keeps using that line of thought throughout this post, again without any proof that a multitude of such substances exist (and neither of his new links address it either), and without response to my concentration argument. Again: hundreds of millions of years and hundreds of square miles of ocean create a lot of opportunities. And it only needed to happen once. This doesn't have to be Aqua Fina, as Con suggests, but if he wants to state that so many interfering molecules existed (and actually back that up), he also has to prove that they were at high enough concentration to inhibit everything across the whole planet. Con states that viroids and satellite RNAs cannot propagate in the absence of protein. This RNA propagation seems to have become his main line of attack on my case at this point, but I'll grant that he's correct here. Viroids and satellite RNAs both require enzymes to propagate. Of course, we've both agreed they're not life, just examples of the functionality of RNA, so they simply exist as examples of ribozymes and RNA's capacity to engage in information storage. Con has a very strange way of looking at a line of text. "[Nucleotides formed in a lab] in the absence of enzymes or inorganic catalysts." When I see this sentence, I interpret it as meaning that enzymes and inorganic catalysts can help make nucleotides, but that nucleotides can also form in their absence. When my opponent sees this line, he apparently believes that enzymes " somehow made from a world that contains no ribosomes " and inorganic catalysts are actively preventing the process of RNA formation. I'm having a hard time seeing that. If anyone needs the context, I guess we could look back at my [15] and my opponent's [3]. Seems incredibly simple to note that they're arguing that the formation of nucleotides can occur in the absence AND presence of enzymes and inorganic catalysts. "One can contemplate an RNA World, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves." He keeps using this one, and even now that he's explained why, I don't understand it. It seems he now wants to call this ludicrous since it assumes an RNA-only world. I'm sorry, does it say in that quote that RNA is the only thing that exists in that world? Did I say in any of my posts that RNA was the only thing that existed? If anything, that would make this impossible " you need the inorganic phosphate, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen to keep building more nucleotides and creating these bonds. You need organic compounds, like formamide (my [13]). Walter was well aware that such molecules existed in the oceans of an early earth, even when he wrote this back in the 1980's. It doesn't showcase anything silly or fantasy unless you interpret it as Con somehow has managed to do. I'm glad my opponent has reworded his argument on sufficiency, as it would have been very damaging to his case. I don't think he's proven insufficiency. But he's made a new mistake: Con has thrown all of his eggs into one basket here. My burden is to prove that RNA is sufficient for the formation of life. As my opponent has agreed to the definition I laid out for life (or at least, has not made any efforts to contradict it), I must prove that an organism could exist that utilizes RNA, organic, and inorganic compounds and is able to engage in metabolism, reproduction, and adaptation. We have no questioning of metabolism or adaptation, and therefore reproduction is all we are left with. And so it's come down to two of my links, specifically my [2] and [3]. (I'll recite them for ease of access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... , http://www.sciencemag.org... ) By quoting small portions of them, my opponent appears to think them discarded. He hasn't read them very carefully. His response to my [2] is incredibly flippant, especially since this is a follow-on experiment to [3] and improves on their findings. Not only did he apparently avoid some of the most important parts of this paper, which showed that they could exceed 20 nucleotides of extension, but it also had a lower error rate, was faster at incorporating nucleotides, and could function in a variety of environments that weren't optimal for its activity. Con is likely to point out that this is not sufficient to replicate the whole strand (I'll get to that later), but he shares an interesting quote in his post, one he took out of context. The line "an RNA system with true autoreplicative potential" wasn't in reference to their results, but rather in reference to the results of my [3], and if he had read further into the introduction of this paper instead of stopping there, he might have noticed that they went on to say that they had at least partially solved for the problems involved in isolating more efficient ribozymes. This is the entire point of this paper " it's not to point out that they've isolated the one thing that specifically made it possible for an RNA-based organism to replicate, but that a selection system could be used to produce a more efficient ribozyme. Again, we wouldn't be here having this conversation if I could just show you all the pieces of such an organism today, otherwise we would have already reconstructed such an organism. But this substantially improves the likelihood that a long-term selection system could well have produced the RNA polymerase ribozymes necessary to make this possible. In case this doesn't prove it well enough, you could look at this ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ) and this ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ), both of which analyze this process with more depth. My [3] is where he spends most of his time. One of the most important aspects that he left out of his analysis was how this paper reveals that primer extension " the main mode by which RNAs are replicated, even with enzymes " is non-specific with this ribozyme, and therefore capable of recognizing a lot of different substrates. That's a big omission, since it ensures that this would have multiple opportunities to replicate various RNAs so long as they have just a few nucleotides of RNA base paired to them. This means that it could have easily replicated all available RNAs so long as a few nucleotides were floating around. His main complaint with this citation appears to be that it doesn't reproduce the whole strand, often stopping at 14 nt or fewer. That's a problem with polymerization efficiency, or the amount of time that the ribozyme stays on the RNA strand and keeps adding nucleotides. Three problems with this. One, the paper addresses it: "the increase in polymerization efficiency would have to be more substantial, although not beyond the degree of optimization achieved previously with other in vitro experiments." This means that the worst he can claim is slightly less likelihood. Two, ever heard of lagging-strand synthesis? These are processes that occur on DNA, where primer has to be added multiple times and primer extension also occurs multiple times, creating Okazaki fragments. ( http://www.nature.com... ) A DNA ligase is used to unite these extensions. RNA ligase ribozymes have been discovered, which can self-replicate ( http://www.pnas.org... ) and even function in much lower than optimal concentrations of necessary molecules ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ). These could have been used to produce full replication of longer RNA strands. The replication process slower, but entirely plausible. Three, my number [2] presents an advance over the ribozyme made in this paper, one that is higher fidelity (less mistakes) and more efficiency (longer products). Further evolution is obviously possible, producing a ribozyme capable of replication of longer strands. He also tries to use one portion of the discussion from [3] against me. This is just another example of my opponent utilizing an old paper to outdo a new one. The absurd part of this is that he reused one of his own links to do so! If he looks at the citation provided in the paper, it turns out to be the very Orgel/Joyce paper referred to in his Orgel citation in round 2, the one from 1999. The one that's directly responded to by my [15] (>120 nucleotides) and [17] (multiple 39-mers), both of which came later. This also ignores the existence of ribozyme RNA ligases, which could be used to paste together multiple shorter strands. So yes, my [3], which was also written before those two papers, buys into the mentality that was thought to be true up until just about 7 years ago. That doesn't prove your point, it's just another example of Con ignoring my citations and restating his. Lastly, Con seems to believe that the selection process utilized in [3] was only possible because of a lot of "babysitting." He is either deliberately ignoring natural selection or else doesn't believe it. In this case, the selective force is pretty simple to see: RNAs won't persist if they don't replicate, therefore the lack of such a ribozyme would lead to degradation of the whole population. The selective force is retention of the necessary steps of metabolism, which my opponent never responded to, thus creating a need to be filled by a RNA polymerase ribozyme.

Science

Abiogenesis-is-a-reasonable-theory-for-the-beginnings-of-life/1/

Before I get started, I would like to thank my opponent for a really intriguing debate. It was well worth the time and effort, and I appreciate the thought that went into his posts greatly. So let's get into it. Rather than follow the flow of the debate as it's gone thusfar, I would like to break the whole thing down to its essentials, provide an overview of where we've been, get into some rebuttal on Con's most recent arguments, and give some reasons why my arguments are worthy of everyone's votes. There was a lot of complex science thrown back and forth in this debate, but it all comes down to a few basic arguments. Voters will be deciding the debate on a number of key issues: 1. Did I set a reasonable definition of life? 2. Could such an organism as I have suggested (one composed solely of RNA, organic and inorganic compounds) meet that definition? 3. Could such an organism have formed in the conditions of early earth? As I am the only one who set a definition of life, and it has gone uncontested throughout the round, that is how we will define how well I proved #2. So I have to prove that RNA, by itself, is capable of providing an organism with metabolism, replication and adaptation. Con has in no way argued metabolism and adaptation, and as such, I only need to prove that replication of the RNA strands are possible. This is where most of this debate occurs. I'd like to make clear that I never conceded, as Con suggests, "that there is no known RNA which can self-replicate without proteins." I actually pointed to one example in my last post, something he didn't respond to (here it is again: <URL>). I also pointed out that RNA ligase ribozymes could be used to fully replicate any given RNA strand, which could easily lead to a uniting of shorter strands into longer ones, easily eclipsing the 200 nucleotide length that Con says is impossible. That's because it's not about self-replication, but rather the ability of one RNA to replicate other RNAs, since without that, none the RNAs cannot persist. I provided information on lagging-strand synthesis and Okazaki fragments as a current example of how this could work. Con chose not to respond to these arguments, nor did he fully address my points about the evolution of ribozymes. I brought up a number of arguments about the importance of their evolution, and how we can see it taking place in the experiments I've discussed. The best response he provides is from Charles Carter, but this response is attempting to give me yet another burden, to prove that these RNAs could form TODAY. For all my opponent's arguments that it was so much harder in the days of early earth, he ignores all of the issues involved in their formation today. RNases, enzymes that non-specifically degrade every RNA they come into contact with, are everywhere ( <URL>... ). RNA polymerases out-compete them easily and regularly, providing no source of natural selection, which my opponent agrees is important. They simply would not persist in the world today. Con also shifts strategies to providing numbers at this stage. He does this utilizing the Bernhardt paper. While I respect that this one, as well as the Carter paper, actually take place after the publication of papers I cited, it is interesting that Bernhardt himself doesn't cite this number. What it appears is that Bernhardt bases this number at least partially on the likelihood of formation of longer strands, something he bases on a paper that still doesn't cite my [15] or respond to it. Nor do they respond to the possibility that ligases could increase length by uniting smaller strands. And without much in the way of understanding as to how it was come by (by which I mean almost no understanding), it's not very believable. It likely doesn't include all of the factors that influence such selection, which include the persistence of the strands by replication and their survival in stressful environments. It certainly doesn't include the activities of other ribozymes to make the environment more selective, or the nearly infinite number of folding possibilities, which I've already argued can have multiple outcomes that work. But it's a big number, and I'm glad to see he's so proud of it. Posting it in large, bold text at its full length certainly makes it seem huge. Strange, then, since he likes numbers so much that he's been completely unresponsive to mine. Hundreds of millions of years. Hundreds of millions of square miles of ocean. Most laboratory tests function in milliliters of water. The number of 0's required to express that amount of ocean in milliliters would be 23 (I calculated), or 9 orders of magnitude higher than the probability he expresses. These reactions happen in the span of seconds. The number of 0's required to express that amount of time in seconds would be 15, or 1 order of magnitude higher. Numbers! A word on Con's citations. I'd like to recognize that much of what he cites are just lines about specific sciences taking issue with the RNA world hypothesis. So I'm not going to leaf through these links and find the arguments these scientists make against him when he's not willing to post them himself. These would have been great links to explore, I'm sure, but since Con has decided to post them in round 4, we those arguments aren't a part of this debate, and won't be. So all Con garners by quoting scientists like Dr. Carter and Dr. Kurland is showing that some eminent scientists disagree with the RNA world hypothesis. The fact that some of them use the words "fantasy" and "dream" don't make the discoveries of other scientists stop existing. They make a great story, especially with the emphasis Con puts on them, but these opinions are based off specific views, often skewed by their own research. I can cite dozens of eminent scientists who believe the RNA world hypothesis is plausible, many of which are in links Con failed to address completely, but I won't. The data speaks for itself, and I've already detailed that. And the opinions of a select set of scientists doesn't prove anything. The remainder of the debate focuses on whether this could have happened in early earth, and I'm glad my opponent has started supporting his arguments on this front. It is interesting that his "millions of interfering compounds" are now down to one that he's willing to explain. Con is overly enthusiastic here. He states that RNA is particularly labile at high temperatures and deforms at low temperatures. Several problems here. First, the fact that Con ignored arguments about metabolism comes back to bite him. Since some RNAs can convert available compounds into something that can improve RNA stability is part of the reason why this matters. One of the simplest is EDTA, which is used all the time in labs for RNA resuspension and storage, and sodium hydroxide, which increases pH for the same reason ( <URL>... ). Metabolism can very easily create better conditions. Second, double-stranded RNAs would obviously be preferred, since they're far more stable than the single-stranded variants ( <URL>... ). As I've stated before, it's the RNAs that fold over themselves and create secondary structure that will have these functions. Their stability is also going to select for them. Third, I'm not sure Con understands RNA stability. RNAs are stable when frozen (that's how RNA is stored for years). At room temperature, it still lasts for a week, providing more than enough time for replication. Declines in RNA aren't even detectable at or below 4"C, and freeze-thaw cycles oscillating between 80"C and even room temperature doesn't damage the RNA at all ( <URL>... ). Even at higher temperatures, which are used constantly for transcription experiments, most RNAs will survive for hours, if not days ( <URL>... ). Con's point on pH just ignores the pH of water and the effects of salt. The world's oceans are made of water, which tends to hover around a pH of 7. Sodium chloride, or salt, modulates pH as well, keeping it at 7. Acidification of the ocean has not been an issue since recent times, and the early ocean wouldn't have suffered from it ( <URL>... ). Lastly, Con points to the fact that RNAs clump. This is only going to hurt him. Not only would this have solved for part of the problems of temperature fluctuations by making more double-stranded forms, it also would have created more secondary and tertiary structures, which improves the likelihood that the correct orientations could come about to make these RNAs functional. This is actually really likely to be effective for a randomized process, producing an incredibly large number of trials all at once in a small space. So, how does this debate play out? I gave myself a high burden in this debate. I could have argued that abiogenesis as a whole was possible, and utilized my opponent's arguments that a protein-RNA world was possible to do so. I didn't. That's because my argument was already solid. Metabolism and adaptation are now unassailable; Con chose not to argue them in the last 3 rounds. So the best he can do is claim that I'm not winning replication. But I am. I've provided multiple papers that showcase the replication of RNAs, some of which Con has left untouched. And the few he's touched, he's misinterpreted and undercovered. He massively overestimated the amount of inhibiting molecules without citation, and has done far too little to support his claims. He simply isn't doing enough to prove impossibility, or even implausibility. Vote Pro with that in mind.

whiteflame

Before I get started, I would like to thank my opponent for a really intriguing debate. It was well worth the time and effort, and I appreciate the thought that went into his posts greatly. So let's get into it. Rather than follow the flow of the debate as it's gone thusfar, I would like to break the whole thing down to its essentials, provide an overview of where we've been, get into some rebuttal on Con's most recent arguments, and give some reasons why my arguments are worthy of everyone's votes. There was a lot of complex science thrown back and forth in this debate, but it all comes down to a few basic arguments. Voters will be deciding the debate on a number of key issues: 1. Did I set a reasonable definition of life? 2. Could such an organism as I have suggested (one composed solely of RNA, organic and inorganic compounds) meet that definition? 3. Could such an organism have formed in the conditions of early earth? As I am the only one who set a definition of life, and it has gone uncontested throughout the round, that is how we will define how well I proved #2. So I have to prove that RNA, by itself, is capable of providing an organism with metabolism, replication and adaptation. Con has in no way argued metabolism and adaptation, and as such, I only need to prove that replication of the RNA strands are possible. This is where most of this debate occurs. I'd like to make clear that I never conceded, as Con suggests, "that there is no known RNA which can self-replicate without proteins." I actually pointed to one example in my last post, something he didn't respond to (here it is again: www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12733.long). I also pointed out that RNA ligase ribozymes could be used to fully replicate any given RNA strand, which could easily lead to a uniting of shorter strands into longer ones, easily eclipsing the 200 nucleotide length that Con says is impossible. That's because it's not about self-replication, but rather the ability of one RNA to replicate other RNAs, since without that, none the RNAs cannot persist. I provided information on lagging-strand synthesis and Okazaki fragments as a current example of how this could work. Con chose not to respond to these arguments, nor did he fully address my points about the evolution of ribozymes. I brought up a number of arguments about the importance of their evolution, and how we can see it taking place in the experiments I've discussed. The best response he provides is from Charles Carter, but this response is attempting to give me yet another burden, to prove that these RNAs could form TODAY. For all my opponent's arguments that it was so much harder in the days of early earth, he ignores all of the issues involved in their formation today. RNases, enzymes that non-specifically degrade every RNA they come into contact with, are everywhere ( http://www.lifetechnologies.com... ). RNA polymerases out-compete them easily and regularly, providing no source of natural selection, which my opponent agrees is important. They simply would not persist in the world today. Con also shifts strategies to providing numbers at this stage. He does this utilizing the Bernhardt paper. While I respect that this one, as well as the Carter paper, actually take place after the publication of papers I cited, it is interesting that Bernhardt himself doesn't cite this number. What it appears is that Bernhardt bases this number at least partially on the likelihood of formation of longer strands, something he bases on a paper that still doesn't cite my [15] or respond to it. Nor do they respond to the possibility that ligases could increase length by uniting smaller strands. And without much in the way of understanding as to how it was come by (by which I mean almost no understanding), it's not very believable. It likely doesn't include all of the factors that influence such selection, which include the persistence of the strands by replication and their survival in stressful environments. It certainly doesn't include the activities of other ribozymes to make the environment more selective, or the nearly infinite number of folding possibilities, which I've already argued can have multiple outcomes that work. But it's a big number, and I'm glad to see he's so proud of it. Posting it in large, bold text at its full length certainly makes it seem huge. Strange, then, since he likes numbers so much that he's been completely unresponsive to mine. Hundreds of millions of years. Hundreds of millions of square miles of ocean. Most laboratory tests function in milliliters of water. The number of 0's required to express that amount of ocean in milliliters would be 23 (I calculated), or 9 orders of magnitude higher than the probability he expresses. These reactions happen in the span of seconds. The number of 0's required to express that amount of time in seconds would be 15, or 1 order of magnitude higher. Numbers! A word on Con's citations. I'd like to recognize that much of what he cites are just lines about specific sciences taking issue with the RNA world hypothesis. So I'm not going to leaf through these links and find the arguments these scientists make against him when he's not willing to post them himself. These would have been great links to explore, I'm sure, but since Con has decided to post them in round 4, we those arguments aren't a part of this debate, and won't be. So all Con garners by quoting scientists like Dr. Carter and Dr. Kurland is showing that some eminent scientists disagree with the RNA world hypothesis. The fact that some of them use the words "fantasy" and "dream" don't make the discoveries of other scientists stop existing. They make a great story, especially with the emphasis Con puts on them, but these opinions are based off specific views, often skewed by their own research. I can cite dozens of eminent scientists who believe the RNA world hypothesis is plausible, many of which are in links Con failed to address completely, but I won't. The data speaks for itself, and I've already detailed that. And the opinions of a select set of scientists doesn't prove anything. The remainder of the debate focuses on whether this could have happened in early earth, and I'm glad my opponent has started supporting his arguments on this front. It is interesting that his "millions of interfering compounds" are now down to one that he's willing to explain. Con is overly enthusiastic here. He states that RNA is particularly labile at high temperatures and deforms at low temperatures. Several problems here. First, the fact that Con ignored arguments about metabolism comes back to bite him. Since some RNAs can convert available compounds into something that can improve RNA stability is part of the reason why this matters. One of the simplest is EDTA, which is used all the time in labs for RNA resuspension and storage, and sodium hydroxide, which increases pH for the same reason ( http://www.lifetechnologies.com... ). Metabolism can very easily create better conditions. Second, double-stranded RNAs would obviously be preferred, since they're far more stable than the single-stranded variants ( http://www.npdn.org... ). As I've stated before, it's the RNAs that fold over themselves and create secondary structure that will have these functions. Their stability is also going to select for them. Third, I'm not sure Con understands RNA stability. RNAs are stable when frozen (that's how RNA is stored for years). At room temperature, it still lasts for a week, providing more than enough time for replication. Declines in RNA aren't even detectable at or below 4"C, and freeze-thaw cycles oscillating between 80"C and even room temperature doesn't damage the RNA at all ( http://www.precisionbioservices.com... ). Even at higher temperatures, which are used constantly for transcription experiments, most RNAs will survive for hours, if not days ( http://www.jci.org... ). Con's point on pH just ignores the pH of water and the effects of salt. The world's oceans are made of water, which tends to hover around a pH of 7. Sodium chloride, or salt, modulates pH as well, keeping it at 7. Acidification of the ocean has not been an issue since recent times, and the early ocean wouldn't have suffered from it ( http://www.ocean-acidification.net... ). Lastly, Con points to the fact that RNAs clump. This is only going to hurt him. Not only would this have solved for part of the problems of temperature fluctuations by making more double-stranded forms, it also would have created more secondary and tertiary structures, which improves the likelihood that the correct orientations could come about to make these RNAs functional. This is actually really likely to be effective for a randomized process, producing an incredibly large number of trials all at once in a small space. So, how does this debate play out? I gave myself a high burden in this debate. I could have argued that abiogenesis as a whole was possible, and utilized my opponent's arguments that a protein-RNA world was possible to do so. I didn't. That's because my argument was already solid. Metabolism and adaptation are now unassailable; Con chose not to argue them in the last 3 rounds. So the best he can do is claim that I'm not winning replication. But I am. I've provided multiple papers that showcase the replication of RNAs, some of which Con has left untouched. And the few he's touched, he's misinterpreted and undercovered. He massively overestimated the amount of inhibiting molecules without citation, and has done far too little to support his claims. He simply isn't doing enough to prove impossibility, or even implausibility. Vote Pro with that in mind.

Science

Abiogenesis-is-a-reasonable-theory-for-the-beginnings-of-life/1/

The whole point of working is to provide a service or produce something that benefits some group of people in some way. When people don't contribute to that system, they should not get to reap its benefits. I am referring to the welfare 'leeches' especially prominent in European countries like Sweden, aka "Welfare Paradise" If welfare were to be a thing, the recipients should be required to work for it in some way, like public services. Provided they are able-bodied, of course. If I spend my time working to improve society such as working in sanitation, real estate, or any other job, a part of my paycheck should not go to some lazy person who sits at home and is basically a leech to society. The system should be a "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" system, not "it doesn't matter whether you work or not, you still get money" If you accept, please provide a few reasons why my proposed system is wrong/bad.

ajthenoob

The whole point of working is to provide a service or produce something that benefits some group of people in some way. When people don't contribute to that system, they should not get to reap its benefits. I am referring to the welfare 'leeches' especially prominent in European countries like Sweden, aka "Welfare Paradise" If welfare were to be a thing, the recipients should be required to work for it in some way, like public services. Provided they are able-bodied, of course. If I spend my time working to improve society such as working in sanitation, real estate, or any other job, a part of my paycheck should not go to some lazy person who sits at home and is basically a leech to society. The system should be a "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" system, not "it doesn't matter whether you work or not, you still get money" If you accept, please provide a few reasons why my proposed system is wrong/bad.

Politics

Able-bodied-people-should-not-receive-welfare-if-they-dont-work/1/

Looks like I was uneducated on this one. I cede all arguments except for the fact that it is slavery, because no one is forced into workfare. With slavery people are forced into something, and when presented with an option not to work, they can take it. They can look for actual jobs.

ajthenoob

Looks like I was uneducated on this one. I cede all arguments except for the fact that it is slavery, because no one is forced into workfare. With slavery people are forced into something, and when presented with an option not to work, they can take it. They can look for actual jobs.

Politics

Able-bodied-people-should-not-receive-welfare-if-they-dont-work/1/

Sure, this sounds fun! I'll try to play this as straight-faced as possible, but forgive me if my arguments get ridiculous, as they sometimes do when I'm arguing something I don't agree with. I'm pro-choice, but I think pro-lifers have a one or two good points. Great concept anyway. Shall we start?

Miserlou

Sure, this sounds fun! I'll try to play this as straight-faced as possible, but forgive me if my arguments get ridiculous, as they sometimes do when I'm arguing something I don't agree with. I'm pro-choice, but I think pro-lifers have a one or two good points. Great concept anyway. Shall we start?

Religion

Abortion-Fliped/1/

This is fun! Anyway... Just because something has been done doesn't make it right. Slavery has existed since Ancient Egypt, but I don't think anyone can get behind that. Looking back at history, majority rule hasn't always been the most moral one. A mother's health is important of course, but so is the baby's. And today with advanced medicine and technology, it is easier to ensure a mother's health. And on that note, it is simpler to have a baby today than it was a hundred years ago; not only because of technology but because of cultural trends which make premarital sex and the like more acceptable (and a lot of women have and have had abortions out of fear of the social consequences). A fetus is a baby, which is a person, and we have no right to pick and choose what children we want. Contraception can prevent the problem altogether, and adoption is always a solution for people who can't take care of the child.

Miserlou

This is fun! Anyway... Just because something has been done doesn't make it right. Slavery has existed since Ancient Egypt, but I don't think anyone can get behind that. Looking back at history, majority rule hasn't always been the most moral one. A mother's health is important of course, but so is the baby's. And today with advanced medicine and technology, it is easier to ensure a mother's health. And on that note, it is simpler to have a baby today than it was a hundred years ago; not only because of technology but because of cultural trends which make premarital sex and the like more acceptable (and a lot of women have and have had abortions out of fear of the social consequences). A fetus is a baby, which is a person, and we have no right to pick and choose what children we want. Contraception can prevent the problem altogether, and adoption is always a solution for people who can't take care of the child.

Religion

Abortion-Fliped/1/

Webster's isn't my prime source for moral guidance. A fetus is characteristic of being a human because it will become one. It is alive, and the life will continue until a grown and very human organism dies; unless of course, it's aborted. And as for murder being killing "under the conditions specified by law", again, dictionary definitions don't mean anything. Laws can change, but murder is always murder. And I'm not saying that people have to keep children if they don't want them, they can give them up for adoption. And people who already have the means to raise a kid might find they want a child, even if it's unexpected.

Miserlou

Webster's isn't my prime source for moral guidance. A fetus is characteristic of being a human because it will become one. It is alive, and the life will continue until a grown and very human organism dies; unless of course, it's aborted. And as for murder being killing "under the conditions specified by law", again, dictionary definitions don't mean anything. Laws can change, but murder is always murder. And I'm not saying that people have to keep children if they don't want them, they can give them up for adoption. And people who already have the means to raise a kid might find they want a child, even if it's unexpected.

Religion

Abortion-Fliped/1/

I want to begin by thanking KeytarHero for giving me the opportunity to have a debate with him on this very important moral issue. I'm going to defend two basic contentions as I proceed to make my case. First, there are no good reasons to think that abortion is morally wrong. And secondly, there are good reasons to think that abortion is morally permissible. In defense of that first contention, I'll begin by offering a brief critique of a common pro-life argument. C1: The sanctity of life doctrine is morally untenable. Many arguments against abortion are based on some variety of the sanctity of life doctrine. In short, the sanctity of life doctrine contends that humans possess certain fundamental rights such as the right to life by virtue of their humanity. Here is an example of this type of argument that is as plausible as I can make it: P1: It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any innocent human being. P2: A human fetus is an innocent human being. C: Therefore, it is prima facie morally wrong to kill a human fetus. (from 1 and 2) As the world-renowned Princeton philosopher Peter Singer argues, there are good reasons to think that the first premise of the anti-abortion argument is false. First, the sanctity of life doctrine is vulnerable to clear counterexamples.[1] If all human beings are intrinsically valuable as subjects of rights, then this would imply that brain-dead individuals, anencephalic fetuses (i.e., fetuses that lack the neurological capacity for consciousness) and those in persistent vegetative states would all have a right to life. But surely such humans don't possess a right to life. For starters, almost no one believes that they do. Indeed, these implications are so implausible that even people who are passionately opposed to abortion are often unwilling to accept them! Josh Brahm, the Education Director for Fresno Right to Life, writes, "I will grant that abortion is permissible for the anencephalic fetus."[2] Don Marquis, one of the most influential pro-life philosophers of our time, pulls no punches when he deems the sanctity of life doctrine "clearly false."[3] Moreover, there is a good basis for the conclusion that Marquis and Brahm draw. As philosopher Dean Stretton points out, killing individuals that lack any mental life does not harm them because it does not frustrate their desires (they have none), and it does not deprive them of a valuable future.[4] Consequently, the first premise of the anti-abortion argument is false because it has absurd moral implications. Second, the sanctity of life doctrine is based on a morally irrelevant biological property.[5] The reason we deem racism and sexism morally wrong is based on the fact that biological properties have, all by themselves, no moral significance whatsoever. From this it follows that the biological property of being a member of the human species has no moral significance whatsoever. The sanctity of life doctrine must therefore be rejected because it is based on a biological, but not obviously morally relevant, property. Third, it is plausible that humans cannot be intrinsically valuable.[6] To be intrinsically valuable is to be necessarily valuable (i.e., valuable in all possible worlds).[7] But if there are possible worlds where humans had mental lives like insects, then it is doubtful that these humans would possess any moral value, intrinsic or otherwise. Given this possibility, it follows necessarily that humans aren't intrinsically valuable in any possible world including the actual world. Finally, it is plausible that the right to life is an accidental property.[8] It is theoretically possible to transplant a human cerebrum into a non-rational being. The resulting organism from the transplant would develop self-awareness and thus come to possess a right to life. This demonstrates the same organism can at one point lack a right to life and then later come to possess it, and so the right to life is an accidental property. But this conclusion spells doom for the sanctity of life doctrine - for the sanctity of life doctrine holds that the right to life is an essential property that isn't accidently acquired. And thus the destruction of the sanctity of life doctrine is well-established. So then let us turn to my second contention that there are good reasons to think that abortion is morally permissible. C2: A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. A fetus may be a human in the biological sense, but it is not a person. According to philosopher Marry Anne Warren, the most plausible characteristics for personhood are mental in nature.[9] Since a fetus does not possess any significant mental qualities, it can rightfully not be considered a person with a serious right to life. My argument can thus be summed up as follows: P1: Only a person has a right to life. P2: An entity is a person if it has (1) consciousness, (2) the capacity to reason, (3) self-motivated activity, (4) the capacity to communicate messages, and (5) the presence of self-concepts. P3: A human fetus does not have properties (1-5). P4: Therefore, a human fetus is not a person. (from 2 and 3) C: Therefore, a human fetus does not have a right to life. (from 1 and 4) You might be surprised to learn that the only controversial aspect of the argument is the second premise which outlines criteria for personhood. Allow me to briefly sketch some of the reasons why the psychological criteria I have set forth should be accepted. First, these criteria should be accepted because only entities that have had conscious desires at some time can be harmed in the morally significant sense of the term. As the philosopher Michael Tooley argues, granting rights to any entity presupposes that the entity can be harmed.[10] So, for example, living organisms such as plants and insects that lack conscious desires cannot have rights because they cannot be harmed. Second, these criteria explain the intuitions most people have that brain-dead individuals, anencephalic fetuses and those in persistent vegetative states all lack a right to life.[11] Merely being human and alive is morally inconsequential. It is, rather, the ability to have a conscious experience of the world that is important. This is why most sensible people do not regard brain-dead individuals as having a right to life. Third, these criteria offer a non-arbitrary and species free account of personhood for various beings, both real and imaginary.[12] For example, advanced extra-terrestrials and self-aware robots would obviously be persons and have a right to life even though they are not human. Fourth, the psychological approach is able to explain numerous issues in personal identity.[13] In particular, the psychological approach explains why a human person would plausibly continue to exist over time if their cerebrum were swapped into another body and they possessed the same memories and personality as before. It would also explain why we would regard conjoined twins as two separate persons even though they are part of the same biological organism. Finally, it is plausible that rights function to protect interests.[14] This understanding of rights bolsters the psychological criteria for personhood because the only sorts of beings that are capable of holding a desire to continue living are those beings who possess self-consciousness. Attributing a right to life to individuals who qualify as persons is therefore justified because doing so helps to safeguard their desire for continued existence. | Conclusion | In conclusion, a fetus is a human being, but it does not possess the mental properties that would qualify it as a person. In light of this, then, abortion cannot be seriously wrong because the entity being destroyed in the process does not have sufficiently strong interests that could be violated. For these reasons, abortion is morally permissible. Sources: <URL>...

Freeman

I want to begin by thanking KeytarHero for giving me the opportunity to have a debate with him on this very important moral issue. I'm going to defend two basic contentions as I proceed to make my case. First, there are no good reasons to think that abortion is morally wrong. And secondly, there are good reasons to think that abortion is morally permissible. In defense of that first contention, I'll begin by offering a brief critique of a common pro-life argument. C1: The sanctity of life doctrine is morally untenable. Many arguments against abortion are based on some variety of the sanctity of life doctrine. In short, the sanctity of life doctrine contends that humans possess certain fundamental rights such as the right to life by virtue of their humanity. Here is an example of this type of argument that is as plausible as I can make it: P1: It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any innocent human being. P2: A human fetus is an innocent human being. C: Therefore, it is prima facie morally wrong to kill a human fetus. (from 1 and 2) As the world-renowned Princeton philosopher Peter Singer argues, there are good reasons to think that the first premise of the anti-abortion argument is false. First, the sanctity of life doctrine is vulnerable to clear counterexamples.[1] If all human beings are intrinsically valuable as subjects of rights, then this would imply that brain-dead individuals, anencephalic fetuses (i.e., fetuses that lack the neurological capacity for consciousness) and those in persistent vegetative states would all have a right to life. But surely such humans don't possess a right to life. For starters, almost no one believes that they do. Indeed, these implications are so implausible that even people who are passionately opposed to abortion are often unwilling to accept them! Josh Brahm, the Education Director for Fresno Right to Life, writes, "I will grant that abortion is permissible for the anencephalic fetus."[2] Don Marquis, one of the most influential pro-life philosophers of our time, pulls no punches when he deems the sanctity of life doctrine "clearly false."[3] Moreover, there is a good basis for the conclusion that Marquis and Brahm draw. As philosopher Dean Stretton points out, killing individuals that lack any mental life does not harm them because it does not frustrate their desires (they have none), and it does not deprive them of a valuable future.[4] Consequently, the first premise of the anti-abortion argument is false because it has absurd moral implications. Second, the sanctity of life doctrine is based on a morally irrelevant biological property.[5] The reason we deem racism and sexism morally wrong is based on the fact that biological properties have, all by themselves, no moral significance whatsoever. From this it follows that the biological property of being a member of the human species has no moral significance whatsoever. The sanctity of life doctrine must therefore be rejected because it is based on a biological, but not obviously morally relevant, property. Third, it is plausible that humans cannot be intrinsically valuable.[6] To be intrinsically valuable is to be necessarily valuable (i.e., valuable in all possible worlds).[7] But if there are possible worlds where humans had mental lives like insects, then it is doubtful that these humans would possess any moral value, intrinsic or otherwise. Given this possibility, it follows necessarily that humans aren't intrinsically valuable in any possible world including the actual world. Finally, it is plausible that the right to life is an accidental property.[8] It is theoretically possible to transplant a human cerebrum into a non-rational being. The resulting organism from the transplant would develop self-awareness and thus come to possess a right to life. This demonstrates the same organism can at one point lack a right to life and then later come to possess it, and so the right to life is an accidental property. But this conclusion spells doom for the sanctity of life doctrine - for the sanctity of life doctrine holds that the right to life is an essential property that isn't accidently acquired. And thus the destruction of the sanctity of life doctrine is well-established. So then let us turn to my second contention that there are good reasons to think that abortion is morally permissible. C2: A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. A fetus may be a human in the biological sense, but it is not a person. According to philosopher Marry Anne Warren, the most plausible characteristics for personhood are mental in nature.[9] Since a fetus does not possess any significant mental qualities, it can rightfully not be considered a person with a serious right to life. My argument can thus be summed up as follows: P1: Only a person has a right to life. P2: An entity is a person if it has (1) consciousness, (2) the capacity to reason, (3) self-motivated activity, (4) the capacity to communicate messages, and (5) the presence of self-concepts. P3: A human fetus does not have properties (1-5). P4: Therefore, a human fetus is not a person. (from 2 and 3) C: Therefore, a human fetus does not have a right to life. (from 1 and 4) You might be surprised to learn that the only controversial aspect of the argument is the second premise which outlines criteria for personhood. Allow me to briefly sketch some of the reasons why the psychological criteria I have set forth should be accepted. First, these criteria should be accepted because only entities that have had conscious desires at some time can be harmed in the morally significant sense of the term. As the philosopher Michael Tooley argues, granting rights to any entity presupposes that the entity can be harmed.[10] So, for example, living organisms such as plants and insects that lack conscious desires cannot have rights because they cannot be harmed. Second, these criteria explain the intuitions most people have that brain-dead individuals, anencephalic fetuses and those in persistent vegetative states all lack a right to life.[11] Merely being human and alive is morally inconsequential. It is, rather, the ability to have a conscious experience of the world that is important. This is why most sensible people do not regard brain-dead individuals as having a right to life. Third, these criteria offer a non-arbitrary and species free account of personhood for various beings, both real and imaginary.[12] For example, advanced extra-terrestrials and self-aware robots would obviously be persons and have a right to life even though they are not human. Fourth, the psychological approach is able to explain numerous issues in personal identity.[13] In particular, the psychological approach explains why a human person would plausibly continue to exist over time if their cerebrum were swapped into another body and they possessed the same memories and personality as before. It would also explain why we would regard conjoined twins as two separate persons even though they are part of the same biological organism. Finally, it is plausible that rights function to protect interests.[14] This understanding of rights bolsters the psychological criteria for personhood because the only sorts of beings that are capable of holding a desire to continue living are those beings who possess self-consciousness. Attributing a right to life to individuals who qualify as persons is therefore justified because doing so helps to safeguard their desire for continued existence. | Conclusion | In conclusion, a fetus is a human being, but it does not possess the mental properties that would qualify it as a person. In light of this, then, abortion cannot be seriously wrong because the entity being destroyed in the process does not have sufficiently strong interests that could be violated. For these reasons, abortion is morally permissible. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Morally-Permissible/4/

Thank you, KeytarHero, for that very interesting and thought provoking argument! My opponent defends a natural law argument against abortion known as the substance view of persons. I previously offered four reasons why we should reject this type of argument. C1: The sanctity of life doctrine is morally untenable. 1. First, I argued that Con's argument leads to the absurd view that the irreversibly unconscious have a right to life. The objections given by Con are plainly false. For instance, the substance view does not maintain that these individuals are non-persons or that they need a future to be valuable.[1] Patrick Lee, a pro-life philosopher and defender of the substance view, writes, "every human being, including those in persistent vegetative state and anencephalic infants, are persons and intrinsically valuable as subjects of rights."[2] My objection is completely unscathed. 2. Second, I argued that Con's view is false because it's based on a morally irrelevant biological property. Con's response clearly begs the question. He says that racism and sexism are wrong because different ethnicities and men and women are all human. But why think that this is the case? He merely assumes the truth of his view- namely, that being human is what makes one morally valuable. 3. Third, I argued that humans can't be intrinsically valuable. Con responds by saying that he sees no reason to suppose that being intrinsically valuable entails being necessarily valuable in all possible worlds. As the esteemed philosopher Ben Bradley argues, "[I]f a thing's intrinsic value is essential to it, then intrinsically good entities are intrinsically good in all possible worlds."[3] Trent Horn, a highly respected pro-life advocate, points out that under the substance view "a human being's personhood is an essential property."[4] It therefore follows that the substance view entails that humans must be intrinsically valuable in all possible worlds. 4. Finally, I argued that the right to life is an accidental property. In essence, Con objects by arguing that we would not lose our substantial identity in a cerebrum swap. The problem with Con's response is that he assumes that the new cerebrum will develop a natural capacity for self-awareness. But since the genetic code of the body holding the cerebrum hasn't changed, it seems clear that this capacity would be unnatural, and thus the change to the organism would be accidental.[5] Moreover, Con says that the right to life is not an accidental property because it cannot be tied to consciousness since that comes in degrees. His argument here is self-defeating. Natural capacities come in degrees among various animals. There exists a continuum of natural capacities as well as developed capacities.[6] On a side note, I am not trying to "poison the well" by using the word "doctrine." Even pro-life philosophers like Don Marquis use the phrase "sanctity of life doctrine" to delineate my opponent's type of argument.[7] In addition, a reasonable person reading Brahm's argument in its full context would be lead to believe that he regards anencephalic fetuses as lacking a right to life. I'm not trying to be dishonest, just clever. C2: A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. First, I must say that Con's attack on P1 is simply misguided and philosophically confused. The term "person" in a philosophical context is synonymous with a being that possesses a right to life. 1. What about my argument that only beings that have had conscious desires can be harmed? Con argues that my view entails the permissibility of infanticide. There are numerous problems with this objection. First, moral intuitions alone can't establish the wrongness of infanticide because people can clearly be blinded by failures of moral intuition. Paul Slovic, a research scientist at the University of Oregon, has demonstrated this conclusively with his psychological research on human responses to genocide.[8] In general, people tend to care a great deal about the plight of individuals in trouble; however, these same people are often blithely indifferent to mass-murder. Second, the view that infants are not persons does not necessarily make it acceptable to kill infants. As Peter Singer argues, no other line except birth has the visibility and self-evidence required to mark the beginning of a socially recognized right to life. And thus birth provides a compelling reason to think that infants should be treated as if they have a right to life under the law.[9] Toddlers or adults with virtually no mental lives would be practically brain-dead, so I wouldn't say that killing them is seriously wrong. 2. What about my argument that my view explains why the irreversibly unconscious don't have a right to life? Con tries to strengthen his argument by conjoining it with the future-like-ours argument. First, Con's entire pro-life case collapses when he does this. Why? Because the substance view and the FLO argument are mutually exclusive, as Patrick Lee points out![10] For example, the substance view says that anencephalic fetuses are intrinsically valuable. The FLO argument would maintain that anencephalic fetuses are not intrinsically valuable. This makes Con's argument self-referentially incoherent and therefore necessarily false. Second, the existence of "ideal desires" would constitute a defeater to Marquis' argument in any case. Moreover, Con argues that my view entails that it's acceptable to kill people who are asleep or in temporary comas. Simply put, the states which allow for personal identity such as memories and personality traits are present in the brain of the sleeping individual and the temporarily comatose patient.[11] These individuals who are psychologically continuous over time through memories and personality traits have enjoyed self-consciousness in the past, and it is this that makes depriving them of continued existence seriously wrong. 3. What about my argument that Warren's psychological criteria offer a non-arbitrary and species free account of personhood for various beings? I will grant that the substance view can offer a species free account of personhood. Con does not, however, offer us an explanation of how his view would grant a right to life to self-aware robots. 4. What about my argument that the psychological account resolves issues in personal identity? Con hasn't responded to my argument about conjoined twins. 5. What about my argument that it is plausible that rights function to protect interests? Here Con claims that my view implies that it's permissible to kill an indoctrinated slave who wants to die and to steal from a child who has an unknown inheritance. This is simply not the case. David Boonin, a philosopher at CU-Boulder, explains how individuals can have actual as well as ideal desires.[12] If the slave better understood its future prospects, then it would hold an actual desire to live. It can therefore be said that the slave has an ideal desire to live. Likewise, the child has an ideal desire to keep all of that which belongs to him or her. My opponent might object by arguing that a fetus has an ideal desire to live. But this rejoinder, too, is flawed. As Boonin argues, ideal desires are simply actual desires that have been corrected for cognitive distortions.[13] You need to have actual desires in order to have ideal desires. Con can't just impute a desire out of thin air and apply it to a fetus when the fetus doesn't have any actual desires in the first place. | Conclusion | So in conclusion, then, I think we've seen good reasons from the desire based view of rights for supposing that fetuses are not persons and that the pro-life arguments do not serve to subvert that conclusion. Unless and until Con can overcome my objections, I maintain that we have ample justification for regarding his argument as unsound. Sources: <URL>...

Freeman

Thank you, KeytarHero, for that very interesting and thought provoking argument! My opponent defends a natural law argument against abortion known as the substance view of persons. I previously offered four reasons why we should reject this type of argument. C1: The sanctity of life doctrine is morally untenable. 1. First, I argued that Con's argument leads to the absurd view that the irreversibly unconscious have a right to life. The objections given by Con are plainly false. For instance, the substance view does not maintain that these individuals are non-persons or that they need a future to be valuable.[1] Patrick Lee, a pro-life philosopher and defender of the substance view, writes, "every human being, including those in persistent vegetative state and anencephalic infants, are persons and intrinsically valuable as subjects of rights."[2] My objection is completely unscathed. 2. Second, I argued that Con's view is false because it's based on a morally irrelevant biological property. Con's response clearly begs the question. He says that racism and sexism are wrong because different ethnicities and men and women are all human. But why think that this is the case? He merely assumes the truth of his view– namely, that being human is what makes one morally valuable. 3. Third, I argued that humans can't be intrinsically valuable. Con responds by saying that he sees no reason to suppose that being intrinsically valuable entails being necessarily valuable in all possible worlds. As the esteemed philosopher Ben Bradley argues, "[I]f a thing's intrinsic value is essential to it, then intrinsically good entities are intrinsically good in all possible worlds."[3] Trent Horn, a highly respected pro-life advocate, points out that under the substance view "a human being's personhood is an essential property."[4] It therefore follows that the substance view entails that humans must be intrinsically valuable in all possible worlds. 4. Finally, I argued that the right to life is an accidental property. In essence, Con objects by arguing that we would not lose our substantial identity in a cerebrum swap. The problem with Con's response is that he assumes that the new cerebrum will develop a natural capacity for self-awareness. But since the genetic code of the body holding the cerebrum hasn't changed, it seems clear that this capacity would be unnatural, and thus the change to the organism would be accidental.[5] Moreover, Con says that the right to life is not an accidental property because it cannot be tied to consciousness since that comes in degrees. His argument here is self-defeating. Natural capacities come in degrees among various animals. There exists a continuum of natural capacities as well as developed capacities.[6] On a side note, I am not trying to "poison the well" by using the word "doctrine." Even pro-life philosophers like Don Marquis use the phrase "sanctity of life doctrine" to delineate my opponent's type of argument.[7] In addition, a reasonable person reading Brahm's argument in its full context would be lead to believe that he regards anencephalic fetuses as lacking a right to life. I'm not trying to be dishonest, just clever. C2: A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. First, I must say that Con's attack on P1 is simply misguided and philosophically confused. The term "person" in a philosophical context is synonymous with a being that possesses a right to life. 1. What about my argument that only beings that have had conscious desires can be harmed? Con argues that my view entails the permissibility of infanticide. There are numerous problems with this objection. First, moral intuitions alone can't establish the wrongness of infanticide because people can clearly be blinded by failures of moral intuition. Paul Slovic, a research scientist at the University of Oregon, has demonstrated this conclusively with his psychological research on human responses to genocide.[8] In general, people tend to care a great deal about the plight of individuals in trouble; however, these same people are often blithely indifferent to mass-murder. Second, the view that infants are not persons does not necessarily make it acceptable to kill infants. As Peter Singer argues, no other line except birth has the visibility and self-evidence required to mark the beginning of a socially recognized right to life. And thus birth provides a compelling reason to think that infants should be treated as if they have a right to life under the law.[9] Toddlers or adults with virtually no mental lives would be practically brain-dead, so I wouldn't say that killing them is seriously wrong. 2. What about my argument that my view explains why the irreversibly unconscious don't have a right to life? Con tries to strengthen his argument by conjoining it with the future-like-ours argument. First, Con's entire pro-life case collapses when he does this. Why? Because the substance view and the FLO argument are mutually exclusive, as Patrick Lee points out![10] For example, the substance view says that anencephalic fetuses are intrinsically valuable. The FLO argument would maintain that anencephalic fetuses are not intrinsically valuable. This makes Con's argument self-referentially incoherent and therefore necessarily false. Second, the existence of "ideal desires" would constitute a defeater to Marquis' argument in any case. Moreover, Con argues that my view entails that it's acceptable to kill people who are asleep or in temporary comas. Simply put, the states which allow for personal identity such as memories and personality traits are present in the brain of the sleeping individual and the temporarily comatose patient.[11] These individuals who are psychologically continuous over time through memories and personality traits have enjoyed self-consciousness in the past, and it is this that makes depriving them of continued existence seriously wrong. 3. What about my argument that Warren's psychological criteria offer a non-arbitrary and species free account of personhood for various beings? I will grant that the substance view can offer a species free account of personhood. Con does not, however, offer us an explanation of how his view would grant a right to life to self-aware robots. 4. What about my argument that the psychological account resolves issues in personal identity? Con hasn't responded to my argument about conjoined twins. 5. What about my argument that it is plausible that rights function to protect interests? Here Con claims that my view implies that it's permissible to kill an indoctrinated slave who wants to die and to steal from a child who has an unknown inheritance. This is simply not the case. David Boonin, a philosopher at CU-Boulder, explains how individuals can have actual as well as ideal desires.[12] If the slave better understood its future prospects, then it would hold an actual desire to live. It can therefore be said that the slave has an ideal desire to live. Likewise, the child has an ideal desire to keep all of that which belongs to him or her. My opponent might object by arguing that a fetus has an ideal desire to live. But this rejoinder, too, is flawed. As Boonin argues, ideal desires are simply actual desires that have been corrected for cognitive distortions.[13] You need to have actual desires in order to have ideal desires. Con can't just impute a desire out of thin air and apply it to a fetus when the fetus doesn't have any actual desires in the first place. | Conclusion | So in conclusion, then, I think we've seen good reasons from the desire based view of rights for supposing that fetuses are not persons and that the pro-life arguments do not serve to subvert that conclusion. Unless and until Con can overcome my objections, I maintain that we have ample justification for regarding his argument as unsound. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Morally-Permissible/4/

I really do appreciate the time and care that Con has put into defending his position. But I must confess that I remain unconvinced. Let me explain why. C1: The sanctity of life doctrine is morally untenable. 1. The substance view is subject to counterexamples that render it false. My opponent persists in falsely claiming that the substance view entails that the irreversibly unconscious are non-persons without a right to life even when the evidence that he's wrong is placed right in front of him. Con doesn't address my evidence and merely falls back on his talking points. My opponent must accept that irreversibly unconscious humans are persons with a right to life and justify this view or he must reject the substance view as false. Moreover, Con merely appeals to the authority of Trent Horn to try to show that his two arguments are compatible. Well, Trent is demonstrably wrong and Con doesn't actually deal with the merits of my objection. My opponent's arguments when combined entail that anencephalic fetuses are both intrinsically valuable and not intrinsically valuable at the same time. This is a logical contradiction that can't possibly be true.[1] Even the preeminent defender of the substance view Patrick Lee admits this![2] 2. The substance view is false because it's based on a morally irrelevant biological property. Once again, Con's response begs the question and doesn't engage my argument. He has failed to explain why the biological property of being a human is morally important when biological properties are morally inconsequential in all other areas (e.g., race and sex). 3. Humans can't be intrinsically valuable because there are at least some possible worlds where humans would reasonably have no moral value. Con says that the conclusion I draw is a non-sequitur. He is simply incorrect and doesn't engage my logic. My conclusion follows necessarily from the axioms of modal logic and the definitions of intrinsic value and essential properties. As philosopher Paul Teller points out in the scholarly Journal of Philosophy, "An essential property is usually taken to be a property a thing has necessarily."[3] Con's response demonstrates nothing more than confusion about modal logic and also his position. Contrary to what Con claims, his argument maintains all humans have the inherent capacity to be rational beings merely by being human.[4] 4. It is plausible that the right to life is an accidental property. Con says that my argument is based on pure speculation since no one can currently perform a cerebrum swap. But thought experiments can help produce valuable information in science (e.g., Maxwell's demon, Einstein's elevator and Schrdinger's cat).[5] I am not just making an assumption like Con. I made a reasoned argument that Con hasn't responded to. Once more, Con says that rights can't be tied to properties that come in degrees. I've already refuted this argument. It's self-defeating since natural capacities come in degrees as well. Con doesn't offer a response. What about this claim that I'm taking Josh Brahm's words out of context? Josh said in our debate that it's ok to kill brain-dead people.[6] Given that there is no real moral difference between brain-death and anencephaly, I'm lead to believe he feels the same way about anencephalic fetuses. I'm not taking anyone's words out of context. C2: A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Contrary to what my opponent claims, the term "person" cannot be defined any way that one wishes. The concept of what a "person" denotes in philosophy has a rigid meaning that is not subject to arbitrary revision. A "person" is a being that has a serious right to life. Anyone who went around calling black individuals "non-persons" would obviously be unjustified in their views. Now what about my reasons for accepting the psychological criteria for personhood? 1. My first argument was that only beings that have had conscious desires in the past can be harmed in any morally significant sense. First, I don't have to agree with Warren's view on infanticide to accept her general argument. Second, the reason many pro-lifers think that this objection is so devastating is because the acceptance of infanticide runs deeply contrary to some people's moral intuitions. But I've given pretty unequivocal evidence that moral intuitions aren't always reliable. Thus, the infanticide objection can't go through on moral intuitions alone without rational support. I submit that Con's general argument doesn't provide that support. In any case, I've given an argument that my view doesn't necessarily entail infanticide and so Con's point is moot. Con objects to my argument by saying that it's ad hoc and asks why fertilization wouldn't be a good dividing line. First, Singer's argument isn't ad hoc because the line can't be between existence and non-existence, since virtually no one seriously considers existing brain-dead people to be valuable. Second, assuming the non-personhood of the fetus, granting a right to life at fertilization would run afoul of what even pro-life philosophers have called "the important value of reproductive choice."[7] 2. My second argument was that my view properly accounts for why the irreversibly unconscious don't have a right to life. I've already responded to Con's false claim that the substance view and FLO argument are not mutually exclusive. My opponent raises the sleeping and comatose person objection once more as if I haven't addressed it. My opponent simply drops my counter argument. Con then goes on to say that I have somehow trapped myself into accepting that brain-dead people also have a right to life because they've been conscious in the past. My argument simply doesn't imply this. According to my argument, brain-dead people are no longer psychologically continuous as persons and would therefore lack a right to life. 3. My third argument was that the psychological account of personhood can offer a non-arbitrary and species free account of personhood. I will grant that my opponent's argument and mine are effectively tied in this one small area. 4. My fourth argument was that the psychological account of personhood explains numerous issues in personal identity. Con objects by saying that conjoined twins are two separate biological organisms. This response is subject to a number of strong objections. First, it is very implausible that these dicephalic twins are two distinct organisms when there is very little duplication of organs and the organs all function together as a single unit.[8] Second, it is possible for the cerebrums of dicephalic twins to emerge from a single brainstem. Because there would only be one brainstem to regulate the single autonomic nervous system for a single set of organs, it should be clear that there is only one biological organism. After all, it is the brainstem, not the cerebrum, that regulates the functioning of the various organs and somatic systems within the organism.[9] 5. My fifth argument was that it's plausible that rights function to protect interests. I've already anticipated Con's objection to my argument and refuted it. Ideal desires require actual desires. The fetus doesn't have any desires that can be corrected for cognitive distortions. Con is trying to impute an ideal desire out of thin air and attribute it to the fetus that doesn't have any desires to begin with. My opponent may think his maneuver is reasonable, but it clearly seems incoherent. | Conclusion | The weakness of Con's position is attested by both his refusal to substantively engage with my arguments and also by the inadequate justification he has given for his own position. By contrast, it would seem that all of my arguments remain intact despite Con's refutations. And for that reason I remain enthusiastically in support of the important value of reproductive choice. Sources: <URL>...

Freeman

I really do appreciate the time and care that Con has put into defending his position. But I must confess that I remain unconvinced. Let me explain why. C1: The sanctity of life doctrine is morally untenable. 1. The substance view is subject to counterexamples that render it false. My opponent persists in falsely claiming that the substance view entails that the irreversibly unconscious are non-persons without a right to life even when the evidence that he's wrong is placed right in front of him. Con doesn't address my evidence and merely falls back on his talking points. My opponent must accept that irreversibly unconscious humans are persons with a right to life and justify this view or he must reject the substance view as false. Moreover, Con merely appeals to the authority of Trent Horn to try to show that his two arguments are compatible. Well, Trent is demonstrably wrong and Con doesn't actually deal with the merits of my objection. My opponent's arguments when combined entail that anencephalic fetuses are both intrinsically valuable and not intrinsically valuable at the same time. This is a logical contradiction that can't possibly be true.[1] Even the preeminent defender of the substance view Patrick Lee admits this![2] 2. The substance view is false because it's based on a morally irrelevant biological property. Once again, Con's response begs the question and doesn't engage my argument. He has failed to explain why the biological property of being a human is morally important when biological properties are morally inconsequential in all other areas (e.g., race and sex). 3. Humans can't be intrinsically valuable because there are at least some possible worlds where humans would reasonably have no moral value. Con says that the conclusion I draw is a non-sequitur. He is simply incorrect and doesn't engage my logic. My conclusion follows necessarily from the axioms of modal logic and the definitions of intrinsic value and essential properties. As philosopher Paul Teller points out in the scholarly Journal of Philosophy, "An essential property is usually taken to be a property a thing has necessarily."[3] Con's response demonstrates nothing more than confusion about modal logic and also his position. Contrary to what Con claims, his argument maintains all humans have the inherent capacity to be rational beings merely by being human.[4] 4. It is plausible that the right to life is an accidental property. Con says that my argument is based on pure speculation since no one can currently perform a cerebrum swap. But thought experiments can help produce valuable information in science (e.g., Maxwell's demon, Einstein's elevator and Schr�dinger's cat).[5] I am not just making an assumption like Con. I made a reasoned argument that Con hasn't responded to. Once more, Con says that rights can't be tied to properties that come in degrees. I've already refuted this argument. It's self-defeating since natural capacities come in degrees as well. Con doesn't offer a response. What about this claim that I'm taking Josh Brahm's words out of context? Josh said in our debate that it's ok to kill brain-dead people.[6] Given that there is no real moral difference between brain-death and anencephaly, I'm lead to believe he feels the same way about anencephalic fetuses. I'm not taking anyone's words out of context. C2: A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Contrary to what my opponent claims, the term "person" cannot be defined any way that one wishes. The concept of what a "person" denotes in philosophy has a rigid meaning that is not subject to arbitrary revision. A "person" is a being that has a serious right to life. Anyone who went around calling black individuals "non-persons" would obviously be unjustified in their views. Now what about my reasons for accepting the psychological criteria for personhood? 1. My first argument was that only beings that have had conscious desires in the past can be harmed in any morally significant sense. First, I don't have to agree with Warren's view on infanticide to accept her general argument. Second, the reason many pro-lifers think that this objection is so devastating is because the acceptance of infanticide runs deeply contrary to some people's moral intuitions. But I've given pretty unequivocal evidence that moral intuitions aren't always reliable. Thus, the infanticide objection can't go through on moral intuitions alone without rational support. I submit that Con's general argument doesn't provide that support. In any case, I've given an argument that my view doesn't necessarily entail infanticide and so Con's point is moot. Con objects to my argument by saying that it's ad hoc and asks why fertilization wouldn't be a good dividing line. First, Singer's argument isn't ad hoc because the line can't be between existence and non-existence, since virtually no one seriously considers existing brain-dead people to be valuable. Second, assuming the non-personhood of the fetus, granting a right to life at fertilization would run afoul of what even pro-life philosophers have called "the important value of reproductive choice."[7] 2. My second argument was that my view properly accounts for why the irreversibly unconscious don't have a right to life. I've already responded to Con's false claim that the substance view and FLO argument are not mutually exclusive. My opponent raises the sleeping and comatose person objection once more as if I haven't addressed it. My opponent simply drops my counter argument. Con then goes on to say that I have somehow trapped myself into accepting that brain-dead people also have a right to life because they've been conscious in the past. My argument simply doesn't imply this. According to my argument, brain-dead people are no longer psychologically continuous as persons and would therefore lack a right to life. 3. My third argument was that the psychological account of personhood can offer a non-arbitrary and species free account of personhood. I will grant that my opponent's argument and mine are effectively tied in this one small area. 4. My fourth argument was that the psychological account of personhood explains numerous issues in personal identity. Con objects by saying that conjoined twins are two separate biological organisms. This response is subject to a number of strong objections. First, it is very implausible that these dicephalic twins are two distinct organisms when there is very little duplication of organs and the organs all function together as a single unit.[8] Second, it is possible for the cerebrums of dicephalic twins to emerge from a single brainstem. Because there would only be one brainstem to regulate the single autonomic nervous system for a single set of organs, it should be clear that there is only one biological organism. After all, it is the brainstem, not the cerebrum, that regulates the functioning of the various organs and somatic systems within the organism.[9] 5. My fifth argument was that it's plausible that rights function to protect interests. I've already anticipated Con's objection to my argument and refuted it. Ideal desires require actual desires. The fetus doesn't have any desires that can be corrected for cognitive distortions. Con is trying to impute an ideal desire out of thin air and attribute it to the fetus that doesn't have any desires to begin with. My opponent may think his maneuver is reasonable, but it clearly seems incoherent. | Conclusion | The weakness of Con's position is attested by both his refusal to substantively engage with my arguments and also by the inadequate justification he has given for his own position. By contrast, it would seem that all of my arguments remain intact despite Con's refutations. And for that reason I remain enthusiastically in support of the important value of reproductive choice. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Morally-Permissible/4/

I would like to thank my opponent once more for his participation and kind words in what has been quite a stimulating exchange. And I must return his complements. My goal in this last round is to tie together some of the loose ends of the debate and see if any conclusions can be reached. C1: The sanctity of life doctrine is morally untenable. 1. What about the irreversibly unconscious? Con is simply reduced to attacking straw-men. For example, I've never argued that his view entails that it's always wrong to take a life. Moreover, he still doesn't respond to my evidence or my logic. Con is simply wrong in many of his claims. The substance view maintains that the irreversibly unconscious are persons with a right to life. They are, after all, innocent human beings. I've even quoted the leading defender of the substance view to demonstrate this![1] Con's only defense of this position entails that a logical contradiction is true. My opponent's mere appeal to Trent Horn is clearly fallacious. His two arguments have mutually exclusive views on the intrinsic value of the irreversibly unconscious. Con doesn't dispute my evidence or logic and thus his entire case simply collapses because a logical contradiction can't be true. 2. What about humanness being a morally irrelevant biological property? Con simply begs the question again. Assuming sexism and racism are wrong because of the biological characteristic of being a human assumes that being human is a morally relevant property. Con goes after numerous red herrings about essential properties, but his points here are irrelevant even if they are true. Accidental properties like essential properties can either have or lack moral significance. The fact that we are essentially human beings doesn't necessarily mean that we are all valuable as subjects of rights. 3. I've presented a modal argument that humans can't be intrinsically valuable. It essentially had two premises. First, being intrinsically valuable entails being necessarily valuable in all possible worlds, according to the standard definitions of intrinsic value and essential properties. After initial skepticism, Con has not disputed this. Second, humans in a possible world with the mental lives of insects would not be intrinsically valuable. Con's only objection to this premise is based on a false belief about what qualifies humanity. Francis Beckwith, a lead proponent of the substance view, explains that his argument entails that humans have these qualities even if it is impossible for us to actualize them.[2] According to Con's argument, there is no possible world where human beings don't have a rational nature. 4. I argued that the right to life is an accidental property? Happily, Con has ceased to attack the usefulness of thought experiments. He is now reduced to saying that we can't prove what would happen in the cerebrum case. We can only establish what is plausible. This is exactly my point! Con remakes his original argument and completely fails to address my rebuttal. The right to life acquired in the case of the cerebrum swap would plausibly be unnatural and hence accidental because the body of the organism holding the cerebrum still has the genetic code of a non-rational type of animal. I would maintain that Brahm's views are incoherent in much the same way Con's are, both internally and with the facts. I'm interpreting them as plausibly and honestly as I can. Remember, the original position he was willing to grant for the debate was that actively aborting anencephalic fetuses is acceptable. I'm representing all of my sources accurately. C2: A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Out of nowhere, Con says that I've appealed to authority to make up the bulk of my case, but that obviously isn't true. I've consistently given warrant for all of my arguments and to show that Con isn't representing his position accurately. Con's continued attack upon P1 is irrational. Black people would obviously be persons under my argument. It doesn't matter what the masses believe "person" means. The term "person" in philosophy means a being with a right to life. Con is practically guilty of playing semantics. 1. I argued that being "harmed" requires conscious experience. Con continues his straw-man critique of Warren's views on infanticide that I haven't defended. He simply sticks to his talking points and does not address my argument. I've shown that even though fetuses wouldn't be persons under my view, this doesn't constitute a good objection because intuitions can be misleading. And I submit that his general argument fails to underpin the intuitions he holds about infanticide. I then argued that there are other considerations to prohibit infanticide, despite infants not being persons. He hasn't responded to the objections I've given to the view that a socially recognized right to life should be at fertilization. Given the necessity for clear distinctions in the law, birth marks a very good spot to grant a right to life, even if one were to grant the non-personhood of the newborn infant. Con brings up toddlers once again, but they would obviously be persons under my view. 2. I argued that my view explains why the irreversibly unconscious lack a right to life. My opponent tries to argue, again, that my defense of a sleeping person's right to life implies that brain-dead people have a right to life. But notice that Con simply drops my counterargument. Even though brain-dead people were once conscious in the past, they are no longer psychologically continuous with the persons who enjoyed that past conscious experience. This is the crucial difference and the reason Con's objection fails. 3. I agree with my opponent that both of our views can offer a species free account of personhood that could also establish why self-aware robots would have a right to life. 4. I argued that my view explains numerous issues in personal identity. Con offers basically two objections to my counterarguments that dicephalic twins consist of one biological organism. First, Con says that even if the twins share organs, this doesn't mean that they are one organism. As I've pointed out earlier, it should be abundantly clear that the dicephalic twins consist of one organism in the case where there is only one brainstem to regulate a single autonomic nervous system. Second, it is completely irrelevant that the dicephalic twins may believe that they are one or two biological organisms. There is a scientific fact of the matter here which is true independently of the twin's beliefs about themselves. 5. I argued that rights plausibly function to protect interests. Con argues that the fetus would have an ideal desire to live in a world where they had actual desires. My opponent's objection is trivially correct. The problem is that Con's objection is based on a conditional statement about a state of affairs that isn't true. In the real world, fetuses do not have actual desires. My view of rights is prima facie plausible. No one has successfully been able to demonstrate that rights can exist in the absence of corresponding desires. Moreover, my opponent's objections about the child with an inheritance and the indoctrinated slave haven't been successful. The desire based view of rights should therefore be accepted. | Conclusion | So, I don't think we've seen any good reasons to become pro-life. Indeed, Con's argument couldn't really be in a more hopeless position. Not only is it subject to four strong objections which haven't been overcome, it is literally self-refuting. By contrast, my argument explains why my opponent's view is right when it is, and my view does not suffer from the difficulties that his view faces. And therefore I think that the pro-choice view is by far the more rational and moral position to adopt. Sources: <URL>...

Freeman

I would like to thank my opponent once more for his participation and kind words in what has been quite a stimulating exchange. And I must return his complements. My goal in this last round is to tie together some of the loose ends of the debate and see if any conclusions can be reached. C1: The sanctity of life doctrine is morally untenable. 1. What about the irreversibly unconscious? Con is simply reduced to attacking straw-men. For example, I've never argued that his view entails that it's always wrong to take a life. Moreover, he still doesn't respond to my evidence or my logic. Con is simply wrong in many of his claims. The substance view maintains that the irreversibly unconscious are persons with a right to life. They are, after all, innocent human beings. I've even quoted the leading defender of the substance view to demonstrate this![1] Con's only defense of this position entails that a logical contradiction is true. My opponent's mere appeal to Trent Horn is clearly fallacious. His two arguments have mutually exclusive views on the intrinsic value of the irreversibly unconscious. Con doesn't dispute my evidence or logic and thus his entire case simply collapses because a logical contradiction can't be true. 2. What about humanness being a morally irrelevant biological property? Con simply begs the question again. Assuming sexism and racism are wrong because of the biological characteristic of being a human assumes that being human is a morally relevant property. Con goes after numerous red herrings about essential properties, but his points here are irrelevant even if they are true. Accidental properties like essential properties can either have or lack moral significance. The fact that we are essentially human beings doesn't necessarily mean that we are all valuable as subjects of rights. 3. I've presented a modal argument that humans can't be intrinsically valuable. It essentially had two premises. First, being intrinsically valuable entails being necessarily valuable in all possible worlds, according to the standard definitions of intrinsic value and essential properties. After initial skepticism, Con has not disputed this. Second, humans in a possible world with the mental lives of insects would not be intrinsically valuable. Con's only objection to this premise is based on a false belief about what qualifies humanity. Francis Beckwith, a lead proponent of the substance view, explains that his argument entails that humans have these qualities even if it is impossible for us to actualize them.[2] According to Con's argument, there is no possible world where human beings don't have a rational nature. 4. I argued that the right to life is an accidental property? Happily, Con has ceased to attack the usefulness of thought experiments. He is now reduced to saying that we can't prove what would happen in the cerebrum case. We can only establish what is plausible. This is exactly my point! Con remakes his original argument and completely fails to address my rebuttal. The right to life acquired in the case of the cerebrum swap would plausibly be unnatural and hence accidental because the body of the organism holding the cerebrum still has the genetic code of a non-rational type of animal. I would maintain that Brahm's views are incoherent in much the same way Con's are, both internally and with the facts. I'm interpreting them as plausibly and honestly as I can. Remember, the original position he was willing to grant for the debate was that actively aborting anencephalic fetuses is acceptable. I'm representing all of my sources accurately. C2: A fetus is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Out of nowhere, Con says that I've appealed to authority to make up the bulk of my case, but that obviously isn't true. I've consistently given warrant for all of my arguments and to show that Con isn't representing his position accurately. Con's continued attack upon P1 is irrational. Black people would obviously be persons under my argument. It doesn't matter what the masses believe "person" means. The term "person" in philosophy means a being with a right to life. Con is practically guilty of playing semantics. 1. I argued that being "harmed" requires conscious experience. Con continues his straw-man critique of Warren's views on infanticide that I haven't defended. He simply sticks to his talking points and does not address my argument. I've shown that even though fetuses wouldn't be persons under my view, this doesn't constitute a good objection because intuitions can be misleading. And I submit that his general argument fails to underpin the intuitions he holds about infanticide. I then argued that there are other considerations to prohibit infanticide, despite infants not being persons. He hasn't responded to the objections I've given to the view that a socially recognized right to life should be at fertilization. Given the necessity for clear distinctions in the law, birth marks a very good spot to grant a right to life, even if one were to grant the non-personhood of the newborn infant. Con brings up toddlers once again, but they would obviously be persons under my view. 2. I argued that my view explains why the irreversibly unconscious lack a right to life. My opponent tries to argue, again, that my defense of a sleeping person's right to life implies that brain-dead people have a right to life. But notice that Con simply drops my counterargument. Even though brain-dead people were once conscious in the past, they are no longer psychologically continuous with the persons who enjoyed that past conscious experience. This is the crucial difference and the reason Con's objection fails. 3. I agree with my opponent that both of our views can offer a species free account of personhood that could also establish why self-aware robots would have a right to life. 4. I argued that my view explains numerous issues in personal identity. Con offers basically two objections to my counterarguments that dicephalic twins consist of one biological organism. First, Con says that even if the twins share organs, this doesn't mean that they are one organism. As I've pointed out earlier, it should be abundantly clear that the dicephalic twins consist of one organism in the case where there is only one brainstem to regulate a single autonomic nervous system. Second, it is completely irrelevant that the dicephalic twins may believe that they are one or two biological organisms. There is a scientific fact of the matter here which is true independently of the twin's beliefs about themselves. 5. I argued that rights plausibly function to protect interests. Con argues that the fetus would have an ideal desire to live in a world where they had actual desires. My opponent's objection is trivially correct. The problem is that Con's objection is based on a conditional statement about a state of affairs that isn't true. In the real world, fetuses do not have actual desires. My view of rights is prima facie plausible. No one has successfully been able to demonstrate that rights can exist in the absence of corresponding desires. Moreover, my opponent's objections about the child with an inheritance and the indoctrinated slave haven't been successful. The desire based view of rights should therefore be accepted. | Conclusion | So, I don't think we've seen any good reasons to become pro-life. Indeed, Con's argument couldn't really be in a more hopeless position. Not only is it subject to four strong objections which haven't been overcome, it is literally self-refuting. By contrast, my argument explains why my opponent's view is right when it is, and my view does not suffer from the difficulties that his view faces. And therefore I think that the pro-choice view is by far the more rational and moral position to adopt. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...

Philosophy

Abortion-Is-Morally-Permissible/4/

This debate will only involve abortions during the first or second trimester of pregnancy. Pro will have the burden of proving that abortion before the end of the second trimester is murder. As Con, I will have to refute or invalidate this claim. Definitions: Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another [1] Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy [2] Second Trimester of Pregnancy: time period extending from the 13th to the 27th week of gestation [3] Rules: -First round is for acceptance of definitions. -Second round is for main arguments. Pro may not rebut my arguments until the third round; he can only state his own. -Third round is for rebuttals to our opponent's main arguments and then summary of one's own. No new arguments may be made outside those that are needed for rebuttal. Pro may not respond to the rebuttals I make to his arguments, since I am unable to respond to his rebuttals of mine. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>...

heisenberg

This debate will only involve abortions during the first or second trimester of pregnancy. Pro will have the burden of proving that abortion before the end of the second trimester is murder. As Con, I will have to refute or invalidate this claim. Definitions: Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another [1] Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy [2] Second Trimester of Pregnancy: time period extending from the 13th to the 27th week of gestation [3] Rules: -First round is for acceptance of definitions. -Second round is for main arguments. Pro may not rebut my arguments until the third round; he can only state his own. -Third round is for rebuttals to our opponent's main arguments and then summary of one's own. No new arguments may be made outside those that are needed for rebuttal. Pro may not respond to the rebuttals I make to his arguments, since I am unable to respond to his rebuttals of mine. [1] https://www.google.com... [2] https://www.google.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Philosophy

Abortion-before-the-end-of-the-second-trimester-is-murder/1/

My definitions are sourced, and his definition of murder also works for the definition of manslaughter [1] (specifically, manslaughter is not premeditated, while murder is, and his definition does not include premeditation at all, so under his definition, manslaughter could be murder, when they are in fact separate terms). Thus, his definition is not as specific as my definition for murder, so my definitions shall be used for the debate. Furthermore, I use the noun definitions of murder and abortion, while he uses the noun definition for abortion and the verb definition for murder. The title uses them in the noun form (as opposed to it saying "To abort before the end of the second trimester is to murder, which is the verb form). My definitions are consistent, and thus they should be used. I have shown my definitions to be more appropriate for this debate, and they shall be used for the remainder of it, especially because Pro has not shown how my definitions are inappropriate in the only round where, according to the rules, he was allowed to do so. I am not breaking the rules by posting this, because this is a clarification necessary for the rest of the debate, and it is something that I could not respond to in Round One. Even though I have denied Pro's definitions, I believe my arguments will still work under his definitions. Now, this round deals with our main arguments. I remind my opponent that he is not allowed to respond to my arguments until the third round, where I will address his as well. He can only state his main argument in this round. Ultimately, I will prove that abortion is not the killing of an innocent human being, because the embryo/fetus is not a human being. I will remind you that murder is the killing of a human being, under both of our definitions, even though his is irrelevant. So, if I can prove that an embryo/fetus is not a human being, then abortion before the end of the second trimester is not murder. A human being is an organism [2], which is defined as: "An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal" [3]. So, if an embryo is not an organism, it is not a human being. Individuality is required for something to be considered an organism under organism's scientifically accepted definition. An embryo is not an organism, because it is not an individual. An individual is defined as: "A single, separate organism (animal or plant) distinguished from others of a same kind" [4]. Allow me to show you how it is not an individual. An embryo does not fall under this scientifically accepted definition of an individual, because it is not able to be separated from the mother it resides in without dying. In other words, its existence as life is dependent upon it being attached to the mother. It is not "separate," as the definition of individual requires. I do not expect my opponent to deny the fact that a fetus is attached to the mother, but I have cited this fact just in case [5]. For a fetus to be considered a human being, it must be an organism. For it to be considered an organism, it must have individuality, which it does not, because it is unable to survive without being attached to the mother. Now, one may argue that even if the fetus is dependent upon the mother, so is a person hooked up to an IV machine dependent upon the IV machine; thus, shouldn't a person hooked up to an IV machine be not considered a human being as well? No. To be dependent upon the mother is the fetus in its natural state, as opposed to someone hooked up on an IV machine. If whatever incident that caused a person to be hooked up to an IV machine did not happen, then the person would be considered a human being. Thus, he or she should still be considered a human being despite the handicaps, because what happened to him or her was an irregular occurrence. A normal fetus on the other hand has no "incident" happen to them; no defect is present, only natural processes, yet they remain dependent. If you keep the natural processes intact for both the fetus and the human, the human being would still be considered an individual, while the fetus would not. In principle, a person attached to an IV machine is still a human being; a fetus in principle is not a human being. I have shown how abortion before the end of the second trimester is not murder because murder involves killing a human being, which a fetus is not. According to the rules, my opponent has the burden of showing that abortion is murder in his main argument; he cannot directly respond to my arguments in round two, although his arguments can certainly contradict mine. He just cannot reference them directly. I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and I wish him luck. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>...

heisenberg

My definitions are sourced, and his definition of murder also works for the definition of manslaughter [1] (specifically, manslaughter is not premeditated, while murder is, and his definition does not include premeditation at all, so under his definition, manslaughter could be murder, when they are in fact separate terms). Thus, his definition is not as specific as my definition for murder, so my definitions shall be used for the debate. Furthermore, I use the noun definitions of murder and abortion, while he uses the noun definition for abortion and the verb definition for murder. The title uses them in the noun form (as opposed to it saying "To abort before the end of the second trimester is to murder, which is the verb form). My definitions are consistent, and thus they should be used. I have shown my definitions to be more appropriate for this debate, and they shall be used for the remainder of it, especially because Pro has not shown how my definitions are inappropriate in the only round where, according to the rules, he was allowed to do so. I am not breaking the rules by posting this, because this is a clarification necessary for the rest of the debate, and it is something that I could not respond to in Round One. Even though I have denied Pro's definitions, I believe my arguments will still work under his definitions. Now, this round deals with our main arguments. I remind my opponent that he is not allowed to respond to my arguments until the third round, where I will address his as well. He can only state his main argument in this round. Ultimately, I will prove that abortion is not the killing of an innocent human being, because the embryo/fetus is not a human being. I will remind you that murder is the killing of a human being, under both of our definitions, even though his is irrelevant. So, if I can prove that an embryo/fetus is not a human being, then abortion before the end of the second trimester is not murder. A human being is an organism [2], which is defined as: "An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal" [3]. So, if an embryo is not an organism, it is not a human being. Individuality is required for something to be considered an organism under organism's scientifically accepted definition. An embryo is not an organism, because it is not an individual. An individual is defined as: "A single, separate organism (animal or plant) distinguished from others of a same kind" [4]. Allow me to show you how it is not an individual. An embryo does not fall under this scientifically accepted definition of an individual, because it is not able to be separated from the mother it resides in without dying. In other words, its existence as life is dependent upon it being attached to the mother. It is not "separate," as the definition of individual requires. I do not expect my opponent to deny the fact that a fetus is attached to the mother, but I have cited this fact just in case [5]. For a fetus to be considered a human being, it must be an organism. For it to be considered an organism, it must have individuality, which it does not, because it is unable to survive without being attached to the mother. Now, one may argue that even if the fetus is dependent upon the mother, so is a person hooked up to an IV machine dependent upon the IV machine; thus, shouldn't a person hooked up to an IV machine be not considered a human being as well? No. To be dependent upon the mother is the fetus in its natural state, as opposed to someone hooked up on an IV machine. If whatever incident that caused a person to be hooked up to an IV machine did not happen, then the person would be considered a human being. Thus, he or she should still be considered a human being despite the handicaps, because what happened to him or her was an irregular occurrence. A normal fetus on the other hand has no "incident" happen to them; no defect is present, only natural processes, yet they remain dependent. If you keep the natural processes intact for both the fetus and the human, the human being would still be considered an individual, while the fetus would not. In principle, a person attached to an IV machine is still a human being; a fetus in principle is not a human being. I have shown how abortion before the end of the second trimester is not murder because murder involves killing a human being, which a fetus is not. According to the rules, my opponent has the burden of showing that abortion is murder in his main argument; he cannot directly respond to my arguments in round two, although his arguments can certainly contradict mine. He just cannot reference them directly. I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and I wish him luck. [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.project2061.org... [3] http://www.biology-online.org... [4] http://www.biology-online.org... [5] http://indianapublicmedia.org...

Philosophy

Abortion-before-the-end-of-the-second-trimester-is-murder/1/

Okay. I will do my best to respond to his argument, but honestly, there is not much to respond to. His statistics are from a biased source, and are technically incorrect under my argument that a fetus is not a human being, a thus certainly not a baby, as the source likes to refer fetuses as. You really can't abort babies; that would be infanticide, not abortion. "Is it any different if I killed you now than if I killed you as a fetus." Yes, yes there is. As a fetus, I am unable to value my own existence. Now, I value my existence. So, yes, there is a difference. "If you kill a fetus you take the life they will have." The fetus, even without being aborted, is not guaranteed their life until they are actually born healthy. So by aborting them, you may not be taking the life they will have. Something else may happen to them, like a miscarriage. But either way, that does not make it murder. I have shown how a fetus is not a human being; the act of an abortion is not taking a human being's life. "Would you want to be killed as a fetus because your mother didn't want you or wasn't able to care for you?" As a fetus, I would be unable to "want" or "not want" to be killed in the first place. Since I'm alive now, I value my life, but as a fetus, I am unable to value my life. But a fetus is not a human being; it has the possibility to develop into a human being if anything, but killing a possibility for a human being is not murder. An individual sperm has the possibility to develop into a baby as well, but male masturbation is not considered murder even by most Pro-life standards. Even if a sperm needs a female's egg to make life, so does a fetus need a woman's body to develop into a life. "It is a moral question in my opinion." It certainly is a moral question. It is very philosophical in nature. That said, philosophy is based off of reality, and to use scientific definitions to back up one's philosophy is not only a good idea but also required to be taken seriously, since science is an observation of reality. And it wasn't even like I rigged the definitions in my favor either; my arguments could work under your provided definitions, and the ones I provided in Round Two that I needed for my argument were scientifically based and not nitpicked from various sources. You, on the other hand, have only given emotional appeals with no evidence to back them up. Just because a question is a moral question doesn't mean that you can use your emotions to answer it. Rather, you should look at the evidence, which exists in statistics, definitions, scientific law, etc., to see which answer to this moral question is correct. I have provided biology facts and scientific definitions, along with the reasoning to apply the facts and definitions with each other, to prove my case correct. My opponent has not done this in his main argument. His main argument does not prove the notion that abortion before the second trimester is murder. For this reason, you should vote Con. Now, I will remind my opponent that in the third round he cannot state any new arguments; all he can do is rebut to the arguments I made in round two, as I have just done here with his arguments from round two. He cannot reply to the arguments I just made here in round three either, since I am unable to reply to his rebuttals made this round. All of this is in the rules. I thank my opponent for the debate.

heisenberg

Okay. I will do my best to respond to his argument, but honestly, there is not much to respond to. His statistics are from a biased source, and are technically incorrect under my argument that a fetus is not a human being, a thus certainly not a baby, as the source likes to refer fetuses as. You really can't abort babies; that would be infanticide, not abortion. "Is it any different if I killed you now than if I killed you as a fetus." Yes, yes there is. As a fetus, I am unable to value my own existence. Now, I value my existence. So, yes, there is a difference. "If you kill a fetus you take the life they will have." The fetus, even without being aborted, is not guaranteed their life until they are actually born healthy. So by aborting them, you may not be taking the life they will have. Something else may happen to them, like a miscarriage. But either way, that does not make it murder. I have shown how a fetus is not a human being; the act of an abortion is not taking a human being's life. "Would you want to be killed as a fetus because your mother didn't want you or wasn't able to care for you?" As a fetus, I would be unable to "want" or "not want" to be killed in the first place. Since I'm alive now, I value my life, but as a fetus, I am unable to value my life. But a fetus is not a human being; it has the possibility to develop into a human being if anything, but killing a possibility for a human being is not murder. An individual sperm has the possibility to develop into a baby as well, but male masturbation is not considered murder even by most Pro-life standards. Even if a sperm needs a female's egg to make life, so does a fetus need a woman's body to develop into a life. "It is a moral question in my opinion." It certainly is a moral question. It is very philosophical in nature. That said, philosophy is based off of reality, and to use scientific definitions to back up one's philosophy is not only a good idea but also required to be taken seriously, since science is an observation of reality. And it wasn't even like I rigged the definitions in my favor either; my arguments could work under your provided definitions, and the ones I provided in Round Two that I needed for my argument were scientifically based and not nitpicked from various sources. You, on the other hand, have only given emotional appeals with no evidence to back them up. Just because a question is a moral question doesn't mean that you can use your emotions to answer it. Rather, you should look at the evidence, which exists in statistics, definitions, scientific law, etc., to see which answer to this moral question is correct. I have provided biology facts and scientific definitions, along with the reasoning to apply the facts and definitions with each other, to prove my case correct. My opponent has not done this in his main argument. His main argument does not prove the notion that abortion before the second trimester is murder. For this reason, you should vote Con. Now, I will remind my opponent that in the third round he cannot state any new arguments; all he can do is rebut to the arguments I made in round two, as I have just done here with his arguments from round two. He cannot reply to the arguments I just made here in round three either, since I am unable to reply to his rebuttals made this round. All of this is in the rules. I thank my opponent for the debate.

Philosophy

Abortion-before-the-end-of-the-second-trimester-is-murder/1/

This debate concerns the popular conception that abortion is amoral. I will argue against this idea. Burden of proof is shared in this debate. Points of contension will include determining morality , when a fetus must morally be considered human, and the rights of the mother. Pro may take a lead in the first round. In each successive round, all opposing points must be refuted or conceded. New arguments may be introduced each round until the final round, which may only be used for refutation and concluding statements. No fallacious arguments are allowed. If one makes an argument by fallacy, and the fallacy is identified by the opponent, one must either restate the original argument in such a way as to avoid fallacy, demonstrate effectively why the argument is NOT fallacious, or concede the point. All arguments by fallacy, which are identified and not resolved, must be considered abandoned by voters.

Ricky_Zahnd

This debate concerns the popular conception that abortion is amoral. I will argue against this idea. Burden of proof is shared in this debate. Points of contension will include determining morality , when a fetus must morally be considered human, and the rights of the mother. Pro may take a lead in the first round. In each successive round, all opposing points must be refuted or conceded. New arguments may be introduced each round until the final round, which may only be used for refutation and concluding statements. No fallacious arguments are allowed. If one makes an argument by fallacy, and the fallacy is identified by the opponent, one must either restate the original argument in such a way as to avoid fallacy, demonstrate effectively why the argument is NOT fallacious, or concede the point. All arguments by fallacy, which are identified and not resolved, must be considered abandoned by voters.

Religion

Abortion-is-morally-indefensible./1/

I would like to thank Pro for accepting my invitation. This looks to be a very interesting debate. Before I really begin, I'd like to establish a very important disagreement: "In order for my opponent to win this debate, he must prove that the preborn human is not a living human. For if the preborn is not a living human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. However if the preborn is a living human, then no justification for abortion is sufficient." I want to be very clear that I in no way agree to these terms. By the agreement of this debate, the onus is on me to demonstrate that there do exist moral justifications for abortion, and my opponent must demonstrate that there do not . These are the terms established in the rules of this debate. I am in no way required to demonstrate that there is "no justification necessary" for abortion, as justification is necessary for all actions, especially ones which are morally complex. Refutation: Pro's main contention seems to be that fetuses are recognisably human from conception, and that therefore it is automatically amoral to terminate a pregnancy at any stage. The "humanity" of a zygote or blastocyst is far more debatable than Pro would have you believe, though its humanity or lack thereof is not necessary to provide moral justification for its termination. For instance: "...preborn humans exhibit other signs of life such as (but not limited to) respiration, cell division, and response to stimuli." This is a very misleading statement without a bit more refinement. The heart of a "preborn human" does not exist on a functional level until more than a month after conception, and there is no brain activity until almost 2 months.[1] To be clear, until this point the only "signs of life" a fetus exhibits are the same signs of life present in a lump of feces. Cellular respiration, division, and response to stimuli occur on levels which do not warrant moral notice to humans under any other conditions . Further, the "preborn human" does not even become implanted into the uterine wall until about the sixth day, and in most cases will not implant into the uterine wall at all.[2] At these early stages, accidental termination is a very real possibility - albeit without moral repercussions. Before I continue with refutation I'd like to establish a first point which will be arising within the refutation: C1: Humans establish their moral right to live on a scale of viability. There exist many scenarios in which a person may slacken their grip on life to the point which they cannot survive on their own. If a person is in a vegetative state, and continues living only with the aid of external apparatus. If a person has been shot on a battlefield, and only immediate medical attention can save them. If a person is in any kind of imminent danger, which they cannot escape on their own. In these situations, there is no moral onus on the other party to ensure the endangered party's survival - especially if there is some risk to their own will or well being. There may certainly be a moral reward for such self sacrifice, but that reward is only on the merit of it not being required. One may extrapolate from these scenarios a rule, by which a human's moral requirement to protect the life of another human may be calculated by contrasting the viability of the endangered human's bid on life with the aiding human's danger to self. If the aiding human stands to lose their life, or risk their ability to continue their life as they have determined in so far, and the endangered human stands little chance of surviving, then there may be no moral penalty should the aiding human decide to abandon their stake in the endangered human's predicament. If Pro's condition is that it is morally indefensible to allow a human or potential human to die, then we are all guilty every time someone we know dies, by nature of the fact that we failed to save them. I do not claim that zygotes are not potential humans, but I do claim that those who have already struggled into the world have more of a claim on life than a pile of cells with a squidge of DNA - which may blink out of existence via any number of causes (exponentially more so than a living human). C2: Foetal uncertainty/ action or inaction From the time of conception, pregnancies are fraught with uncertainty. Many factors may result in the loss of a pregnancy, or the development of an atypical pregnancy. At times a blastocyst may implant itself away from its ideal home - sometimes as afield as a mucus membrane in vaginal wall or anus, but far more commonly in the fallopian tubes.[3] Ectopic pregnancies such as these endanger both the mother and the "pre-human." Additionally, the "pre-human" stands great risk for malformations and defects under these conditions. When the "pre-human" faces such risks and also risks the life and well being of the mother, shouldn't we value the life of the human over that of the pre-human - especially if the pre-human has no conscious thought and can't experience pain or any kind of awareness? Many other scenarios come to mind when faced with the supposed certainty of a zygote's future. Twins, for instance. Beginning in 1903 Hans Spemann established (with the help of his infant daughter's hair) that any embryo may be formed into twins.[4] Two complete humans, each with a normal body and mind, have the potential to be born from each zygote, simply by applying slight pressure. If each embryo has the potential to become two humans, have we committed murder each time we birth only one child? The potential is there - so what is the difference? I anticipate that my opponent will argue that human intervention is the difference - that there is no requirement to ensure the creation of two children from each zygote, as each zygote would not "naturally" develop into two children if unaided. What is "natural," though? Is modern prenatal care natural? Surgically aided birthing? We have at this time reduced infant mortality to 0.65% - the lowest rate in history.[5] Is that "natural?" Clearly, natural is not the issue - as long as unnatural spurs us onward in unbridled proliferation. What responsibility do we then have to intervene in a pre-human' s development? Before we knew better - mothers smoked and drank alcohol during pregnancy, as well as engaging in other kinds of behavior that endangered their "pre-human." Were they committing manslaughter? To sum up C2 - the conditions under which mothers might be required to act or required not to act are deeply fraught and obscure. The viability of any given zygote is quite low. My opponent coined the term "pre-human" to personify the lump of cells that develops after fertilization, but only about 26% of those zygotes successfully implant, and an additional 31% of successfully implanted zygotes are miscarried.[6] That means that about 82% of "pre-humans" will never be humans. I argue then that you cannot murder something that stands less than a 1 in 5 chance of ever having a heartbeat. C3: Who's morality? Perhaps the biggest issue (to me) in this debate will be to determine what morality governs thes e scenarios. If morality is subjective (and my opponent has claimed in the past that it is), then who's to say what conditions apply - and why should someone Else's morality apply to a woman who wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy? In order to win, it seems as though my opponent must demonstrate that one conception of morality is superior to all others, and that it entirely and unflinchingly rules out abortion as a possibility. If he cannot, then he must accept that the subjectivity of morality provides its own justifications for abortion, and the resolution is moot. My citations are in a comment, due to lack of space.

Ricky_Zahnd

I would like to thank Pro for accepting my invitation. This looks to be a very interesting debate. Before I really begin, I'd like to establish a very important disagreement: "In order for my opponent to win this debate, he must prove that the preborn human is not a living human. For if the preborn is not a living human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. However if the preborn is a living human, then no justification for abortion is sufficient." I want to be very clear that I in no way agree to these terms. By the agreement of this debate, the onus is on me to demonstrate that there do exist moral justifications for abortion, and my opponent must demonstrate that there do not . These are the terms established in the rules of this debate. I am in no way required to demonstrate that there is "no justification necessary" for abortion, as justification is necessary for all actions, especially ones which are morally complex. Refutation: Pro's main contention seems to be that fetuses are recognisably human from conception, and that therefore it is automatically amoral to terminate a pregnancy at any stage. The "humanity" of a zygote or blastocyst is far more debatable than Pro would have you believe, though its humanity or lack thereof is not necessary to provide moral justification for its termination. For instance: "...preborn humans exhibit other signs of life such as (but not limited to) respiration, cell division, and response to stimuli." This is a very misleading statement without a bit more refinement. The heart of a "preborn human" does not exist on a functional level until more than a month after conception, and there is no brain activity until almost 2 months.[1] To be clear, until this point the only "signs of life" a fetus exhibits are the same signs of life present in a lump of feces. Cellular respiration, division, and response to stimuli occur on levels which do not warrant moral notice to humans under any other conditions . Further, the "preborn human" does not even become implanted into the uterine wall until about the sixth day, and in most cases will not implant into the uterine wall at all.[2] At these early stages, accidental termination is a very real possibility - albeit without moral repercussions. Before I continue with refutation I'd like to establish a first point which will be arising within the refutation: C1: Humans establish their moral right to live on a scale of viability. There exist many scenarios in which a person may slacken their grip on life to the point which they cannot survive on their own. If a person is in a vegetative state, and continues living only with the aid of external apparatus. If a person has been shot on a battlefield, and only immediate medical attention can save them. If a person is in any kind of imminent danger, which they cannot escape on their own. In these situations, there is no moral onus on the other party to ensure the endangered party's survival - especially if there is some risk to their own will or well being. There may certainly be a moral reward for such self sacrifice, but that reward is only on the merit of it not being required. One may extrapolate from these scenarios a rule, by which a human's moral requirement to protect the life of another human may be calculated by contrasting the viability of the endangered human's bid on life with the aiding human's danger to self. If the aiding human stands to lose their life, or risk their ability to continue their life as they have determined in so far, and the endangered human stands little chance of surviving, then there may be no moral penalty should the aiding human decide to abandon their stake in the endangered human's predicament. If Pro's condition is that it is morally indefensible to allow a human or potential human to die, then we are all guilty every time someone we know dies, by nature of the fact that we failed to save them. I do not claim that zygotes are not potential humans, but I do claim that those who have already struggled into the world have more of a claim on life than a pile of cells with a squidge of DNA - which may blink out of existence via any number of causes (exponentially more so than a living human). C2: Foetal uncertainty/ action or inaction From the time of conception, pregnancies are fraught with uncertainty. Many factors may result in the loss of a pregnancy, or the development of an atypical pregnancy. At times a blastocyst may implant itself away from its ideal home - sometimes as afield as a mucus membrane in vaginal wall or anus, but far more commonly in the fallopian tubes.[3] Ectopic pregnancies such as these endanger both the mother and the "pre-human." Additionally, the "pre-human" stands great risk for malformations and defects under these conditions. When the "pre-human" faces such risks and also risks the life and well being of the mother, shouldn't we value the life of the human over that of the pre-human - especially if the pre-human has no conscious thought and can't experience pain or any kind of awareness? Many other scenarios come to mind when faced with the supposed certainty of a zygote's future. Twins, for instance. Beginning in 1903 Hans Spemann established (with the help of his infant daughter's hair) that any embryo may be formed into twins.[4] Two complete humans, each with a normal body and mind, have the potential to be born from each zygote, simply by applying slight pressure. If each embryo has the potential to become two humans, have we committed murder each time we birth only one child? The potential is there - so what is the difference? I anticipate that my opponent will argue that human intervention is the difference - that there is no requirement to ensure the creation of two children from each zygote, as each zygote would not "naturally" develop into two children if unaided. What is "natural," though? Is modern prenatal care natural? Surgically aided birthing? We have at this time reduced infant mortality to 0.65% - the lowest rate in history.[5] Is that "natural?" Clearly, natural is not the issue - as long as unnatural spurs us onward in unbridled proliferation. What responsibility do we then have to intervene in a pre-human' s development? Before we knew better - mothers smoked and drank alcohol during pregnancy, as well as engaging in other kinds of behavior that endangered their "pre-human." Were they committing manslaughter? To sum up C2 - the conditions under which mothers might be required to act or required not to act are deeply fraught and obscure. The viability of any given zygote is quite low. My opponent coined the term "pre-human" to personify the lump of cells that develops after fertilization, but only about 26% of those zygotes successfully implant, and an additional 31% of successfully implanted zygotes are miscarried.[6] That means that about 82% of "pre-humans" will never be humans. I argue then that you cannot murder something that stands less than a 1 in 5 chance of ever having a heartbeat. C3: Who's morality? Perhaps the biggest issue (to me) in this debate will be to determine what morality governs thes e scenarios. If morality is subjective (and my opponent has claimed in the past that it is), then who's to say what conditions apply - and why should someone Else's morality apply to a woman who wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy? In order to win, it seems as though my opponent must demonstrate that one conception of morality is superior to all others, and that it entirely and unflinchingly rules out abortion as a possibility. If he cannot, then he must accept that the subjectivity of morality provides its own justifications for abortion, and the resolution is moot. My citations are in a comment, due to lack of space.

Religion

Abortion-is-morally-indefensible./1/

Thank you for your response - a very interesting read! The primary thrust of Pro's argument is that it is wrong to kill an innocent human. I do not disagree. However, I do argue that this idea misses the point. The whole idea of innocence is based on the idea that the subject is innocent of something - it implies punishment. You cannot punish something that cannot know it is being punished. The idea that one should refer to human grubs as human is equally absurd - should we start calling caterpillars butterflies, right from the beginning as well? There is no test (aside from DNA) that would demonstrate a zygote to be comparable to a human. In the early stages of formation embryos (regardless of the terminology, thanks for correcting me though) possess none of our cognition, senses, or anything that one thinks of when talking about living things. It is more morally correct to terminate something with no awareness than to cause suffering in something that is aware of that suffering . This is the reason I brought up the brain-dead patient. It is not only the fact that they stand low chance to recover that makes them candidates for termination, it is also the fact that they are unaware. This is a position that many people hold to be morally correct, and if my opponent wishes to negate their opinions and morality he must show that his own view of morality is superior. I see that Pro has decided to abandon foisting the BoP on me re: proving that the preborn human is not a living human. I think this was wise, as that idea is not necessarily contested and has no bearing on this debate. I ask that readers note that it has been abandoned. C1 In Pro's refutation he suggests that receiving medical training causes one to be morally required to save strangers lives whenever they may be imperilled. The existence of the term "good samaritan" shows why this is incorrect. Helping a stranger is a mitzvah - it gives one a karmic boost precisely because it is not required. Beyond this I'm not going to respond to Pro's other points, as they don't serve to advance an argument individually. Ignoring them does not represent concession. I refer back to my first paragraph of this round as further explanation of why my first condition remains valid. I.e., it is more morally correct to terminate something with no awareness than to cause suffering in something that is aware of that suffering . C2 In Pro's refutation he suggests that my argument was a straw man. This seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a straw man argument. In order to be a straw man my argument must have misrepresented his position, which it did not. I did slightly misquote him, and I apologize for that error, but the slight change in phrasing does not alter the representation of his position substantially, and therefore my argument still stands. I.e., regardless of whether or not a fetus is substantively human, you cannot murder something that stands less than a 1 in 5 chance of ever having a heartbeat . C3 I seem to have touched a nerve in quoting you - I certainly didn't mean to. However, the the multitudes of human cultures and respective mores - as well as this very debate - stand in stark testament to the subjectivity of morality. I believe that killing is morally wrong because it causes suffering, and making the choice to abort does not cause one to suffer. I know that many other people think that killing is wrong for a different reason - a reason that is linked to Christian belief in a human "soul." In religions such as Islam, adherents believe that some murder is even sanctioned by God. If such a fundamental moral issue as murder can differ based on religious beliefs, then my opponent must admit that morality is indeed subjective. To reiterate my previous point - why should someone else's morality apply to a woman who wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy (allowed by her own moral code)? If my opponent wishes to successfully affirm the resolution, he must prove that the moral code of these women is inferior to another, true moral code, and that that code entirely and unflinchingly rules out abortion as a moral possibility. I would note that I am not aware of an established moral code for which this is true, so Pro seems to have his work cut out for him in this department.

Ricky_Zahnd

Thank you for your response - a very interesting read! The primary thrust of Pro's argument is that it is wrong to kill an innocent human. I do not disagree. However, I do argue that this idea misses the point. The whole idea of innocence is based on the idea that the subject is innocent of something - it implies punishment. You cannot punish something that cannot know it is being punished. The idea that one should refer to human grubs as human is equally absurd - should we start calling caterpillars butterflies, right from the beginning as well? There is no test (aside from DNA) that would demonstrate a zygote to be comparable to a human. In the early stages of formation embryos (regardless of the terminology, thanks for correcting me though) possess none of our cognition, senses, or anything that one thinks of when talking about living things. It is more morally correct to terminate something with no awareness than to cause suffering in something that is aware of that suffering . This is the reason I brought up the brain-dead patient. It is not only the fact that they stand low chance to recover that makes them candidates for termination, it is also the fact that they are unaware. This is a position that many people hold to be morally correct, and if my opponent wishes to negate their opinions and morality he must show that his own view of morality is superior. I see that Pro has decided to abandon foisting the BoP on me re: proving that the preborn human is not a living human. I think this was wise, as that idea is not necessarily contested and has no bearing on this debate. I ask that readers note that it has been abandoned. C1 In Pro's refutation he suggests that receiving medical training causes one to be morally required to save strangers lives whenever they may be imperilled. The existence of the term "good samaritan" shows why this is incorrect. Helping a stranger is a mitzvah - it gives one a karmic boost precisely because it is not required. Beyond this I'm not going to respond to Pro's other points, as they don't serve to advance an argument individually. Ignoring them does not represent concession. I refer back to my first paragraph of this round as further explanation of why my first condition remains valid. I.e., it is more morally correct to terminate something with no awareness than to cause suffering in something that is aware of that suffering . C2 In Pro's refutation he suggests that my argument was a straw man. This seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a straw man argument. In order to be a straw man my argument must have misrepresented his position, which it did not. I did slightly misquote him, and I apologize for that error, but the slight change in phrasing does not alter the representation of his position substantially, and therefore my argument still stands. I.e., regardless of whether or not a fetus is substantively human, you cannot murder something that stands less than a 1 in 5 chance of ever having a heartbeat . C3 I seem to have touched a nerve in quoting you - I certainly didn't mean to. However, the the multitudes of human cultures and respective mores - as well as this very debate - stand in stark testament to the subjectivity of morality. I believe that killing is morally wrong because it causes suffering, and making the choice to abort does not cause one to suffer. I know that many other people think that killing is wrong for a different reason - a reason that is linked to Christian belief in a human "soul." In religions such as Islam, adherents believe that some murder is even sanctioned by God. If such a fundamental moral issue as murder can differ based on religious beliefs, then my opponent must admit that morality is indeed subjective. To reiterate my previous point - why should someone else's morality apply to a woman who wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy (allowed by her own moral code)? If my opponent wishes to successfully affirm the resolution, he must prove that the moral code of these women is inferior to another, true moral code, and that that code entirely and unflinchingly rules out abortion as a moral possibility. I would note that I am not aware of an established moral code for which this is true, so Pro seems to have his work cut out for him in this department.

Religion

Abortion-is-morally-indefensible./1/

As it is the final round, I will simply be reaffirming my positions as previously stated. It seems that Pro has misunderstood or merely mischaracterized my position - so I will attempt to make it as clear as possible. Pro states that the debate should be "clinched" for him, as I have not claimed that it is right to kill innocent humans. I will quote myself: "you cannot punish something that cannot know it is being punished," and " humanity or lack thereof is not necessary to provide moral justification for its termination." I refer further to my previous arguments: "I do not claim that zygotes are not potential humans, but I do claim that those who have already struggled into the world have more of a claim on life than a pile of cells with a squidge of DNA" and "82% of 'pre-humans' will never be humans. I argue then that you cannot murder something that stands less than a 1 in 5 chance of ever having a heartbeat." For these previously established reasons, it does not matter whether or not it is wrong to murder the innocent - that is not what is contested. What is contested is the conditions under which one must be considered human for moral purposes - not scientific ones. As I indicated previously, these qualities include cognizance, self-awareness and feelings, as well as the ability to make choices. These qualities exclude sleeping people,[5] but include those in persistent vegetative states - which, again, is why I brought them up - and early stages of pregnancy. Pro claimed that cellular division (growth) and respiration are adequate signs of life, but again I remind the reader that these same qualities apply to dog crap. Organisms within feces are breathing and reproducing, but we would never consider a moral obligation to them. Again, the argument over whether a zygote is human or not is merely semantic, and has no bearing on the outcome of this debate . In some respects it must make sense to refer to them as human, but that sense does not necessarily apply to moral obligation any more than in the case of feces. I, as well as many others, consider the conditions of one's existence to be substantive, rather than the terminology by which we refer to them. Some people's moral ideologies do determine the morality of abortion based on that terminology, but certainly not everyones - which brings me to my next point. Pro states that " it doesn't matter what our respective moralities are. It is commonly accepted that killing an innocent human is wrong. Con has not given an acceptable reason that killing an innocent human in utero is morally justified while killing an innocent human outside the womb is not ." However, I have continually been discussing some main points of Pro-Choice ideology over the course of this debate. If my arguments have not convinced Pro personally, that is alright, and I am not required to convince him by the terms of this debate. As I stated earlier, " the onus is on me to demonstrate that there do exist moral justifications for abortion, and my opponent must demonstrate that there do not. " In satisfying my burden, it is not necessary for me to show the falsehood of commonly accepted ideas - that is the burden of Pro, my opponent, who must "demonstrate that there do not." As for Pro's contention that I have not " given an acceptable reason that killing an innocent human in utero is morally justified," I would ask the reader to refer back and see whether or not I have spent the majority of this debate giving exactly those sorts of reasons - reasons which define the differences between a human in utero, and one ex utero (if you will). It is irrelevant whether or not Pro finds my reasons " acceptable ." What is relevant is that I and many others find those reasons to be ample moral justification for abortion - so I have indeed shown that there do exist moral justifications for abortion, satisfying my burden. In contradiction to Pro's notion of morality as " objective fact ," the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines morality is 1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her* own behavior It is the merest truism to state that there exist societies, groups of people, and individuals that feel that abortion is morally defensible in many cases. For instance, The National Abortion Federation [1], Pro-Choice America, [2], and Planned Parenthood [3], as well as the 1973 Supreme Court of the United States of America.[4] Even the Hebrew Bible discussed circumstances under which abortion is morally acceptable, in Numbers 5:11-31.[6] While I disagree with the Bible's proposition that abortion should be used as a punishment, it still stands as another of many examples of abortion-accepting moralities. Pro's idea of " objective truth " may represent his personal view, but it is not the same as morality - which is a formally defined concept. In light of this, Pro's " objective truth " should not be considered in determining the outcome of this debate. Pro has additionally failed to even mention my twice stated point, that he "must demonstrate that one conception of morality is superior to all others, and that it entirely and unflinchingly rules out abortion as a possibility." As I stated, " if he cannot, then he must accept that the subjectivity of morality provides its own justifications for abortion, and the resolution is moot." The fact that he has failed to address this marks the barest proof that he has not affirmed the resolution. To reiterate, as Pro has not - in any round of this debate - demonstrated that a single morality exists by which abortion is considered indefensible,[7] then he has failed to prove that abortion is morally indefensible. His attempts to characterize this debate in other terms have been refuted, but this most evident requirement stands untouched by him. By the terms set out at the start of this debate, Pro has lost. The fact that I have succeeded in demonstrating that there exist many moral justifications or abortion marks just as clearly that I have negated the resolution. I have given substantial evidence that early stage in utero humans differ from those post-birth, and that many people hold that evidence as moral justification for abortion. By the terms set out at the start of this debate, I have won. Thanks for reading our debate. citations: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] As in the straw man "Con would have us believe that it is more morally acceptable to kill someone in their sleep..." [6] <URL>... [7] Which is of course clearly impossible to begin with.. *sic

Ricky_Zahnd

As it is the final round, I will simply be reaffirming my positions as previously stated. It seems that Pro has misunderstood or merely mischaracterized my position - so I will attempt to make it as clear as possible. Pro states that the debate should be "clinched" for him, as I have not claimed that it is right to kill innocent humans. I will quote myself: "you cannot punish something that cannot know it is being punished," and " humanity or lack thereof is not necessary to provide moral justification for its termination." I refer further to my previous arguments: "I do not claim that zygotes are not potential humans, but I do claim that those who have already struggled into the world have more of a claim on life than a pile of cells with a squidge of DNA" and "82% of 'pre-humans' will never be humans. I argue then that you cannot murder something that stands less than a 1 in 5 chance of ever having a heartbeat." For these previously established reasons, it does not matter whether or not it is wrong to murder the innocent - that is not what is contested. What is contested is the conditions under which one must be considered human for moral purposes - not scientific ones. As I indicated previously, these qualities include cognizance, self-awareness and feelings, as well as the ability to make choices. These qualities exclude sleeping people,[5] but include those in persistent vegetative states - which, again, is why I brought them up - and early stages of pregnancy. Pro claimed that cellular division (growth) and respiration are adequate signs of life, but again I remind the reader that these same qualities apply to dog crap. Organisms within feces are breathing and reproducing, but we would never consider a moral obligation to them. Again, the argument over whether a zygote is human or not is merely semantic, and has no bearing on the outcome of this debate . In some respects it must make sense to refer to them as human, but that sense does not necessarily apply to moral obligation any more than in the case of feces. I, as well as many others, consider the conditions of one's existence to be substantive, rather than the terminology by which we refer to them. Some people's moral ideologies do determine the morality of abortion based on that terminology, but certainly not everyones - which brings me to my next point. Pro states that " it doesn't matter what our respective moralities are. It is commonly accepted that killing an innocent human is wrong. Con has not given an acceptable reason that killing an innocent human in utero is morally justified while killing an innocent human outside the womb is not ." However, I have continually been discussing some main points of Pro-Choice ideology over the course of this debate. If my arguments have not convinced Pro personally, that is alright, and I am not required to convince him by the terms of this debate. As I stated earlier, " the onus is on me to demonstrate that there do exist moral justifications for abortion, and my opponent must demonstrate that there do not. " In satisfying my burden, it is not necessary for me to show the falsehood of commonly accepted ideas - that is the burden of Pro, my opponent, who must "demonstrate that there do not." As for Pro's contention that I have not " given an acceptable reason that killing an innocent human in utero is morally justified," I would ask the reader to refer back and see whether or not I have spent the majority of this debate giving exactly those sorts of reasons - reasons which define the differences between a human in utero, and one ex utero (if you will). It is irrelevant whether or not Pro finds my reasons " acceptable ." What is relevant is that I and many others find those reasons to be ample moral justification for abortion - so I have indeed shown that there do exist moral justifications for abortion, satisfying my burden. In contradiction to Pro's notion of morality as " objective fact ," the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines morality is 1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her* own behavior It is the merest truism to state that there exist societies, groups of people, and individuals that feel that abortion is morally defensible in many cases. For instance, The National Abortion Federation [1], Pro-Choice America, [2], and Planned Parenthood [3], as well as the 1973 Supreme Court of the United States of America.[4] Even the Hebrew Bible discussed circumstances under which abortion is morally acceptable, in Numbers 5:11-31.[6] While I disagree with the Bible's proposition that abortion should be used as a punishment, it still stands as another of many examples of abortion-accepting moralities. Pro's idea of " objective truth " may represent his personal view, but it is not the same as morality - which is a formally defined concept. In light of this, Pro's " objective truth " should not be considered in determining the outcome of this debate. Pro has additionally failed to even mention my twice stated point, that he "must demonstrate that one conception of morality is superior to all others, and that it entirely and unflinchingly rules out abortion as a possibility." As I stated, " if he cannot, then he must accept that the subjectivity of morality provides its own justifications for abortion, and the resolution is moot." The fact that he has failed to address this marks the barest proof that he has not affirmed the resolution. To reiterate, as Pro has not - in any round of this debate - demonstrated that a single morality exists by which abortion is considered indefensible,[7] then he has failed to prove that abortion is morally indefensible. His attempts to characterize this debate in other terms have been refuted, but this most evident requirement stands untouched by him. By the terms set out at the start of this debate, Pro has lost. The fact that I have succeeded in demonstrating that there exist many moral justifications or abortion marks just as clearly that I have negated the resolution. I have given substantial evidence that early stage in utero humans differ from those post-birth, and that many people hold that evidence as moral justification for abortion. By the terms set out at the start of this debate, I have won. Thanks for reading our debate. citations: [1] http://www.prochoice.org... [2] http://www.prochoiceamerica.org... [3] http://www.plannedparenthood.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] As in the straw man "Con would have us believe that it is more morally acceptable to kill someone in their sleep..." [6] http://www.biblegateway.com... [7] Which is of course clearly impossible to begin with.. *sic

Religion

Abortion-is-morally-indefensible./1/

This is a real debate, unlike stevos. I will argue that abortion is wrong in all cases. You will argue that it is ok, but not ok after a certain point (late-term abortions). This first round is just a clarification. I will begin my arguments at the second round.

Da_King

This is a real debate, unlike stevos. I will argue that abortion is wrong in all cases. You will argue that it is ok, but not ok after a certain point (late-term abortions). This first round is just a clarification. I will begin my arguments at the second round.

Religion

Abortion-is-wrong/8/

I would like to take a moment to thank my opponent for accepting this debate... Thank you. I will argue the "weakest possible stance" because I believe that life is started right at the moment of conception. therefore, in my arguments, i will try to prove that an abortion in, any situation, is immoral and wrong. So this includes the "incontinence" of human life, all the rape cases, and the case in which it would result in a death due to medical complications. Before I begin, I will list some of the common methods for an abortion: 1) Dilation and Curettage (D&C;)- the cervix is dilated with a series of instruments to allow the insertion of a curette (a looped shaped steel knife). The unborn fetus is then cut into pieces and scraped from the uterine wall. 2) Suction Curettage, or Vacuum Aspiration- the cervix is dilated as in D&C;, then a tube with a very sharp edge on the tip is inserted into the uterus and connected to a strong suction apparatus, which tears the unborn fetus apart. 3) Menstrual Extraction- a very early suction abortion, often done before the pregnancy test is positive. 4) Dilation and Evacuation (D&E;)- by week 12, the baby's bones are hardening and can no longer be pulled apart with suction. Abortion is now achieved by dismemberment. 5) Salt poisoning, or Saline Injection- used after 16 weeks, a long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the fetus' sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. O.K. now onto my case. What makes a fetus turn into a human being? Is it really when it sees light for the first time, or when we can see it? Is it when it can feel, or when its heart starts beating? If you can logically prove to me that human life is not started at conception, you win. At the moment of conception, the fetus has all of it's DNA laid out. It already has an eye color and a unique fingernail print. Now assuming that the fetus is human, the Deceleration of Independence would apply to it. Deceleration of Independence states this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." So me and you are given these rights that cannot be taken away. And it the fetus is human it should be protected by these rights. An because these rights are given to us by our Creator, who ever that may be, it would by immoral to take them away. To close up my part of the round, I would encourage my opponent to take the advantange and retreat behind a "time-limit."

Da_King

I would like to take a moment to thank my opponent for accepting this debate... Thank you. I will argue the "weakest possible stance" because I believe that life is started right at the moment of conception. therefore, in my arguments, i will try to prove that an abortion in, any situation, is immoral and wrong. So this includes the "incontinence" of human life, all the rape cases, and the case in which it would result in a death due to medical complications. Before I begin, I will list some of the common methods for an abortion: 1) Dilation and Curettage (D&C;)- the cervix is dilated with a series of instruments to allow the insertion of a curette (a looped shaped steel knife). The unborn fetus is then cut into pieces and scraped from the uterine wall. 2) Suction Curettage, or Vacuum Aspiration- the cervix is dilated as in D&C;, then a tube with a very sharp edge on the tip is inserted into the uterus and connected to a strong suction apparatus, which tears the unborn fetus apart. 3) Menstrual Extraction- a very early suction abortion, often done before the pregnancy test is positive. 4) Dilation and Evacuation (D&E;)- by week 12, the baby's bones are hardening and can no longer be pulled apart with suction. Abortion is now achieved by dismemberment. 5) Salt poisoning, or Saline Injection- used after 16 weeks, a long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the fetus' sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. O.K. now onto my case. What makes a fetus turn into a human being? Is it really when it sees light for the first time, or when we can see it? Is it when it can feel, or when its heart starts beating? If you can logically prove to me that human life is not started at conception, you win. At the moment of conception, the fetus has all of it's DNA laid out. It already has an eye color and a unique fingernail print. Now assuming that the fetus is human, the Deceleration of Independence would apply to it. Deceleration of Independence states this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." So me and you are given these rights that cannot be taken away. And it the fetus is human it should be protected by these rights. An because these rights are given to us by our Creator, who ever that may be, it would by immoral to take them away. To close up my part of the round, I would encourage my opponent to take the advantange and retreat behind a "time-limit."

Religion

Abortion-is-wrong/8/

First, I would like to point out that I am the pro, not the con. Address me a such. Now to refute my opponent's first bulky paragraph. This debate is not about the law. I am not trying to prove that the law should be changed, although I wish it was. I am trying to convince all the viewers and my opponent that abortion is morally wrong. So that paragraph is really irrelevant to this debate, however I would be willing to debate you that it should be illegal. Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong. So my argument is that an abortion is killing a human. Now onto the difference between a fetus and a "human." My opponents says: "What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person." Rob1billion, let me ask you something. Do you think that newborns are human. Because if you do, I would like to point out that fact that newborns do not really have characteristics, just like a fetus. And if you don't think that newborns are humans, I would like to bring that more into the argument. Now for your last paragraph. The unfortunate fact the women or blacks had really no rights was very sad. But this was a misconception. The reason why I said that was to point out that humans have certain rights, and as you know, my argument is a fetus is a human. And for a closer, Rob1billion, why would you not have an abortion yourself?

Da_King

First, I would like to point out that I am the pro, not the con. Address me a such. Now to refute my opponent's first bulky paragraph. This debate is not about the law. I am not trying to prove that the law should be changed, although I wish it was. I am trying to convince all the viewers and my opponent that abortion is morally wrong. So that paragraph is really irrelevant to this debate, however I would be willing to debate you that it should be illegal. Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong. So my argument is that an abortion is killing a human. Now onto the difference between a fetus and a "human." My opponents says: "What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person." Rob1billion, let me ask you something. Do you think that newborns are human. Because if you do, I would like to point out that fact that newborns do not really have characteristics, just like a fetus. And if you don't think that newborns are humans, I would like to bring that more into the argument. Now for your last paragraph. The unfortunate fact the women or blacks had really no rights was very sad. But this was a misconception. The reason why I said that was to point out that humans have certain rights, and as you know, my argument is a fetus is a human. And for a closer, Rob1billion, why would you not have an abortion yourself?

Religion

Abortion-is-wrong/8/

Assuming that "moral absolute" means that it is either right or wrong, my thesis is a moral absolute. So, yes, if you can prove that, even under one circumstance, abortion is the morally right thing to do, you beat me. In the medical case that you provided next, this is my response. Think of this. A terrorist gives me a gun and says, "Kill this innocent human. If you kill him, you live and he dies. If you don't kill him, he lives and you die." Now, in this situation, I would say that I would not kill him. I would not kill him because I would be killing an innocent life which is morally wrong. My example brings me back to my main point: a fetus is a human being. Therefore, does not deserve to die, and should not die at the mothers will. "Is this "wrong"? By whose standards?" It is wrong by the moral standard created by the Creator. (If you would like to have a debate on "there is a moral standard," I would love to have that debate.) "Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong." My bad. I will rephrase that: "Many of us would agree that killing innocent human life is morally wrong." "Now I would urge Pro to please address my question of "what makes you a person?" that I posed in round 2." I did not see any question in round two, but I will answer it now. What makes me human, and not an animal, is that I have a soul that will live on after I die. "My argument will be based on the fact that a fetus is not a person, because although it has human DNA, there just isn't enough of the organism present to be able to undergo the human experience that makes us people." To this I say: we all have different experiences. So, according to him, some of us are more human than others. Also, if there isn't enough organism present, then tall and big people are more human than short and skinny people. Experience does not decided a person's level of humanity. I have a few examples. I newborn that dies a week after birth. Or a paralyzed, blind, deaf person. Are none of these humans? Again, experience does not decide what is human. "What's the difference between a newborn and a fetus? Well, the differences are that the mother has accepted the responsibility of taking that child into this world and raising it." By saying this, he discredits all of his past arguments. I will quote him, "What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person." It also discredits the whole experience. Plus, being human should not be dependent on a mother. "Children DON'T RAISE THEMSELVES, so unless the mother makes that commitment, the fetus has no right to compel others to raise it." This debate is not about raising humans, it is about life or death. So what about orphans? By what you are saying, I can infer that you would say that an orphan has no rights. You go onto say that newborns are human because they interact with others. Again, what about the blind, lame, mute, deaf man? Is he not human? Or the one antisocial person? How about a person in a coma? The difference between a fetus and a newborn is not how much it interacts. Oh, and it is known that a fetus can recognize a mother's voice. They also kick. "OK, well your argument back-fired." I don't see it. Finally, onto your last paragraph. "If I did decide that an abortion was in our best interests, and I chose to convince her of that, it would be after undergoing a thorough ethical analysis of the situation in which I decided that the fetus' development and birth could cause more strife than good..." There is not much to say to this. But I would hope that if this situation ever comes up, that during your "ethical analysis," you would realize that it is not up to either of you at that point. Thank you for this debate. I know that I enjoyed it, and I really hope that I convinced you to choose, and preach, life. By the way, Vikings are two, maybe three, times better than the Packers.

Da_King

Assuming that "moral absolute" means that it is either right or wrong, my thesis is a moral absolute. So, yes, if you can prove that, even under one circumstance, abortion is the morally right thing to do, you beat me. In the medical case that you provided next, this is my response. Think of this. A terrorist gives me a gun and says, "Kill this innocent human. If you kill him, you live and he dies. If you don't kill him, he lives and you die." Now, in this situation, I would say that I would not kill him. I would not kill him because I would be killing an innocent life which is morally wrong. My example brings me back to my main point: a fetus is a human being. Therefore, does not deserve to die, and should not die at the mothers will. "Is this "wrong"? By whose standards?" It is wrong by the moral standard created by the Creator. (If you would like to have a debate on "there is a moral standard," I would love to have that debate.) "Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong." My bad. I will rephrase that: "Many of us would agree that killing innocent human life is morally wrong." "Now I would urge Pro to please address my question of "what makes you a person?" that I posed in round 2." I did not see any question in round two, but I will answer it now. What makes me human, and not an animal, is that I have a soul that will live on after I die. "My argument will be based on the fact that a fetus is not a person, because although it has human DNA, there just isn't enough of the organism present to be able to undergo the human experience that makes us people." To this I say: we all have different experiences. So, according to him, some of us are more human than others. Also, if there isn't enough organism present, then tall and big people are more human than short and skinny people. Experience does not decided a person's level of humanity. I have a few examples. I newborn that dies a week after birth. Or a paralyzed, blind, deaf person. Are none of these humans? Again, experience does not decide what is human. "What's the difference between a newborn and a fetus? Well, the differences are that the mother has accepted the responsibility of taking that child into this world and raising it." By saying this, he discredits all of his past arguments. I will quote him, "What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person." It also discredits the whole experience. Plus, being human should not be dependent on a mother. "Children DON'T RAISE THEMSELVES, so unless the mother makes that commitment, the fetus has no right to compel others to raise it." This debate is not about raising humans, it is about life or death. So what about orphans? By what you are saying, I can infer that you would say that an orphan has no rights. You go onto say that newborns are human because they interact with others. Again, what about the blind, lame, mute, deaf man? Is he not human? Or the one antisocial person? How about a person in a coma? The difference between a fetus and a newborn is not how much it interacts. Oh, and it is known that a fetus can recognize a mother's voice. They also kick. "OK, well your argument back-fired." I don't see it. Finally, onto your last paragraph. "If I did decide that an abortion was in our best interests, and I chose to convince her of that, it would be after undergoing a thorough ethical analysis of the situation in which I decided that the fetus' development and birth could cause more strife than good..." There is not much to say to this. But I would hope that if this situation ever comes up, that during your "ethical analysis," you would realize that it is not up to either of you at that point. Thank you for this debate. I know that I enjoyed it, and I really hope that I convinced you to choose, and preach, life. By the way, Vikings are two, maybe three, times better than the Packers.

Religion

Abortion-is-wrong/8/

I am not currently accepting debates because of my recent forfeits due to time constraints, but this one isn't something that should take much researching or thought as I have done it before. "This is a real debate, unlike stevos." Very well... "I will argue that abortion is wrong in all cases." If you insist on taking the weakest possible stance, that is your choice. I would have suggested you take a position worth defending, for instance "Abortion is wrong after 3 months", or "Abortion is wrong when it is not used to save the life of the mother". You must feel very confident in your debating skill indeed, or else you think you have an ace in the hole with me. Otherwise, you are simply careless and this is going to be over before it starts. We shall see. "You will argue that it is ok, but not ok after a certain point (late-term abortions)." I'll negate the thesis "Abortion is wrong". I'm not going to bother retreating behind a time-limit. If I did, it would only be in my favor anyway, as it is usually much more difficult to justify abortion as the fetus develops more and more. Again, Pro has insisted on taking the weakest possible stance on the issue. Unless he is going to try and appeal to religion to win his argument, it's hard to believe that he can show without a doubt that abortion is wrong in every single possible case without exception.

Rob1Billion

I am not currently accepting debates because of my recent forfeits due to time constraints, but this one isn't something that should take much researching or thought as I have done it before. "This is a real debate, unlike stevos." Very well... "I will argue that abortion is wrong in all cases." If you insist on taking the weakest possible stance, that is your choice. I would have suggested you take a position worth defending, for instance "Abortion is wrong after 3 months", or "Abortion is wrong when it is not used to save the life of the mother". You must feel very confident in your debating skill indeed, or else you think you have an ace in the hole with me. Otherwise, you are simply careless and this is going to be over before it starts. We shall see. "You will argue that it is ok, but not ok after a certain point (late-term abortions)." I'll negate the thesis "Abortion is wrong". I'm not going to bother retreating behind a time-limit. If I did, it would only be in my favor anyway, as it is usually much more difficult to justify abortion as the fetus develops more and more. Again, Pro has insisted on taking the weakest possible stance on the issue. Unless he is going to try and appeal to religion to win his argument, it's hard to believe that he can show without a doubt that abortion is wrong in every single possible case without exception.

Religion

Abortion-is-wrong/8/

Con starts out the round with a list of abortive methods, designed to show the barbarism which is abortion. The fetus, for the record, is sliced, diced, sucked into a tube, dismembered, and poisoned. Con's research was negligent, however, because he is being rhetorical and wanted you all to believe that these are the only practiced methods. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I think that, under further examination of the remaining techniques, the deception of his methods will be uncovered. 6) Coat hanger prodding- In this method, the weary mother, delirious from the fact that her pregnancy is causing her strife and her government won't allow an abortion, jams a metal coat hanger up into her... Whatever you call that stuff, I'm terrible with female anatomy. The fetus is impaled repeatedly until it breaks into little pieces. I'm not sure what happens next because if you couldn't already tell biology isn't my thing. After the baby falls out in pieces, the mother commonly suffers internal bleeding and infection, which can, a significant portion of the time, result in death since the infection is already well inside her torso. 7) Drugs- The mother takes back-alley drugs which are promised to kill her unwanted baby. If they don't wipe out her reproductive system entirely, they probably aren't going to do her or her fetus much good. The sky is the limit on how much harm they will both suffer. If there are other methods, I need not go any further. Con's problem is this: like many pro-lifers, they just don't get it. Abortion law isn't about whether or not to get an abortion. I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm out shopping for abortions, or that I would ever even consider getting them myself. It is about human rights. Law, in general, isn't about what's best. It's about what is the least worst. It's just like if my dog digs a hole in my backyard and someone steps in it and sues me. It's not my fault, I didn't dig it! The law seems unfair, but it must be that way because of the least worst situation: I could start digging hidden holes to hurt people and be legally exempt because "my dog did it". In the same sense, the least worst situation is that women go out and get back-yard abortions, after being denied service. Just like the illegal drug market thrives, the illegal abortion market would be created and thrive. Most likely it would just be some abortion drugs that are sold through the already-existent illegal drug infrastructure. "If you can logically prove to me that human life is not started at conception, you win." Ah yes, the newbie cardinal error: thinking that they can willfully contain the debate within their pre-conceived parameters. This is the "question of humanity" argument for fetuses. It basically comes down to this: "What makes us human beings?" Con answers the question by saying life starts at conception. Fair enough, a zygote is alive... No argument there. But sperm are alive too. Is every ejaculation filled with millions of "alive" sperm that should be protected? Where are their rights? Sure, they only have half of the DNA, but does DNA really make the individual? The real difference between sperm, zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. and PEOPLE is that a person is more than the sum of their parts. If I asked you "what makes you a person?" What would you say? If I said "What gives your life meaning? "What gives you sentience?" "What separates you from apes?" I would hope your answer wouldn't be as poorly constructed as "eye color, finger-print, and DNA" as your round 2 argument implies. Instead of merely asking these questions, I will go to the next step and answer them as well. What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person. An embryo is not a person, it is a clump of cells that, if nurtured, can be a person some day. It won't be able to do it by itself. If it could, perhaps a better argument could be made. But the fact is that the mother must take responsibility for the child and raise it, or else it has no future. If the mother is unwilling to do this, there is little you can do with rhetoric to change this sad part of life. As far as the Declaration of Independence is concerned, you have a long way to go before you make a legal argument for your case. I don't think the Framers had zygotes in mind when they wrote "All men are created equal..." Hell, they didn't even have women in mind! The Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution, and they haven't interpreted it that way yet, however you just may get your wish if some more Christians get on the court.

Rob1Billion

Con starts out the round with a list of abortive methods, designed to show the barbarism which is abortion. The fetus, for the record, is sliced, diced, sucked into a tube, dismembered, and poisoned. Con's research was negligent, however, because he is being rhetorical and wanted you all to believe that these are the only practiced methods. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I think that, under further examination of the remaining techniques, the deception of his methods will be uncovered. 6) Coat hanger prodding- In this method, the weary mother, delirious from the fact that her pregnancy is causing her strife and her government won't allow an abortion, jams a metal coat hanger up into her... Whatever you call that stuff, I'm terrible with female anatomy. The fetus is impaled repeatedly until it breaks into little pieces. I'm not sure what happens next because if you couldn't already tell biology isn't my thing. After the baby falls out in pieces, the mother commonly suffers internal bleeding and infection, which can, a significant portion of the time, result in death since the infection is already well inside her torso. 7) Drugs- The mother takes back-alley drugs which are promised to kill her unwanted baby. If they don't wipe out her reproductive system entirely, they probably aren't going to do her or her fetus much good. The sky is the limit on how much harm they will both suffer. If there are other methods, I need not go any further. Con's problem is this: like many pro-lifers, they just don't get it. Abortion law isn't about whether or not to get an abortion. I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm out shopping for abortions, or that I would ever even consider getting them myself. It is about human rights. Law, in general, isn't about what's best. It's about what is the least worst. It's just like if my dog digs a hole in my backyard and someone steps in it and sues me. It's not my fault, I didn't dig it! The law seems unfair, but it must be that way because of the least worst situation: I could start digging hidden holes to hurt people and be legally exempt because "my dog did it". In the same sense, the least worst situation is that women go out and get back-yard abortions, after being denied service. Just like the illegal drug market thrives, the illegal abortion market would be created and thrive. Most likely it would just be some abortion drugs that are sold through the already-existent illegal drug infrastructure. "If you can logically prove to me that human life is not started at conception, you win." Ah yes, the newbie cardinal error: thinking that they can willfully contain the debate within their pre-conceived parameters. This is the "question of humanity" argument for fetuses. It basically comes down to this: "What makes us human beings?" Con answers the question by saying life starts at conception. Fair enough, a zygote is alive... No argument there. But sperm are alive too. Is every ejaculation filled with millions of "alive" sperm that should be protected? Where are their rights? Sure, they only have half of the DNA, but does DNA really make the individual? The real difference between sperm, zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. and PEOPLE is that a person is more than the sum of their parts. If I asked you "what makes you a person?" What would you say? If I said "What gives your life meaning? "What gives you sentience?" "What separates you from apes?" I would hope your answer wouldn't be as poorly constructed as "eye color, finger-print, and DNA" as your round 2 argument implies. Instead of merely asking these questions, I will go to the next step and answer them as well. What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person. An embryo is not a person, it is a clump of cells that, if nurtured, can be a person some day. It won't be able to do it by itself. If it could, perhaps a better argument could be made. But the fact is that the mother must take responsibility for the child and raise it, or else it has no future. If the mother is unwilling to do this, there is little you can do with rhetoric to change this sad part of life. As far as the Declaration of Independence is concerned, you have a long way to go before you make a legal argument for your case. I don't think the Framers had zygotes in mind when they wrote "All men are created equal..." Hell, they didn't even have women in mind! The Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution, and they haven't interpreted it that way yet, however you just may get your wish if some more Christians get on the court.

Religion

Abortion-is-wrong/8/

Before I get into rebutting Pro's points, I would like to point out that his thesis is a moral absolute, which really isn't very provable. I would put a situation in which abortion would fail to be "wrong", and if it calls to question his absolute statement then there really isn't any reason to keep debating the finer points of the argument. 1) The health of the mother is at stake. It is determined by doctors that the mother will die if the fetus is carried to term. This would cause a massive tragedy in the lives of the mother, father, and everyone these people know. The damage sustained by this group of people would be unjustifiable, as the mother could very well just adopt or try again to conceive under better consequences. Is this "wrong"? By whose standards? "First, I would like to point out that I am the pro, not the con. Address me a such." I'll tell you what. If you agree to clean up your grammar and re-read your arguments before you post, I'll agree to be more thorough on how I address you. "So that paragraph is really irrelevant to this debate..." Fair enough, abortion is usually a legal debate but the law need not play into a strict argument about whether it is morally wrong. I won't mention law in the next two rounds. "Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong." No, many of us wouldn't. I can think of plenty of times when killing isn't morally wrong. Washing your hands kills thousands if not millions of germs, and there isn't anything immoral about killing them. Furthermore, killing people is justifiable in self defense. "So my argument is that an abortion is killing a human." It depends on the terminology used. Most pro-choicers use the word "potential human", although I prefer to call the fetus a "potential person", since its DNA is obviously human. So I will give you the ability to use that statement in this argument. My argument will be based on the fact that a fetus is not a person, because although it has human DNA, there just isn't enough of the organism present to be able to undergo the human experience that makes us people. Now I would urge Pro to please address my question of "what makes you a person?" that I posed in round 2. This rhetorical question is designed to prompt Pro into letting us know what values make him who he is, and any of those values that have any worth whatsoever are not going to be present in the fetus at all. So, Pro, since I have faithfully answered all of your questions, please answer mine. "Do you think that newborns are human?" Yes. To save us all time, let's jump ahead to your real point. What's the difference between a newborn and a fetus? Well, the differences are that the mother has accepted the responsibility of taking that child into this world and raising it. Children DON'T RAISE THEMSELVES, so unless the mother makes that commitment, the fetus has no right to compel others to raise it. If the fetus is born and turns into a child, then I would argue it has achieved enough of its life that it should be helped by any and all that can help it, through foster care or what have you, but no one can compel another person to biologically raise a fetus into childhood. The newborn baby cries (demonstrating a fear of death, pleasure and pain, personality, {although this in and of itself does not encompass all of these concepts, it does at least show some evidence for them}) and interacts with others, which marks the beginning of its life as a person. If one person is suffering, another should help. If a fetus is suffering, its life is still in the hands of the mother, and I wouldn't hold any other person accountable if they chose not to assist a fetus as this opens up a slippery slope argument that is quite ridiculous: Fetus' rights. If the fetus is a person, then it has all the rights a person has. If a mother does anything that may potentially harm her fetus, even if it is one day old in the womb, then the fetus must be protected by law. This is absurd. The really absurd thing is that there would likely be people willing to push for these laws, as well, as is demonstrated by protesters holding signs of dead fetuses. "The unfortunate fact the women or blacks had really no rights was very sad. But this was a misconception." I can't understand your bad grammar, but you must be referring to the "All men are created equal" argument. Your next and final sentence in this paragraph is: "The reason why I said that was to point out that humans have certain rights, and as you know, my argument is a fetus is a human." OK, well your argument back-fired. Using the Dec of Ind to support fetus' rights was not a good idea. I would drop it now before you dig any deeper of a hole (hint-hint). "Rob1billion, why would you not have an abortion yourself?" My intention was not to say that would NEVER get an abortion under any circumstance, my statement was to say that my pro-choice status does not depend on me wanting to get an abortion. "I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm out shopping for abortions, or that I would ever even consider getting them myself." It is ambiguously worded, however, that one may make that assumption based on it, so I will take the blame for the miscommunication in this case. My answer to your question is that my decision to get an abortion is really irrelevant, because if I got some woman pregnant it would be her choice, not mine. If I did decide that an abortion was in our best interests, and I chose to convince her of that, it would be after undergoing a thorough ethical analysis of the situation in which I decided that the fetus' development and birth could cause more strife than good, and that I could create a much better environment for another potential child of mine in a better situation in some other time.

Rob1Billion

Before I get into rebutting Pro's points, I would like to point out that his thesis is a moral absolute, which really isn't very provable. I would put a situation in which abortion would fail to be "wrong", and if it calls to question his absolute statement then there really isn't any reason to keep debating the finer points of the argument. 1) The health of the mother is at stake. It is determined by doctors that the mother will die if the fetus is carried to term. This would cause a massive tragedy in the lives of the mother, father, and everyone these people know. The damage sustained by this group of people would be unjustifiable, as the mother could very well just adopt or try again to conceive under better consequences. Is this "wrong"? By whose standards? "First, I would like to point out that I am the pro, not the con. Address me a such." I'll tell you what. If you agree to clean up your grammar and re-read your arguments before you post, I'll agree to be more thorough on how I address you. "So that paragraph is really irrelevant to this debate..." Fair enough, abortion is usually a legal debate but the law need not play into a strict argument about whether it is morally wrong. I won't mention law in the next two rounds. "Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong." No, many of us wouldn't. I can think of plenty of times when killing isn't morally wrong. Washing your hands kills thousands if not millions of germs, and there isn't anything immoral about killing them. Furthermore, killing people is justifiable in self defense. "So my argument is that an abortion is killing a human." It depends on the terminology used. Most pro-choicers use the word "potential human", although I prefer to call the fetus a "potential person", since its DNA is obviously human. So I will give you the ability to use that statement in this argument. My argument will be based on the fact that a fetus is not a person, because although it has human DNA, there just isn't enough of the organism present to be able to undergo the human experience that makes us people. Now I would urge Pro to please address my question of "what makes you a person?" that I posed in round 2. This rhetorical question is designed to prompt Pro into letting us know what values make him who he is, and any of those values that have any worth whatsoever are not going to be present in the fetus at all. So, Pro, since I have faithfully answered all of your questions, please answer mine. "Do you think that newborns are human?" Yes. To save us all time, let's jump ahead to your real point. What's the difference between a newborn and a fetus? Well, the differences are that the mother has accepted the responsibility of taking that child into this world and raising it. Children DON'T RAISE THEMSELVES, so unless the mother makes that commitment, the fetus has no right to compel others to raise it. If the fetus is born and turns into a child, then I would argue it has achieved enough of its life that it should be helped by any and all that can help it, through foster care or what have you, but no one can compel another person to biologically raise a fetus into childhood. The newborn baby cries (demonstrating a fear of death, pleasure and pain, personality, {although this in and of itself does not encompass all of these concepts, it does at least show some evidence for them}) and interacts with others, which marks the beginning of its life as a person. If one person is suffering, another should help. If a fetus is suffering, its life is still in the hands of the mother, and I wouldn't hold any other person accountable if they chose not to assist a fetus as this opens up a slippery slope argument that is quite ridiculous: Fetus' rights. If the fetus is a person, then it has all the rights a person has. If a mother does anything that may potentially harm her fetus, even if it is one day old in the womb, then the fetus must be protected by law. This is absurd. The really absurd thing is that there would likely be people willing to push for these laws, as well, as is demonstrated by protesters holding signs of dead fetuses. "The unfortunate fact the women or blacks had really no rights was very sad. But this was a misconception." I can't understand your bad grammar, but you must be referring to the "All men are created equal" argument. Your next and final sentence in this paragraph is: "The reason why I said that was to point out that humans have certain rights, and as you know, my argument is a fetus is a human." OK, well your argument back-fired. Using the Dec of Ind to support fetus' rights was not a good idea. I would drop it now before you dig any deeper of a hole (hint-hint). "Rob1billion, why would you not have an abortion yourself?" My intention was not to say that would NEVER get an abortion under any circumstance, my statement was to say that my pro-choice status does not depend on me wanting to get an abortion. "I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm out shopping for abortions, or that I would ever even consider getting them myself." It is ambiguously worded, however, that one may make that assumption based on it, so I will take the blame for the miscommunication in this case. My answer to your question is that my decision to get an abortion is really irrelevant, because if I got some woman pregnant it would be her choice, not mine. If I did decide that an abortion was in our best interests, and I chose to convince her of that, it would be after undergoing a thorough ethical analysis of the situation in which I decided that the fetus' development and birth could cause more strife than good, and that I could create a much better environment for another potential child of mine in a better situation in some other time.

Religion

Abortion-is-wrong/8/

Pro answers my hypothetical situation with an analogy that is barely relevant. Asking me to murder some random man with a handgun is not the same as a mother choosing to terminate her pregnancy for these reasons: Other than the parents who are merely expecting the child, yet have not even met it, the fetus has not touched anyone's lives and established social connections which would create a void when it is lost. No one will miss it. Pro-lifers try to make to argument that the parents have created some spiritual connection or something, but the truth is they can just choose to get pregnant again. Modern technology allows you an ultrasound picture, but this isn't the same as actually interacting with it. Parents, of course, feel a loss when a pregnancy is failed, but this is nothing like the loss of an actual person. Consider the difference between if your 10 year old boy is suddenly abducted by some man in a park. Is this comparable to losing a pregnancy? Why not? The answer is that the difference between your 10 year old boy and a 10 week old fetus is that your boy is a person and the fetus is not. Murdering the man with the handgun erases an infinitely complex human personality. The man has (potentially) a family, friends, co-workers that depend on him... He is afraid of death, as you can tell when you point the gun at him. He is capable of begging for his life, even. He is a result of years worth of human interaction, learning, and growing. He is a much more valuable entity than a bundle of cells in a womb. We may be able to see the beginnings of life in the womb by using extremely sophisticated equipment that can measure electrical activity and such, but these phenomena are not adequately explained by experts. What does an electrical current running through the fetus' brain mean? A thought? Emotion? Or is it just an electrical current that really doesn't mean anything? This type of evidence does not compare to looking at a man's terror-stricken face while you point a gun at him. "It is wrong by the moral standard created by the Creator." As I predicted before the debate started, Pro's argument is too weak to defend, without invoking superstition. To this I might as well reply that the Flying Spaghetti Monster says this is OK. The FSM is the Christian God's superior. "Many of us would agree that killing innocent human life is morally wrong." I don't. A batch of sperm is innocent human life. I say: let's not kill innocent people instead. Just because a sperm hits an egg and splits into two cells doesn't mean that that 2 celled organism now has full rights under the US Constitution and that two cells has just as much value as my life. The absurdity of this argument can only be sustained by superstition, as I previously alluded to. The only reason we are having this discussion is because science has paved the way into the womb and explained to the religious people how conception works. When you take science and then wrap it with superstition, then you only have to unwrap it again when science makes another breakthrough. Christianity is like a layer of dust that falls upon scientific achievements after science has paved a new path. This is utterly clear in cosmology, as the Pope now embraces the Big-Bang theory. Why not just cut to the chase and get rid of superstition altogether? "What makes me human, and not an animal, is that I have a soul that will live on after I die." No, you don't. "we all have different experiences. So, according to him, some of us are more human than others. Also, if there isn't enough organism present, then tall and big people are more human than short and skinny people..." Extrapolating this out of my argument is nothing short of abuse. Fetus=no experience. Person=experience. The only way to try and quantify my argument in this manner is to say that someone who is older has more value, and someone who is younger has less value (less exp vs. more exp). To this I would tend to agree. This is the subject for another debate, however. I believe that once a child is born it has full human rights - they cannot be divided, they must be either given or not given. The 40 year old can choose to give his or her life for the child, because they have learned the value of self-sacrifice, but they cannot be compelled to. The child is also a sort of property of the parents, as well. The parents' emotional attachment and hopes and dreams for the child can be "weighed in" to the child's worth, offsetting its lack of experience, talents, and emotional development. If the parents have no hopes and dreams for the child, are not emotionally attached, and are unwilling to raise the child after birth, than this can be factored into the worth of an unborn fetus and used to justify its death, assuming there is a good reason to kill it (for instance, its birth causing the death of the mother). "I have a few examples. I newborn that dies a week after birth. Or a paralyzed, blind, deaf person. Are none of these humans? Again, experience does not decide what is human." So what if a newborn dies a week after birth? I assume you are trying to say "what's the implication of killing a newborn?" To this I would refer you to my previous paragraph, as I have outlined supplementary values for newborns based on the parents' attachment and plans for the child. Again, the child has passed the official (legally, morally, and practically) threshold of human personhood: birth. It has achieved life, and deserves to live it. The values I put on people that fetus' lack (experience, emotion, etc) are begun immediately after birth when the doctor smacks it on the a55 and it starts crying. People with inhibited senses lack none of my attributes. They have personality, experience, social connections, have achieved birth, feel pleasure and pain... You have no argument here. "Plus, being human should not be dependent on a mother." Really. Make a child without one. In fact, your 15 years old. Go out and get a job and an apartment and tell your mother you don't need her, and you never have. She'll laugh at you and send you to your room you little brat! "So what about orphans?" Orphans have achieved ALL of my requisites, save the hopes and dreams of the parents, perhaps. Often the parents still want the orphans to do well, but they simply cannot make it happen themselves. Orphans are nothing more than unfortunate people who started being raised but were given up on at some point. Other parents will raise them, no doubt. As full fledged BORN people, they have a certain right to compel others to help them. "what about the blind, lame, mute, deaf man?" Already addressed thoroughly. "Or the one antisocial person?" No man is an island. The antisocial person only chooses to downplay his or her social side, but meets all other requisites for personhood. Even a person on a desert island needed years of relationship with a parent to become self-sufficient. "How about a person in a coma?" This is a euthanasia problem, not abortion. I say if a person is born into permanent coma, their rights to life are on layaway until the parents make a call on it. If they say it lives, then they give it full human rights. Who pays the bills for the equipment is another problem. "The difference between a fetus and a newborn is not how much it interacts." I say it is. Among the many other differences I listed. "Oh, and it is known that a fetus can recognize a mother's voice." Yeah so can my computer. "They also kick." Donkeys kick, who cares. They aren't people. "OK, well your argument back-fired." - "I don't see it." The voters will, don't worry. "By the way, Vikings..." Yeah I think you've already lost the conduct points for this debate with your ill-placed sticks at me at the end of the rounds, although I made one as well in this round. your S&G; is certainly going to fail as well...

Rob1Billion

Pro answers my hypothetical situation with an analogy that is barely relevant. Asking me to murder some random man with a handgun is not the same as a mother choosing to terminate her pregnancy for these reasons: Other than the parents who are merely expecting the child, yet have not even met it, the fetus has not touched anyone's lives and established social connections which would create a void when it is lost. No one will miss it. Pro-lifers try to make to argument that the parents have created some spiritual connection or something, but the truth is they can just choose to get pregnant again. Modern technology allows you an ultrasound picture, but this isn't the same as actually interacting with it. Parents, of course, feel a loss when a pregnancy is failed, but this is nothing like the loss of an actual person. Consider the difference between if your 10 year old boy is suddenly abducted by some man in a park. Is this comparable to losing a pregnancy? Why not? The answer is that the difference between your 10 year old boy and a 10 week old fetus is that your boy is a person and the fetus is not. Murdering the man with the handgun erases an infinitely complex human personality. The man has (potentially) a family, friends, co-workers that depend on him... He is afraid of death, as you can tell when you point the gun at him. He is capable of begging for his life, even. He is a result of years worth of human interaction, learning, and growing. He is a much more valuable entity than a bundle of cells in a womb. We may be able to see the beginnings of life in the womb by using extremely sophisticated equipment that can measure electrical activity and such, but these phenomena are not adequately explained by experts. What does an electrical current running through the fetus' brain mean? A thought? Emotion? Or is it just an electrical current that really doesn't mean anything? This type of evidence does not compare to looking at a man's terror-stricken face while you point a gun at him. "It is wrong by the moral standard created by the Creator." As I predicted before the debate started, Pro's argument is too weak to defend, without invoking superstition. To this I might as well reply that the Flying Spaghetti Monster says this is OK. The FSM is the Christian God's superior. "Many of us would agree that killing innocent human life is morally wrong." I don't. A batch of sperm is innocent human life. I say: let's not kill innocent people instead. Just because a sperm hits an egg and splits into two cells doesn't mean that that 2 celled organism now has full rights under the US Constitution and that two cells has just as much value as my life. The absurdity of this argument can only be sustained by superstition, as I previously alluded to. The only reason we are having this discussion is because science has paved the way into the womb and explained to the religious people how conception works. When you take science and then wrap it with superstition, then you only have to unwrap it again when science makes another breakthrough. Christianity is like a layer of dust that falls upon scientific achievements after science has paved a new path. This is utterly clear in cosmology, as the Pope now embraces the Big-Bang theory. Why not just cut to the chase and get rid of superstition altogether? "What makes me human, and not an animal, is that I have a soul that will live on after I die." No, you don't. "we all have different experiences. So, according to him, some of us are more human than others. Also, if there isn't enough organism present, then tall and big people are more human than short and skinny people..." Extrapolating this out of my argument is nothing short of abuse. Fetus=no experience. Person=experience. The only way to try and quantify my argument in this manner is to say that someone who is older has more value, and someone who is younger has less value (less exp vs. more exp). To this I would tend to agree. This is the subject for another debate, however. I believe that once a child is born it has full human rights - they cannot be divided, they must be either given or not given. The 40 year old can choose to give his or her life for the child, because they have learned the value of self-sacrifice, but they cannot be compelled to. The child is also a sort of property of the parents, as well. The parents' emotional attachment and hopes and dreams for the child can be "weighed in" to the child's worth, offsetting its lack of experience, talents, and emotional development. If the parents have no hopes and dreams for the child, are not emotionally attached, and are unwilling to raise the child after birth, than this can be factored into the worth of an unborn fetus and used to justify its death, assuming there is a good reason to kill it (for instance, its birth causing the death of the mother). "I have a few examples. I newborn that dies a week after birth. Or a paralyzed, blind, deaf person. Are none of these humans? Again, experience does not decide what is human." So what if a newborn dies a week after birth? I assume you are trying to say "what's the implication of killing a newborn?" To this I would refer you to my previous paragraph, as I have outlined supplementary values for newborns based on the parents' attachment and plans for the child. Again, the child has passed the official (legally, morally, and practically) threshold of human personhood: birth. It has achieved life, and deserves to live it. The values I put on people that fetus' lack (experience, emotion, etc) are begun immediately after birth when the doctor smacks it on the a55 and it starts crying. People with inhibited senses lack none of my attributes. They have personality, experience, social connections, have achieved birth, feel pleasure and pain... You have no argument here. "Plus, being human should not be dependent on a mother." Really. Make a child without one. In fact, your 15 years old. Go out and get a job and an apartment and tell your mother you don't need her, and you never have. She'll laugh at you and send you to your room you little brat! "So what about orphans?" Orphans have achieved ALL of my requisites, save the hopes and dreams of the parents, perhaps. Often the parents still want the orphans to do well, but they simply cannot make it happen themselves. Orphans are nothing more than unfortunate people who started being raised but were given up on at some point. Other parents will raise them, no doubt. As full fledged BORN people, they have a certain right to compel others to help them. "what about the blind, lame, mute, deaf man?" Already addressed thoroughly. "Or the one antisocial person?" No man is an island. The antisocial person only chooses to downplay his or her social side, but meets all other requisites for personhood. Even a person on a desert island needed years of relationship with a parent to become self-sufficient. "How about a person in a coma?" This is a euthanasia problem, not abortion. I say if a person is born into permanent coma, their rights to life are on layaway until the parents make a call on it. If they say it lives, then they give it full human rights. Who pays the bills for the equipment is another problem. "The difference between a fetus and a newborn is not how much it interacts." I say it is. Among the many other differences I listed. "Oh, and it is known that a fetus can recognize a mother's voice." Yeah so can my computer. "They also kick." Donkeys kick, who cares. They aren't people. "OK, well your argument back-fired." - "I don't see it." The voters will, don't worry. "By the way, Vikings..." Yeah I think you've already lost the conduct points for this debate with your ill-placed sticks at me at the end of the rounds, although I made one as well in this round. your S&G; is certainly going to fail as well...

Religion

Abortion-is-wrong/8/

: When you choose to get an abortion, you only think about yourself? You are so selfish that you choose to kill an innocent small fetus, in what way is that okay? It is murder! Even if the human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the government. It is probably your own fault that you are pregnant, and then to get an abortion is just an easy way out. There are other ways, you can grow up and keep the child, or you can give the child up for adoption, give it a chance to live, a chance to be a real human being. By killing the fetus you deny it all the chances to live and to have a beautiful life, is that really what you want? You have a choice, the fetus don"t. Some doctors even mean that the fetus feels pain under an abortion, but nothing is proven 100 % yet. An abortion can also cause Health problems and psychological damage for the mother. By getting an abortion you can ruin the chances of ever getting a baby or you can get really depress because you have to live with the fact that you killed an innocent fetus. So I really think that Abortion should be banned.

MajaChristensen

: When you choose to get an abortion, you only think about yourself? You are so selfish that you choose to kill an innocent small fetus, in what way is that okay? It is murder! Even if the human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the government. It is probably your own fault that you are pregnant, and then to get an abortion is just an easy way out. There are other ways, you can grow up and keep the child, or you can give the child up for adoption, give it a chance to live, a chance to be a real human being. By killing the fetus you deny it all the chances to live and to have a beautiful life, is that really what you want? You have a choice, the fetus don"t. Some doctors even mean that the fetus feels pain under an abortion, but nothing is proven 100 % yet. An abortion can also cause Health problems and psychological damage for the mother. By getting an abortion you can ruin the chances of ever getting a baby or you can get really depress because you have to live with the fact that you killed an innocent fetus. So I really think that Abortion should be banned.

People

Abortion-should-be-banned/6/

The problem is that they were raped, not that they are pregnant? And again, the problem is that they are in an abusive relationship, not that they are pregnant. The problem never lies on an innocent fetus, the fetus cannot defend or protect it selves, It is the mothers job to protect her child? And does she protect it by killing it? I don"t think so.

MajaChristensen

The problem is that they were raped, not that they are pregnant? And again, the problem is that they are in an abusive relationship, not that they are pregnant. The problem never lies on an innocent fetus, the fetus cannot defend or protect it selves, It is the mothers job to protect her child? And does she protect it by killing it? I don"t think so.

People

Abortion-should-be-banned/6/

I don"t really think that you are reading what I am writing. I am not saying that rape is not a problem. I am saying that the problem is that they were raped, not that they are pregnant. Of course rapes a problem. And if the young girl is responsible enough to party and have unsafe sex, then she is responsible enough to take the consequences, I do not think that abortion is the way out of it, she can give the baby up for adoption instead of killing the child.

MajaChristensen

I don"t really think that you are reading what I am writing. I am not saying that rape is not a problem. I am saying that the problem is that they were raped, not that they are pregnant. Of course rapes a problem. And if the young girl is responsible enough to party and have unsafe sex, then she is responsible enough to take the consequences, I do not think that abortion is the way out of it, she can give the baby up for adoption instead of killing the child.

People

Abortion-should-be-banned/6/

I am really sorry to say this but that"s a sh*t opinion! Abortion is a free choice? You don"t know how she got pregnant. There are woman who are raped and become pregnant? There are woman who are in a abusive relationships who become pregnant. So I think that they should have the chance to get an abortion don"t you?

Soulja-boy

I am really sorry to say this but that"s a sh*t opinion! Abortion is a free choice? You don"t know how she got pregnant. There are woman who are raped and become pregnant? There are woman who are in a abusive relationships who become pregnant. So I think that they should have the chance to get an abortion don"t you?

People

Abortion-should-be-banned/6/

How can you say that rape I not a problem? I understand what you mean with the abusing part, she can just leave him and the problem is over. But rape is not the person"s fault! It"s the rapist fault! So how can you even say that"s its not a problem! But what if it"s a young girl who gets pregnant. With her boyfriend or just a guy she met at a party. She will ruin her live by having the baby? A child can"t take care of a child. So It will also ruin the child"s life, is that what you want? A bad mother?

Soulja-boy

How can you say that rape I not a problem? I understand what you mean with the abusing part, she can just leave him and the problem is over. But rape is not the person"s fault! It"s the rapist fault! So how can you even say that"s its not a problem! But what if it"s a young girl who gets pregnant. With her boyfriend or just a guy she met at a party. She will ruin her live by having the baby? A child can"t take care of a child. So It will also ruin the child"s life, is that what you want? A bad mother?

People

Abortion-should-be-banned/6/

So the young girl should be punished for what she did? She made a mistake and then she would have to live with it for the rest of her life? Even if she gave the baby up for adoption she would have to carry the baby in her stomach for 9 months, and ruin her body. And what would her friends think of her it will also ruin her reputation. She would be the young girl who is pregnant by mistake, and the girl who gave her baby up for adoption. What If the other kids start to tease her?

Soulja-boy

So the young girl should be punished for what she did? She made a mistake and then she would have to live with it for the rest of her life? Even if she gave the baby up for adoption she would have to carry the baby in her stomach for 9 months, and ruin her body. And what would her friends think of her it will also ruin her reputation. She would be the young girl who is pregnant by mistake, and the girl who gave her baby up for adoption. What If the other kids start to tease her?

People

Abortion-should-be-banned/6/

Hi righty10294, This has been a touchy subject around here, lately. So, i ask that we keep this debate formal, and not let it get out of hand. 1)"Abortion should be outlawed. It is just disgusting how a women can kill their offspring just because she had "sexy time" wrong. I don't want to hear the argument, "what if she got raped." If she did get raped she should have the baby and the raped pay all losses to the women. Now when she has the baby, alls you have to do is to bring it to a orphanage or a firehouse. How much can that cost you, if you bring it there on the way home from the hospital."-righty So, its disgusting how a woman can kill her offspring. I'm taking it that you are against condoms and birth control then? When you use a condom you are actually trapping half of a future child in a latex "glove". And eventually killing it. Birth control, prevents ovulation, or the producing of eggs.Im wondering how much you know about the process of child bearing. Abortions are (mostly) done in the first trimester (before the 12th week of pregnancy). When the child is still, what some call a blob, and not much of a child. <URL>... This site provides a week by week analysis of the "baby" in the womb. As you can see the fetus does not resemble a human at all, until week seven. So, if an abortion is done, before this time, is it ok? I do find it interesting that you are against the idea of abortion even if a woman got raped. Tell me, say you're married. And your wife comes home one day, and tells you that she was raped. A few weeks later you find out she's pregnant, but not with your child. Are you going to sentence your wife to carry a "bastard" child for nine months.Everytime the child "kicks" she remembers that moment when she was forced to have sex. Everytime she has to go up in a size of clothing, she feels the emotions rush back to her. Your really going to sentence the woman you love to live nine months of hell, because she was forced to have sex,against her own will? 2)"Also, 1.2% of abortions are with girls who are 15 years oldo. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, that is the parents fault for the girl getting pregnant. They should've been paying attention to what she is doing, and who she is hanging around."-righty What do you advise the child to do? Continue with the bearing, ruining her body for, she has not yet fully developed, possibly bringing pyshicial conditions that worsen with age? Continue with the bearing, and forcing her to drop out of high school? 80% of pregnant teens are forced to drop out of school. 80%! These woman can never get a self supporting job, and can never have a successful future. Which is worse? Having the opportunity to be successful and it being stripped right from under your nose, or never having the opportunity at all? By not allowing the abortion you've just condemned not only the mother, but the too be child, to a life of poverty and sadness. (source: <URL>... ) 3)"Another thing, if you do bring up rape, that man should be fully prosecouted first. Then he should be fined the amount of money the women lost, so their is no need for abortion."-righty So, money solves everything? Money takes care of that physical pain that the man put her through, during the rape, child carrying, and birth? Money takes care of the emotional pain she was put through during rape, child caring, and birth? Money takes care of the chances of her family disowning her? What if the man doesn't have any money, or enough to pay for said crimes? What now? Some of the physical effects of rape. " <URL>... ; Money takes care of that too? Abortion is not the taking of a child, its not the taking of a life. Its the taking of what WOULD BECOME a life. What harm is there in preventing life? People do it everyday with condoms and birth control.

Retrospace18

Hi righty10294, This has been a touchy subject around here, lately. So, i ask that we keep this debate formal, and not let it get out of hand. 1)"Abortion should be outlawed. It is just disgusting how a women can kill their offspring just because she had "sexy time" wrong. I don't want to hear the argument, "what if she got raped." If she did get raped she should have the baby and the raped pay all losses to the women. Now when she has the baby, alls you have to do is to bring it to a orphanage or a firehouse. How much can that cost you, if you bring it there on the way home from the hospital."-righty So, its disgusting how a woman can kill her offspring. I'm taking it that you are against condoms and birth control then? When you use a condom you are actually trapping half of a future child in a latex "glove". And eventually killing it. Birth control, prevents ovulation, or the producing of eggs.Im wondering how much you know about the process of child bearing. Abortions are (mostly) done in the first trimester (before the 12th week of pregnancy). When the child is still, what some call a blob, and not much of a child. http://www.pregnancy.org... This site provides a week by week analysis of the "baby" in the womb. As you can see the fetus does not resemble a human at all, until week seven. So, if an abortion is done, before this time, is it ok? I do find it interesting that you are against the idea of abortion even if a woman got raped. Tell me, say you're married. And your wife comes home one day, and tells you that she was raped. A few weeks later you find out she's pregnant, but not with your child. Are you going to sentence your wife to carry a "bastard" child for nine months.Everytime the child "kicks" she remembers that moment when she was forced to have sex. Everytime she has to go up in a size of clothing, she feels the emotions rush back to her. Your really going to sentence the woman you love to live nine months of hell, because she was forced to have sex,against her own will? 2)"Also, 1.2% of abortions are with girls who are 15 years oldo. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, that is the parents fault for the girl getting pregnant. They should've been paying attention to what she is doing, and who she is hanging around."-righty What do you advise the child to do? Continue with the bearing, ruining her body for, she has not yet fully developed, possibly bringing pyshicial conditions that worsen with age? Continue with the bearing, and forcing her to drop out of high school? 80% of pregnant teens are forced to drop out of school. 80%! These woman can never get a self supporting job, and can never have a successful future. Which is worse? Having the opportunity to be successful and it being stripped right from under your nose, or never having the opportunity at all? By not allowing the abortion you've just condemned not only the mother, but the too be child, to a life of poverty and sadness. (source: http://query.nytimes.com... ) 3)"Another thing, if you do bring up rape, that man should be fully prosecouted first. Then he should be fined the amount of money the women lost, so their is no need for abortion."-righty So, money solves everything? Money takes care of that physical pain that the man put her through, during the rape, child carrying, and birth? Money takes care of the emotional pain she was put through during rape, child caring, and birth? Money takes care of the chances of her family disowning her? What if the man doesn't have any money, or enough to pay for said crimes? What now? Some of the physical effects of rape. " http://www.healthyplace.com... ; Money takes care of that too? Abortion is not the taking of a child, its not the taking of a life. Its the taking of what WOULD BECOME a life. What harm is there in preventing life? People do it everyday with condoms and birth control.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-outlawed/1/

Thanks for instigating. Since this is only for acceptance and a brief review on my contentions, we'll make this round quick. But first some definitions relevant to the debate: Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. <URL>... Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. <URL>... Contentions: C1: Abortion is NOT murder Since my opponent's main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I've fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution. In this premise, I will also be arguing that murder can be justified and morally acceptable to society. Not all killings are morally wrong. I will also attempt to argue that even if abortion ends a life, it's still morally acceptable, in some circumstances. C2: Valuing Women's Rights I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality I'll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events. C4: Abortion is a right For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child. I reserve the right to expand, drop and add more contentions whenever necessary to the debate. Thank you.

jm_notguilty

Thanks for instigating. Since this is only for acceptance and a brief review on my contentions, we’ll make this round quick. But first some definitions relevant to the debate: Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Contentions: C1: Abortion is NOT murder Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution. In this premise, I will also be arguing that murder can be justified and morally acceptable to society. Not all killings are morally wrong. I will also attempt to argue that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events. C4: Abortion is a right For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child. I reserve the right to expand, drop and add more contentions whenever necessary to the debate. Thank you.

Politics

Abortion/128/

Thank you again 16K for instigating and posting your arguments. I'd like to point out that I'm neither for nor against Abortion, I have neutral opinions on this matter making me undecided. But this'll be fun to debate. Good luck. REBUTTAL Fetus = Human, killing them is murder The only relevant argument opponent has given here is that a fetus has a 'life', but that doesn't make it a sentient, conscious, viable, fully-grown human being. The fetus may be a member of the Homo sapiens , but they are not fully resembled human beings who are sentient and with rights. They are not natural-born citizens, they cannot be dependent on their own body and they need the woman's body to live, if we let the fetus' moral rights override the mother's, then this is close to invading the woman's privacy and the right of the woman to choose. My opponent claims that life begins at fertilization, which is wrong. In fact, life begins before fertilization. Sperm and egg cells are actually living things. But the question should not be when life begins, rather, it should be when must we consider that the fetus be sentient or actually feel anything. Here's a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: "Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?" {1}, according to her research, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anyone can take care of a newborn infant, but only pregnant women can nurture their fetus. She can't hire someone else to do it. Also, she said that fetuses don't just depend on the woman for survival, but it needs to be inside the woman's body for it to live. She states that human beings must be separate individuals. So this very much refutes the idea that fetuses should be prioritized more because they can take care by themselves, which is false. Moving on, here's a brief conclusion on opponent's case: P1: Abortion ends the life of the fetus. P2: a fetus is a human being. C: Therefore, abortion is murder. This is false, so now (and this is important) to say actually affirm those contentions and say that abortion is murder, 16K needs to show and accurately prove that 1) a fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. But technically, abortion is legal in the US (state and federal) since Roe v. Wade, so somewhat negates 2). So this means that abortion is (or somewhat) actually the opposite of murder, it is lawful, it is (sometimes) unintentional and it is without premeditation and without malice. Morally wrong to kill a person and society opposes such act This premise fails on so many ways, look at the following scenarios and tell me that these aren't morally wrong and society opposes such acts: - Self Defense/ Defense of others - It is considered morally permissible to kill a killer to save your own life or kill a person to protect loved ones and others? - Kill one, save many- It is morally acceptable to kill the terrorists before 9/11 which affected upcoming the Afghan/Iraq war? - Parasitic twin scenario- We have a conjoined twins, and it only survives if we sacrifice one, so would it be considered moral to kill a weaker twin to save the stronger one? No surgery means both twins die. - Trolley Problem- Let's say you are in a moving trolley and your mother is tied to the tracks a few meters from you, you're about to hit her. Although, there's another way, but there are 5 people tied to the tracks in that direction. Now you have to choose between killing your mom and killing 5 people. What should you do? If my opponent still argues that these acts are all morally wrong, he's either lying or is out of his mind. Either way, his premise fails and these scenarios are justified morally under utilitarian view and deontological theory. Morally wrong to kill a fetus Similar to my opponent's 2 nd premise. Religion on abortion This is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, since Religion has no say on Abortion laws. My opponent's verse has no connection to abortion whatsoever. And quoting the Ten Commandments doesn't help him too, since the Bible is contradictory, like Hosea 9:13-16 , where God said that children will be dashed in pieces and that pregnant women will be ripped open. Numbers 31:17 states that adulterous women should be killed, because they bear a child that they got from premarital sex. Also Psalms 137:9 which states that God will bless shall the ones who dash little kids with rocks. PRO-life > PRO-choice My opponent admitted that this is irrelevant and we should just discard it, I agree, but even if we didn't, this graph is unreliable and inaccurate since it has no source whatsoever and that it didn't show how many people were interviews. My opponent could've just made this statistic by interviewing 10 people and the majority are PRO-lifers. CASE C1: Abortion is NOT murder I've fulfilled my obligation to negate this premise. See my rebuttals above for review. I also mentioned that even if abortion ends a life, it's still morally acceptable, in some circumstances, like issues of maternal health and risks, rape, incest and poverty. Surely we don't want to abuse people's choices to protect themselves especially if their lives are at stake. C2: Valuing Women's Rights My opponent didn't really rebut this premise, he just put up a graph/statistic that have no sources and didn't explain it, please ignore them. And even if the chart is accurate, it just shows more PRO-lifers than PRO-choicers, they don't necessarily oppose their right to abort. See contention 4 for my extension to this. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality My opponent's rebuttal here are hearsay testimonies instead of providing accurate statistics, not to mention the testimonies had no sources to back it up. So we could discard them for lack of accuracy and evidence, making them invalid. As I said, illegalizing abortion is a disadvantage and may lead to bad outcomes. Because you see, crime rates were reduced after Roe v. Wade , if we overturn that SC decision, then we would be undermining our constitution and that 'back alley' or illegal abortions will rise. This is a dangerous risk to take for a mother wanting an illegal abortion since the risks are very much higher than an abortion made by a professional. There was a study conducted by John Donohue and Steven Levitt entitled, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" {2}. They showed that after Roe v. Wade, crime rates reduced and fell roughly after 18 years of the decision. States with high abortion rates after Roe experienced a huge drop in crime in the 90s . They state that when abortion was fully legalized, it accounted for much as 50% of the recent decline in crime rates. In El Salvador {3}, abortion is illegal and is punishable up to 25 years but yet more and more people commit 'back alley' abortion, and these rates are rising. The UN has urged this country to pass an abortion law so the crime rates may fall, but it's still pending. {4} C4: Abortion is a right I'll make a few points to support my claim and since I'm running out of characters, and since the only topic that matters here is if abortion is murder . Now, after Roe v. Wade, America has become a symbol for promoting rights, women's rights, the right to choose and right to privacy. It's an important and a valuable right since a fetus is technically invading the woman's body and it depends on the body to survive, which is a risk. If we give rights to unborn fetuses, it would be like taking off the mother's rights and women will lose control over their body. The life of the mother is more valuable than the fetus. If I may ask, if women can't be trusted with their choice to abort, how can we trust them with children? I await my opponent's response, and hopefully use proper sentencing structure and grammar and not rely on c/p testimony. Thank you and good luck. CITATIONS Comments.

jm_notguilty

Thank you again 16K for instigating and posting your arguments. I’d like to point out that I’m neither for nor against Abortion, I have neutral opinions on this matter making me undecided. But this’ll be fun to debate. Good luck. REBUTTAL Fetus = Human, killing them is murder The only relevant argument opponent has given here is that a fetus has a ‘life’, but that doesn’t make it a sentient, conscious, viable, fully-grown human being. The fetus may be a member of the Homo sapiens , but they are not fully resembled human beings who are sentient and with rights. They are not natural-born citizens, they cannot be dependent on their own body and they need the woman’s body to live, if we let the fetus’ moral rights override the mother’s, then this is close to invading the woman’s privacy and the right of the woman to choose. My opponent claims that life begins at fertilization, which is wrong. In fact, life begins before fertilization. Sperm and egg cells are actually living things. But the question should not be when life begins, rather, it should be when must we consider that the fetus be sentient or actually feel anything. Here’s a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” {1}, according to her research, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anyone can take care of a newborn infant, but only pregnant women can nurture their fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. Also, she said that fetuses don’t just depend on the woman for survival, but it needs to be inside the woman’s body for it to live. She states that human beings must be separate individuals. So this very much refutes the idea that fetuses should be prioritized more because they can take care by themselves, which is false. Moving on, here’s a brief conclusion on opponent’s case: P1: Abortion ends the life of the fetus. P2: a fetus is a human being. C: Therefore, abortion is murder. This is false, so now (and this is important) to say actually affirm those contentions and say that abortion is murder, 16K needs to show and accurately prove that 1) a fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. But technically, abortion is legal in the US (state and federal) since Roe v. Wade, so somewhat negates 2). So this means that abortion is (or somewhat) actually the opposite of murder, it is lawful, it is (sometimes) unintentional and it is without premeditation and without malice. Morally wrong to kill a person and society opposes such act This premise fails on so many ways, look at the following scenarios and tell me that these aren’t morally wrong and society opposes such acts: - Self Defense/ Defense of others - It is considered morally permissible to kill a killer to save your own life or kill a person to protect loved ones and others? - Kill one, save many- It is morally acceptable to kill the terrorists before 9/11 which affected upcoming the Afghan/Iraq war? - Parasitic twin scenario- We have a conjoined twins, and it only survives if we sacrifice one, so would it be considered moral to kill a weaker twin to save the stronger one? No surgery means both twins die. - Trolley Problem- Let’s say you are in a moving trolley and your mother is tied to the tracks a few meters from you, you’re about to hit her. Although, there’s another way, but there are 5 people tied to the tracks in that direction. Now you have to choose between killing your mom and killing 5 people. What should you do? If my opponent still argues that these acts are all morally wrong, he’s either lying or is out of his mind. Either way, his premise fails and these scenarios are justified morally under utilitarian view and deontological theory. Morally wrong to kill a fetus Similar to my opponent’s 2 nd premise. Religion on abortion This is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, since Religion has no say on Abortion laws. My opponent’s verse has no connection to abortion whatsoever. And quoting the Ten Commandments doesn’t help him too, since the Bible is contradictory, like Hosea 9:13-16 , where God said that children will be dashed in pieces and that pregnant women will be ripped open. Numbers 31:17 states that adulterous women should be killed, because they bear a child that they got from premarital sex. Also Psalms 137:9 which states that God will bless shall the ones who dash little kids with rocks. PRO-life > PRO-choice My opponent admitted that this is irrelevant and we should just discard it, I agree, but even if we didn’t, this graph is unreliable and inaccurate since it has no source whatsoever and that it didn’t show how many people were interviews. My opponent could’ve just made this statistic by interviewing 10 people and the majority are PRO-lifers. CASE C1: Abortion is NOT murder I’ve fulfilled my obligation to negate this premise. See my rebuttals above for review. I also mentioned that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances, like issues of maternal health and risks, rape, incest and poverty. Surely we don’t want to abuse people’s choices to protect themselves especially if their lives are at stake. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights My opponent didn’t really rebut this premise, he just put up a graph/statistic that have no sources and didn’t explain it, please ignore them. And even if the chart is accurate, it just shows more PRO-lifers than PRO-choicers, they don’t necessarily oppose their right to abort. See contention 4 for my extension to this. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality My opponent’s rebuttal here are hearsay testimonies instead of providing accurate statistics, not to mention the testimonies had no sources to back it up. So we could discard them for lack of accuracy and evidence, making them invalid. As I said, illegalizing abortion is a disadvantage and may lead to bad outcomes. Because you see, crime rates were reduced after Roe v. Wade , if we overturn that SC decision, then we would be undermining our constitution and that ‘back alley’ or illegal abortions will rise. This is a dangerous risk to take for a mother wanting an illegal abortion since the risks are very much higher than an abortion made by a professional. There was a study conducted by John Donohue and Steven Levitt entitled, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" {2}. They showed that after Roe v. Wade, crime rates reduced and fell roughly after 18 years of the decision. States with high abortion rates after Roe experienced a huge drop in crime in the 90s . They state that when abortion was fully legalized, it accounted for much as 50% of the recent decline in crime rates. In El Salvador {3}, abortion is illegal and is punishable up to 25 years but yet more and more people commit ‘back alley’ abortion, and these rates are rising. The UN has urged this country to pass an abortion law so the crime rates may fall, but it’s still pending. {4} C4: Abortion is a right I’ll make a few points to support my claim and since I’m running out of characters, and since the only topic that matters here is if abortion is murder . Now, after Roe v. Wade, America has become a symbol for promoting rights, women’s rights, the right to choose and right to privacy. It’s an important and a valuable right since a fetus is technically invading the woman’s body and it depends on the body to survive, which is a risk. If we give rights to unborn fetuses, it would be like taking off the mother’s rights and women will lose control over their body. The life of the mother is more valuable than the fetus. If I may ask, if women can’t be trusted with their choice to abort, how can we trust them with children? I await my opponent’s response, and hopefully use proper sentencing structure and grammar and not rely on c/p testimony. Thank you and good luck. CITATIONS Comments.

Politics

Abortion/128/

Thanks 16K for your response. It's sad to see that my opponent hasn't adequately refuted some of my points in his last round. And since this is the last round, I'll make this brief. REBUTTAL RE: Fetus = Human My opponent must be confused here. I've already explained the difference between a fetus and a fully grown sentient human being. And by 'fully grown' shouldn't mean an adult, but it should refer to a human who can be dependent on one's body, it should be capable to feel and think freely. A fetus doesn't do any of these. My opponent hasn't proven that the fetus has done any of this, he just argued that it 'has' life, which is very much insufficient to affirm his case. Furthermore, my opponent goes on and relies on hearsay testimony without really supporting it. He quoted something from a scripture that states that an abortion is murdering an innocent person, making a fetus a fully-grown human, this testimony should be considered null and void because I've already disproved it. CON also gives a link on medical evidence of fetus being human, he just gave a link and didn't type an argument. Please discard them. RE: Abortion is murder My opponent states that abortion is illegal in some countries thus making it murder. But hasn't offered proof on which country bans abortion and if it defines fetuses as a sentient human. So his argument fails here. Also, we shouldn't be sidetracked here since this debate is about abortion in the US. It's clear from the start. RE: Fetus feels pain My opponent lately claims that a fetus can feel pain, but that study only supports fetal pain during the end of the second trimester (28 th week/7 th month) of pregnancy. Now, this can be relevant if we're arguing partial birth abortion, but we're not, so we could disregard it. Also, even if a fetus can feel pain, it's still not fully-grown or sentient. It is still a risk to the mother. My opponent failed to expand this contention. RE: Fetus dependent on mother CON's logic fails here. He compares a fetus to a newborn infant. A fetus' rights are still a developing right whereas children's rights already exist. Fetuses aren't natural-born citizens yet, but an infant is. An infant can survive without its mother (e.g.: nursing care, adoption centers), a fetus cannot survive without the mother because it's still in the mother's womb, so the life of the fetus is dependent on the mother. RE: Religion and Abortion Last time I checked, the US is a secular country and that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. My opponent has dropped my argument concerning the Bible's contradiction on itself. He just repeated his argument. So please extend. RE: Abortion Polls: PRO-life vs. PRO-choice CON failed to give a website, and that site has tons of polls, I'm not obligated to go through a pile of polls just to negate the fact that it's reliable. It's CON's fault for not backing it up. Also, he didn't respond as to how many were interviewed, probably only 10 biased people were interviewed, which is false. Ergo, this premise has already been disproved for lack of accuracy and its lack or relevancy. RE: Hippocratic Oath Again, I've proven that the fetus shouldn't be considered human and that abortion can be justified. This oath wasn't introduced adequately with sufficient evidence, so there's nothing really to refute. DEFENSE Killing justified on certain circumstances My opponent evades these hypothetical scenarios by comparing it to a fetus being aborted, which isn't entirely the point. This premise is solely to negate that killing is always wrong, which is false. But nevertheless, my opponent negates his own contention by saying 'unless you are in danger, except in health risks, etc, etc' --- And... that's it. Nothing to defend really, since my opponent failed to address my contentions, which is a disappointment. Which leads us to my the conclusion. CONCLUSION Okay, so by now you will realize that my opponent has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. He needed to show that: 1) A fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. My opponent didn't give adequate and enough evidence to sufficiently prove a fetus is human and he made no argument that abortion is the premeditated killing of a human. He has also failed to refute all my arguments and he has failed to back up his claims. I urge you voters to vote PRO. Thanks. And for my exit, I present you a picture that shows abortion is a choice, a right of the woman and it shouldn't be taken away.

jm_notguilty

Thanks 16K for your response. It’s sad to see that my opponent hasn’t adequately refuted some of my points in his last round. And since this is the last round, I’ll make this brief. REBUTTAL RE: Fetus = Human My opponent must be confused here. I’ve already explained the difference between a fetus and a fully grown sentient human being. And by ‘fully grown’ shouldn’t mean an adult, but it should refer to a human who can be dependent on one’s body, it should be capable to feel and think freely. A fetus doesn’t do any of these. My opponent hasn’t proven that the fetus has done any of this, he just argued that it ‘has’ life, which is very much insufficient to affirm his case. Furthermore, my opponent goes on and relies on hearsay testimony without really supporting it. He quoted something from a scripture that states that an abortion is murdering an innocent person, making a fetus a fully-grown human, this testimony should be considered null and void because I’ve already disproved it. CON also gives a link on medical evidence of fetus being human, he just gave a link and didn’t type an argument. Please discard them. RE: Abortion is murder My opponent states that abortion is illegal in some countries thus making it murder. But hasn’t offered proof on which country bans abortion and if it defines fetuses as a sentient human. So his argument fails here. Also, we shouldn’t be sidetracked here since this debate is about abortion in the US. It’s clear from the start. RE: Fetus feels pain My opponent lately claims that a fetus can feel pain, but that study only supports fetal pain during the end of the second trimester (28 th week/7 th month) of pregnancy. Now, this can be relevant if we’re arguing partial birth abortion, but we’re not, so we could disregard it. Also, even if a fetus can feel pain, it’s still not fully-grown or sentient. It is still a risk to the mother. My opponent failed to expand this contention. RE: Fetus dependent on mother CON’s logic fails here. He compares a fetus to a newborn infant. A fetus’ rights are still a developing right whereas children’s rights already exist. Fetuses aren’t natural-born citizens yet, but an infant is. An infant can survive without its mother (e.g.: nursing care, adoption centers), a fetus cannot survive without the mother because it’s still in the mother’s womb, so the life of the fetus is dependent on the mother. RE: Religion and Abortion Last time I checked, the US is a secular country and that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. My opponent has dropped my argument concerning the Bible’s contradiction on itself. He just repeated his argument. So please extend. RE: Abortion Polls: PRO-life vs. PRO-choice CON failed to give a website, and that site has tons of polls, I’m not obligated to go through a pile of polls just to negate the fact that it’s reliable. It’s CON’s fault for not backing it up. Also, he didn’t respond as to how many were interviewed, probably only 10 biased people were interviewed, which is false. Ergo, this premise has already been disproved for lack of accuracy and its lack or relevancy. RE: Hippocratic Oath Again, I’ve proven that the fetus shouldn’t be considered human and that abortion can be justified. This oath wasn’t introduced adequately with sufficient evidence, so there’s nothing really to refute. DEFENSE Killing justified on certain circumstances My opponent evades these hypothetical scenarios by comparing it to a fetus being aborted, which isn’t entirely the point. This premise is solely to negate that killing is always wrong, which is false. But nevertheless, my opponent negates his own contention by saying ‘unless you are in danger, except in health risks, etc, etc’ --- And… that’s it. Nothing to defend really, since my opponent failed to address my contentions, which is a disappointment. Which leads us to my the conclusion. CONCLUSION Okay, so by now you will realize that my opponent has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. He needed to show that: 1) A fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. My opponent didn’t give adequate and enough evidence to sufficiently prove a fetus is human and he made no argument that abortion is the premeditated killing of a human. He has also failed to refute all my arguments and he has failed to back up his claims. I urge you voters to vote PRO. Thanks. And for my exit, I present you a picture that shows abortion is a choice, a right of the woman and it shouldn't be taken away.

Politics

Abortion/128/

I will be on the pro side in saying that abortion is needed for some people. round 1- acceptance.

justsayin

I will be on the pro side in saying that abortion is needed for some people. round 1- acceptance.

Health

Abortion/165/

This will not be a formal debate. both of us are trying to prove our points, and that is all we will do. thank you for accepting:) Now, abortion is sometimes referred to as 'murder' however, this fetus is not a full human yet. It does not have emotions, it can not feel pain, it doesn't even know what this is. It doesn't even know what it is. While i will go ahead and stop this argument before it is started: Do i believe that you should be able to abort a fetus because you didn't use protection? No. But in the cases that someone did use protection and it failed, or a rape of some kind occurred, i believe that abortion is a right and an option. Like I said..this is not a formal debate... I don't really care if people vote me down..im not putting sources, and im not listing everything formally. I'm more interested with debating and hearing other points, than winning. Good luck to con:)

justsayin

This will not be a formal debate. both of us are trying to prove our points, and that is all we will do. thank you for accepting:) Now, abortion is sometimes referred to as 'murder' however, this fetus is not a full human yet. It does not have emotions, it can not feel pain, it doesn't even know what this is. It doesn't even know what it is. While i will go ahead and stop this argument before it is started: Do i believe that you should be able to abort a fetus because you didn't use protection? No. But in the cases that someone did use protection and it failed, or a rape of some kind occurred, i believe that abortion is a right and an option. Like I said..this is not a formal debate... I don't really care if people vote me down..im not putting sources, and im not listing everything formally. I'm more interested with debating and hearing other points, than winning. Good luck to con:)

Health

Abortion/165/

I won't bore you with a list of strong points for abortion as I see you prefer a to-the-point over-view style of debating (which I adore as well). As a fellow skip-the-details kinda guy I'll cut straight to the general overview of my side of the debate. The fact is this. Past conception, the man involved biologically has zero say in the baby (not socially but this is often also true in many poor regions of the world where many men f*ck and run). A woman has to spend 9 months with this 'thing' (it is in no way an independent being because its sole source of oxygen, food and water it its mother, it is no different to her arm or her foot in terms of how much power she has over it nutritionally). It has a huge demand on her body and additionally will have a huge financial demand as it grows into a fully grown human being which the mother must consider if she can manage (not all countries have successfully set up any sort of adoption programs whatsoever, especially in Africa). She could very well be in a state of poverty practically dying by the time the child is aged 6. What kind of an upbringing is that? It would in fact save both her and the baby time and pain to abort it. Unless it is legalised there will be dirty back-street abortion methods such as shoving a coat-hanger up her vagina as opposed to getting the standard safe abortion methods which would be far more readily available if it were fully legalized for ANY mother if she had good reason to abort. More relevant to this day and age is the issue of an overpopulating world ESPECIALLY in nations where abortion is hard to come by, India, Uganda etc et era. These countries have the view that it's only legal if it directly saves the life of a woman who would otherwise die if she had a baby. Well, many mothers are in such dire situations that they essentially might as well be dead to their baby. Imagine a 10 year old getting raped by her dad... Well should we allow her to abort it? I really hate pro-life retards who think one absolute moral applies to all situations. They are fools.

RationalMadman

I won't bore you with a list of strong points for abortion as I see you prefer a to-the-point over-view style of debating (which I adore as well). As a fellow skip-the-details kinda guy I'll cut straight to the general overview of my side of the debate. The fact is this. Past conception, the man involved biologically has zero say in the baby (not socially but this is often also true in many poor regions of the world where many men f*ck and run). A woman has to spend 9 months with this 'thing' (it is in no way an independent being because its sole source of oxygen, food and water it its mother, it is no different to her arm or her foot in terms of how much power she has over it nutritionally). It has a huge demand on her body and additionally will have a huge financial demand as it grows into a fully grown human being which the mother must consider if she can manage (not all countries have successfully set up any sort of adoption programs whatsoever, especially in Africa). She could very well be in a state of poverty practically dying by the time the child is aged 6. What kind of an upbringing is that? It would in fact save both her and the baby time and pain to abort it. Unless it is legalised there will be dirty back-street abortion methods such as shoving a coat-hanger up her vagina as opposed to getting the standard safe abortion methods which would be far more readily available if it were fully legalized for ANY mother if she had good reason to abort. More relevant to this day and age is the issue of an overpopulating world ESPECIALLY in nations where abortion is hard to come by, India, Uganda etc et era. These countries have the view that it's only legal if it directly saves the life of a woman who would otherwise die if she had a baby. Well, many mothers are in such dire situations that they essentially might as well be dead to their baby. Imagine a 10 year old getting raped by her dad... Well should we allow her to abort it? I really hate pro-life retards who think one absolute moral applies to all situations. They are fools.

Miscellaneous

Abortion/179/

You round 2 debate is firstly written in some of the lowest quality English I have ever seen my whole life. Second of all it went downhill from the moment you said " Lets [sic] forget about the mother having to carry the baby." A foetus is not a baby. A foetus looks almost like a tadpole/alien for a long time in its development. A baby has been born. That is just basic knowledge of the human life cycle. Additionally while you agreed to 'forget about the mother having to carry the baby' you never... REMEMBERED that you forgot it and never addressed ANYTHING I raised your entire round 2 debate! You also said "a child in that stage is the same as a child at the age of two or three, or the same as most or some handicaps, or vegtibals [sic] . " ARE you suggesting a foetus is at the same stage as a child at the age of two or THREE?! Are you debating as a joke or something? Do I even need to explain how ATROCIOUS this FALLACY in child psychology and development this is?! LEARN something before you debate for CHRIST's sake! A three year old can usually form sentences and has a PERSONALITY! A foetus is a BUNCH OF CELLS which, until about 24 weeks, doesn't have a functioning brain or heart (well not fully until then). I suggest you either read up on the topic or admit you were being sarcastic or something?! That is not just an invalid argument, it is a STUPID SUGGESTION WHICH SHOULDN'T BE IN A FORMAL DEBATE ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL! "But a child is not her body..." WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING A CHILD, a foetus has no personality yet! Let's observe your ridiculous justification for this even more irrelevant statement!... It is not her face for plastic surgery. It's not her belly for a tuck. It's not her lungs for a smoke WELL! I listed that in Greek because all you are doing is speaking God-damn GREEK to me! Firstly is a face for plastic surgery?! WHAT THE F*CK?! Is a belly for a tuck?! WHAT THE HOLY F*CK?! ARE LUNGS EVEN FOR A SMOKE?! HOLY MOLY F*CKING ROLY POLY THIS IS IDIOCY TO THE HILT!! You think that a woman's face, belly and lungs are even FOR those purposes?! DO you think that if they are, this disproves that the fetus, which depends purely on her health, what she eats, drinks and how much exercise she does, is NOT a part of her body and her FULL physical ownership rests upon it?! LEARN TO DEBATE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your English, lack of appreciation of my favourite science (biology) and plain trolling (or genuine idiocy) has p!ssed me off to the f*cking hilt! I suggest you come up with real points next round because this is beyond anything acceptable of anyone in the f*cking world! A SIX YEAR OLD could write a better debate than that!

RationalMadman

You round 2 debate is firstly written in some of the lowest quality English I have ever seen my whole life. Second of all it went downhill from the moment you said " Lets [sic] forget about the mother having to carry the baby." A foetus is not a baby. A foetus looks almost like a tadpole/alien for a long time in its development. A baby has been born. That is just basic knowledge of the human life cycle. Additionally while you agreed to 'forget about the mother having to carry the baby' you never... REMEMBERED that you forgot it and never addressed ANYTHING I raised your entire round 2 debate! You also said "a child in that stage is the same as a child at the age of two or three, or the same as most or some handicaps, or vegtibals [sic] . " ARE you suggesting a foetus is at the same stage as a child at the age of two or THREE?! Are you debating as a joke or something? Do I even need to explain how ATROCIOUS this FALLACY in child psychology and development this is?! LEARN something before you debate for CHRIST's sake! A three year old can usually form sentences and has a PERSONALITY! A foetus is a BUNCH OF CELLS which, until about 24 weeks, doesn't have a functioning brain or heart (well not fully until then). I suggest you either read up on the topic or admit you were being sarcastic or something?! That is not just an invalid argument, it is a STUPID SUGGESTION WHICH SHOULDN'T BE IN A FORMAL DEBATE ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL! "But a child is not her body..." WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING A CHILD, a foetus has no personality yet! Let's observe your ridiculous justification for this even more irrelevant statement!... It is not her face for plastic surgery. It's not her belly for a tuck. It's not her lungs for a smoke WELL! I listed that in Greek because all you are doing is speaking God-damn GREEK to me! Firstly is a face for plastic surgery?! WHAT THE F*CK?! Is a belly for a tuck?! WHAT THE HOLY F*CK?! ARE LUNGS EVEN FOR A SMOKE?! HOLY MOLY F*CKING ROLY POLY THIS IS IDIOCY TO THE HILT!! You think that a woman's face, belly and lungs are even FOR those purposes?! DO you think that if they are, this disproves that the fetus, which depends purely on her health, what she eats, drinks and how much exercise she does, is NOT a part of her body and her FULL physical ownership rests upon it?! LEARN TO DEBATE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your English, lack of appreciation of my favourite science (biology) and plain trolling (or genuine idiocy) has p!ssed me off to the f*cking hilt! I suggest you come up with real points next round because this is beyond anything acceptable of anyone in the f*cking world! A SIX YEAR OLD could write a better debate than that!

Miscellaneous

Abortion/179/

... Time to dismantle you limb by limb as I tear your ridiculous argument cell by cell since all you have is a foetus of a child's argument. "A Fetus is an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn HUMAN BABY more than eight weeks after conception." Um... Where exactly is your source for claiming the... "...more than eight weeks after conception." ?! Reptiles have fetuses... Please just... What?... Education level = -^2 "You are partly rite [sic] about a fetus being a blob of cells." No. I am 100% correct. "I don't wanna [sic] speak in Greek so a caediovascular [sic] system is a beating heart." No. The cardiovascular system is the series of organs and tissues that work together in order to transport oxygen around the body. This happens to have the 'beating' heart as a part of it. It is not in itself a beating heart, that would be like me saying that Mecca is a mosque. Sure, the mosque is a major part of it but this is a literally incorrect statement to make. Additionally you indirectly spoke Greek because Cardiovascular origins from Cardiac which originates from the Greek ' kardiakos' so... Epic fail. "A fetus can also feel pain in this same week so maybe you need to do some research before you go around saying its just a blob of cells." Its IQ level is the equivalent to that of a slug. It can barely move for itself, think for itself, eat for itself, speak for itself, and cannot even realise its own existence, itself. It cannot process pain. Sure if you pricked it with a needle it would spasm if it had a nervous system in place but this is not evidence of genuine intelligible comprehension of any pain consciously. After all, reflexology ( <URL>... ) could easily explain the spasming. "You also said that a baby has to be born for the cycle of life to begin. But doctors or scientists can come to an agreement on the beginning of the life cycle. But im glad you did." I said that a foetus only becomes a 'baby' once born. Read what I wrote and come back to me. Thanks. "You have not given any facts instead all you have done is ramble on about how you dont understand what im [sic] saying, you want to chose [sic[ spelling and correct punctuation to get across thar [sic] I dont [sic] know what im [sic] talkibg [sic] about. And now its [sic] timw [sic] for you to bring up facts, stop worrying if the spelling is ritw [sic] or wrong. Give me facts or shut you [sic] flappung [sic] mouth and rest your fingers." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IN REPLY TO THE ABOVE I SHALL RELIST THE 'facts' I RAISED IN MY ROUND TWO DEBATE AND CONCLUDE THAT ABORTION IS OKAY IN MANY SITUATIONS. THE FOLLOWING WERE ALL WORD-FOR-WORD FACT THAT I DID IN FACT RAISE IN MY ROUND TWO DEBATE! A foetus is not a baby. A foetus looks almost like a tadpole/alien for a long time in its development. That is just basic knowledge of the human life cycle. A three year old can usually form sentences and has a PERSONALITY! A foetus is a BUNCH OF CELLS which, until about 24 weeks, doesn't have a functioning brain or heart (well not fully until then). WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING A CHILD, a foetus has no personality yet! THIS FACT IS THE MOST UNDENIABLE OF THEM ALL :) Your English, lack of appreciation of my favourite science (biology) and plain trolling (or genuine idiocy) has p!ssed me off to the f*cking hilt! I suggest you come up with real points next round because this is beyond anything acceptable of anyone in the f*cking world! A SIX YEAR OLD could write a better debate than that!

RationalMadman

... Time to dismantle you limb by limb as I tear your ridiculous argument cell by cell since all you have is a foetus of a child's argument. "A Fetus is an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn HUMAN BABY more than eight weeks after conception." Um... Where exactly is your source for claiming the... "...more than eight weeks after conception." ?! Reptiles have fetuses... Please just... What?... Education level = ∞-∞^2 "You are partly rite [sic] about a fetus being a blob of cells." No. I am 100% correct. "I don't wanna [sic] speak in Greek so a caediovascular [sic] system is a beating heart." No. The cardiovascular system is the series of organs and tissues that work together in order to transport oxygen around the body. This happens to have the 'beating' heart as a part of it. It is not in itself a beating heart, that would be like me saying that Mecca is a mosque. Sure, the mosque is a major part of it but this is a literally incorrect statement to make. Additionally you indirectly spoke Greek because Cardiovascular origins from Cardiac which originates from the Greek ' kardiakós' so... Epic fail. "A fetus can also feel pain in this same week so maybe you need to do some research before you go around saying its just a blob of cells." Its IQ level is the equivalent to that of a slug. It can barely move for itself, think for itself, eat for itself, speak for itself, and cannot even realise its own existence, itself. It cannot process pain. Sure if you pricked it with a needle it would spasm if it had a nervous system in place but this is not evidence of genuine intelligible comprehension of any pain consciously. After all, reflexology ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) could easily explain the spasming. "You also said that a baby has to be born for the cycle of life to begin. But doctors or scientists can come to an agreement on the beginning of the life cycle. But im glad you did." I said that a foetus only becomes a 'baby' once born. Read what I wrote and come back to me. Thanks. "You have not given any facts instead all you have done is ramble on about how you dont understand what im [sic] saying, you want to chose [sic[ spelling and correct punctuation to get across thar [sic] I dont [sic] know what im [sic] talkibg [sic] about. And now its [sic] timw [sic] for you to bring up facts, stop worrying if the spelling is ritw [sic] or wrong. Give me facts or shut you [sic] flappung [sic] mouth and rest your fingers." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IN REPLY TO THE ABOVE I SHALL RELIST THE 'facts' I RAISED IN MY ROUND TWO DEBATE AND CONCLUDE THAT ABORTION IS OKAY IN MANY SITUATIONS. THE FOLLOWING WERE ALL WORD-FOR-WORD FACT THAT I DID IN FACT RAISE IN MY ROUND TWO DEBATE! A foetus is not a baby. A foetus looks almost like a tadpole/alien for a long time in its development. That is just basic knowledge of the human life cycle. A three year old can usually form sentences and has a PERSONALITY! A foetus is a BUNCH OF CELLS which, until about 24 weeks, doesn't have a functioning brain or heart (well not fully until then). WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING A CHILD, a foetus has no personality yet! THIS FACT IS THE MOST UNDENIABLE OF THEM ALL :) Your English, lack of appreciation of my favourite science (biology) and plain trolling (or genuine idiocy) has p!ssed me off to the f*cking hilt! I suggest you come up with real points next round because this is beyond anything acceptable of anyone in the f*cking world! A SIX YEAR OLD could write a better debate than that!

Miscellaneous

Abortion/179/

I think this is a very border line matter that I do not agree with. Whoever my apponent is I would like for you to tell me why you think its rite, and simply back it up. Thanks.

hosslay

I think this is a very border line matter that I do not agree with. Whoever my apponent is I would like for you to tell me why you think its rite, and simply back it up. Thanks.

Miscellaneous

Abortion/179/

First I understand what you are saying, and in a way it makes since. But when a woman gets pregnant the baby forms its spine,heart,bones,brain, and limbs. Lets forget about the mother having to carry the baby. Lets talk about the baby and well get back to the mother. There should be no diff. in going out a choping a mans head off and aborting a child. Like it or not its human, and its helpless. I cant stand people that harm children, women, or animals. We as adults or born with a brain. we can reason, make hard decisions and think on our own. a child in that stage is the same as a child at the age of two or three, or the same as most or some handicaps, or vegtibals. I'm thinking that sometime in this debate your going to tell me that a woman has the rite to do what she wants with her body and you would be rite. But a child is not her body, it is not her face for plastic surgery, its not her belly for a tuck, or her lungs for a smoke. It is its own self, its own existence, and one day will make choices like you and me. Its unfortunate and wrong if a man rapes a woman. I think he should be shot in the head. And a dad doing that to his daughter should have a worse fate. But its not that average for that to happen, most abortions are from a drunken night,or a mistake, or something completely diff. A woman has the ability to be strong and do what no man can do. And no matter how you may look at when a child is aborted it can feel, move, pee, and poop and its no diff. than murder. I have tried to see a way around it and there is not one. you can say what you have to say to make yourself feel good about it, or being politically correct or the rites of a mother however a mother does not have the rite to kill a child, in the end its always the same outcome. and that's taking the life of a child that can make a decision for its self because we have already made one for it.

hosslay

First I understand what you are saying, and in a way it makes since. But when a woman gets pregnant the baby forms its spine,heart,bones,brain, and limbs. Lets forget about the mother having to carry the baby. Lets talk about the baby and well get back to the mother. There should be no diff. in going out a choping a mans head off and aborting a child. Like it or not its human, and its helpless. I cant stand people that harm children, women, or animals. We as adults or born with a brain. we can reason, make hard decisions and think on our own. a child in that stage is the same as a child at the age of two or three, or the same as most or some handicaps, or vegtibals. I'm thinking that sometime in this debate your going to tell me that a woman has the rite to do what she wants with her body and you would be rite. But a child is not her body, it is not her face for plastic surgery, its not her belly for a tuck, or her lungs for a smoke. It is its own self, its own existence, and one day will make choices like you and me. Its unfortunate and wrong if a man rapes a woman. I think he should be shot in the head. And a dad doing that to his daughter should have a worse fate. But its not that average for that to happen, most abortions are from a drunken night,or a mistake, or something completely diff. A woman has the ability to be strong and do what no man can do. And no matter how you may look at when a child is aborted it can feel, move, pee, and poop and its no diff. than murder. I have tried to see a way around it and there is not one. you can say what you have to say to make yourself feel good about it, or being politically correct or the rites of a mother however a mother does not have the rite to kill a child, in the end its always the same outcome. and that's taking the life of a child that can make a decision for its self because we have already made one for it.

Miscellaneous

Abortion/179/

Well I guess I'm doing ok because I have managed to tick you off and you ramble on about nothing. But to make you happy ill give you examples and facts, and ill do it with my pinky finger up. I can explain that if you want me to bit first ill explain what I said about the woman and there body's. Because I know its Greek to you. A woman has the rite to do whatever she wants with her body, like plastic surgery, tummy tuck (liposuction), or smoke cig. However they do not have the rite to kill a child. Ill tell you why I call it a child while I explain what a Fetus is. A Fetus is an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn HUMAN BABY more than eight weeks after conception. You are partly rite about a fetus being a blob of cells. A fetus also includes human dna, blood, and starts forming its brain, backbone, and cardiovascular system with in the third week. I don't wanna speak in Greek so a caediovascular system is a beating heart. A fetus can also feel pain in this same week so maybe you need to do some research before you go around saying its just a blob of cells. You also said that a baby has to be born for the cycle of life to begin. But doctors or scientists can come to an agreement on the beginning of the life cycle. But im glad you did. You have not given any facts instead all you have done is ramble on about how you dont understand what im saying, you want to chose spelling and correct punctuation to get across thar I dont know what im talkibg about. And now its timw for you to bring up facts, stop worrying if the spelling is ritw or wrong. Give me facts or shut you flappung mouth and rest your fingers

hosslay

Well I guess I'm doing ok because I have managed to tick you off and you ramble on about nothing. But to make you happy ill give you examples and facts, and ill do it with my pinky finger up. I can explain that if you want me to bit first ill explain what I said about the woman and there body's. Because I know its Greek to you. A woman has the rite to do whatever she wants with her body, like plastic surgery, tummy tuck (liposuction), or smoke cig. However they do not have the rite to kill a child. Ill tell you why I call it a child while I explain what a Fetus is. A Fetus is an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn HUMAN BABY more than eight weeks after conception. You are partly rite about a fetus being a blob of cells. A fetus also includes human dna, blood, and starts forming its brain, backbone, and cardiovascular system with in the third week. I don't wanna speak in Greek so a caediovascular system is a beating heart. A fetus can also feel pain in this same week so maybe you need to do some research before you go around saying its just a blob of cells. You also said that a baby has to be born for the cycle of life to begin. But doctors or scientists can come to an agreement on the beginning of the life cycle. But im glad you did. You have not given any facts instead all you have done is ramble on about how you dont understand what im saying, you want to chose spelling and correct punctuation to get across thar I dont know what im talkibg about. And now its timw for you to bring up facts, stop worrying if the spelling is ritw or wrong. Give me facts or shut you flappung mouth and rest your fingers

Miscellaneous

Abortion/179/

"Abortion is wrong and should be illegal in the USA! Except or rape incest and mothers health but it is a such a low percentage for it to ever get passed i would have to give that up." "Abortion is wrong" is not a valid argument - "should be illegal" renders this debate into the domain of philosophy. A pregnant woman is self-governing - and the only relevant party with rational capacities that make it relevant to regard her as having rights - rights that are solely derived from the unique nature of being human - the ability to be rational. Rights are only applicable to those with this characteristic - based on the reality that the employ of force against others is an unreliable means of gaining values. The rational conclusion to this is to prohibit force from normal interaction with others. Individual rights, define those areas or aspects of action which should be free from force. Forcing a birth is in direct violation of the concept of rights . It violates the mothers rights to her own self as her own property - a punishment for the non-crime of sex. She and she alone is the rational body. She alone has property rights, and the foetus, non-rational, non-rights bearing, is definitely existent as part of the mother's property.

Puck

"Abortion is wrong and should be illegal in the USA! Except or rape incest and mothers health but it is a such a low percentage for it to ever get passed i would have to give that up." "Abortion is wrong" is not a valid argument - "should be illegal" renders this debate into the domain of philosophy. A pregnant woman is self-governing - and the only relevant party with rational capacities that make it relevant to regard her as having rights - rights that are solely derived from the unique nature of being human - the ability to be rational. Rights are only applicable to those with this characteristic - based on the reality that the employ of force against others is an unreliable means of gaining values. The rational conclusion to this is to prohibit force from normal interaction with others. Individual rights, define those areas or aspects of action which should be free from force. Forcing a birth is in direct violation of the concept of rights . It violates the mothers rights to her own self as her own property - a punishment for the non-crime of sex. She and she alone is the rational body. She alone has property rights, and the foetus, non-rational, non-rights bearing, is definitely existent as part of the mother's property.

Politics

Abortion/36/

"Being the caretaker of our species, a woman has a awesome responsibly the sanctity of life." Ambiguous collective fallacy. An individual is responsible for a singular life, their own. No one individual has automatic claim on another. "In fact if her womb is violated against her will by an unwanted perpetrator, prisons throughout our country are full of these criminals." Sentence error - a statement does not follow the premise. "In regards to the rights of a woman, her right to judge the existence of another life ends at the moment of conception." Rights are negative claims on action - judging is a positive action and irrelevant in a discussion of rights. Note that the trait "alive" is your sole sufficient clause. A mosquito is alive, under this premise squashing one would be illegal. "For a woman to determine the unborn life to be any less or more important then her own is unjust in a civilized society." Ambiguous collective - again the trait "alive" is insufficient in the determination of rights - read R1. "Her decision and her right to decide the life of another human being ends when she, the caretaker, voluntarily decides to conceive." Human is a philosophical definition and refers solely to "rational animal" - rationality is the basis of rights, a foetus is not rational so thanks for conceding. A foetus is Homo sapien, not human. "At the moment of conception she relinquishes her rights to be anymore or less important then the life in which she carries, they are of equal value, no life is greater then another." Incorrect. The life she carries is a symbiote of which she has sole controlling interest, sole controlling decision as property holder of it. It is a visitor until such time as she determines she wants it removed from her property at which point it becomes a trespasser. :) By your premise of "trait - alive" a parasitic worm has rights over and above the controlling host human to destroy it - if you are going to be consistent. "To abort this creation from that moment forward for anything less then a life threatening reason is paramount to murder and the suicide of our society and man kind as we know it." Fallacy - slippery slope. Again by your sole trait of "alive" the daily microbial activity in our gut makes us all mass murderers. "In conclusion of this round a wise man once quoted "recently there has been a lot of talk about the merits of abortion right/wrong one side/ the other... but it would seem that human common sense should simply dictate that by purposely taking the life of a purely innocent Being about to embark on life's journey is and should be beyond our comprehension and ability to execute."" Common sense is not a solid foundation for law - it relies on current common perception - which is far from reliable and usually far from valid. Holding slaves was considered good sense. "If man kind has no problem with heinously killing and executing its unborn young then what next?" Fallacy - Appeal to emotion. Hopefully recognising such individual rights will lead to further recognition.

Puck

"Being the caretaker of our species, a woman has a awesome responsibly the sanctity of life." Ambiguous collective fallacy. An individual is responsible for a singular life, their own. No one individual has automatic claim on another. "In fact if her womb is violated against her will by an unwanted perpetrator, prisons throughout our country are full of these criminals." Sentence error - a statement does not follow the premise. "In regards to the rights of a woman, her right to judge the existence of another life ends at the moment of conception." Rights are negative claims on action - judging is a positive action and irrelevant in a discussion of rights. Note that the trait "alive" is your sole sufficient clause. A mosquito is alive, under this premise squashing one would be illegal. "For a woman to determine the unborn life to be any less or more important then her own is unjust in a civilized society." Ambiguous collective - again the trait "alive" is insufficient in the determination of rights - read R1. "Her decision and her right to decide the life of another human being ends when she, the caretaker, voluntarily decides to conceive." Human is a philosophical definition and refers solely to "rational animal" - rationality is the basis of rights, a foetus is not rational so thanks for conceding. A foetus is Homo sapien, not human. "At the moment of conception she relinquishes her rights to be anymore or less important then the life in which she carries, they are of equal value, no life is greater then another." Incorrect. The life she carries is a symbiote of which she has sole controlling interest, sole controlling decision as property holder of it. It is a visitor until such time as she determines she wants it removed from her property at which point it becomes a trespasser. :) By your premise of "trait - alive" a parasitic worm has rights over and above the controlling host human to destroy it - if you are going to be consistent. "To abort this creation from that moment forward for anything less then a life threatening reason is paramount to murder and the suicide of our society and man kind as we know it." Fallacy - slippery slope. Again by your sole trait of "alive" the daily microbial activity in our gut makes us all mass murderers. "In conclusion of this round a wise man once quoted "recently there has been a lot of talk about the merits of abortion right/wrong one side/ the other... but it would seem that human common sense should simply dictate that by purposely taking the life of a purely innocent Being about to embark on life's journey is and should be beyond our comprehension and ability to execute."" Common sense is not a solid foundation for law - it relies on current common perception - which is far from reliable and usually far from valid. Holding slaves was considered good sense. "If man kind has no problem with heinously killing and executing its unborn young then what next?" Fallacy - Appeal to emotion. Hopefully recognising such individual rights will lead to further recognition.

Politics

Abortion/36/

"You covered everything except Soylent Green. Check it out, its right up your ally." Advocating liberty =/= dystopia. "Wrong, again without a woman being responsibly for the sanctity of life we wouldn't have a civilization to discuss." Again ambiguous collective fallacy - there is no construct "society" here that is valid, only individuals. "Sentence correction - prisons throughout this country are full of criminals that have violated the womb of a woman." That relates to abortion being made legal how exactly? The only thing it does it harm your case by the law recognising a woman as her own property and the ability of a trespasser in that property. :) "Fallacy - squashing a mosquito would not be illegal, but killing a human being born or unborn should be." Saying "fallacy" is a useless exercise unless you indicate what one - i.e. how the argument is faulty. All you have done is gone NUHUH! Saying "should be" is the resolution, not an argument. "Wrong, the definition of Homo sapien is a human being, and by your our volition a foetus is Homo sapien, thus a foetus is human being and given time and maturity will have rationally thoughts, if not executed first through a abortion." This a debate on philosophical grounds - Homo sapien is a biological scientific classification - it indicates nothing more than demarcation between species - human is a philosophical one, and specifically means "rational animal." Volition has nothing to do with whether an organism meets a classification criteria. Potentiality argument fails - as a sperm and embryo both have potentials for development into a human - thus under your reasoning making periods and masturbation illegal. "Correction - you consider the life she carries a symbiote. I consider it a unborn human being, that she is a caretaker of, and not to be viewed as a piece of property but as an unborn life." Unborn and symbiote are no exclusive definitions. It is residing on property that the mother has controlling right over - her body. "Incorrect - a parasitic, a worm or any other form of bacteria has no controlling rights over the human it may occupy. A human embryo conceived by two opposite sexed humans does have rights, no more or less then the mother of which conceived it." You still fail to give a basis for what rights are other than "life" - as such all life still has rights under your premise - equally you fail utterly in building a case for the singular rights of a foetus. "Correction of Fallacy - the daily microbial activity of our stomach acid destroying bacteria in our digestive system, cannot be compared to the growth of a human embryo in a mothers womb and its destruction through abortion." Simply making a statement is not an argument. Using your premises. 1. Destruction of life is murder 2. A microbe is alive 3. Killing a microbe is murder "Common Sense is the only basics of law, without it there is no foundation." In America the basis is the constitution - not common sense. Common sense is simply an appeal to popularity - if laws were based on this sole premise then popular vote would need to occur for the creation of each legal decision. Clearly that doesn't occur. Clearly you fail. "No matter what the current common perception. Example the Holocaust was considered acceptable by Nazi Germany but basic human common sense finally deemed it wrong, and a crime against society at the Nuremberg trails." Murder was established as punishable far prior to post WWII. It is not "common sense" that dictates reaction to murder is is based upon the rational premise that force should be void from social actions i.e. the right to life. "The Holocaust was always found fundamentally wrong, as is abortion." Fallacy - weak analogy, abortion =/= WWII genocide. "Sentence error - recognizing spelled wrong" Queen's English. It may be difficult for you to understand, however America is not the origin of the English language. ==

Puck

"You covered everything except Soylent Green. Check it out, its right up your ally." Advocating liberty =/= dystopia. "Wrong, again without a woman being responsibly for the sanctity of life we wouldn't have a civilization to discuss." Again ambiguous collective fallacy - there is no construct "society" here that is valid, only individuals. "Sentence correction - prisons throughout this country are full of criminals that have violated the womb of a woman." That relates to abortion being made legal how exactly? The only thing it does it harm your case by the law recognising a woman as her own property and the ability of a trespasser in that property. :) "Fallacy - squashing a mosquito would not be illegal, but killing a human being born or unborn should be." Saying "fallacy" is a useless exercise unless you indicate what one - i.e. how the argument is faulty. All you have done is gone NUHUH! Saying "should be" is the resolution, not an argument. "Wrong, the definition of Homo sapien is a human being, and by your our volition a foetus is Homo sapien, thus a foetus is human being and given time and maturity will have rationally thoughts, if not executed first through a abortion." This a debate on philosophical grounds - Homo sapien is a biological scientific classification - it indicates nothing more than demarcation between species - human is a philosophical one, and specifically means "rational animal." Volition has nothing to do with whether an organism meets a classification criteria. Potentiality argument fails - as a sperm and embryo both have potentials for development into a human - thus under your reasoning making periods and masturbation illegal. "Correction - you consider the life she carries a symbiote. I consider it a unborn human being, that she is a caretaker of, and not to be viewed as a piece of property but as an unborn life." Unborn and symbiote are no exclusive definitions. It is residing on property that the mother has controlling right over - her body. "Incorrect - a parasitic, a worm or any other form of bacteria has no controlling rights over the human it may occupy. A human embryo conceived by two opposite sexed humans does have rights, no more or less then the mother of which conceived it." You still fail to give a basis for what rights are other than "life" - as such all life still has rights under your premise - equally you fail utterly in building a case for the singular rights of a foetus. "Correction of Fallacy - the daily microbial activity of our stomach acid destroying bacteria in our digestive system, cannot be compared to the growth of a human embryo in a mothers womb and its destruction through abortion." Simply making a statement is not an argument. Using your premises. 1. Destruction of life is murder 2. A microbe is alive 3. Killing a microbe is murder "Common Sense is the only basics of law, without it there is no foundation." In America the basis is the constitution - not common sense. Common sense is simply an appeal to popularity - if laws were based on this sole premise then popular vote would need to occur for the creation of each legal decision. Clearly that doesn't occur. Clearly you fail. "No matter what the current common perception. Example the Holocaust was considered acceptable by Nazi Germany but basic human common sense finally deemed it wrong, and a crime against society at the Nuremberg trails." Murder was established as punishable far prior to post WWII. It is not "common sense" that dictates reaction to murder is is based upon the rational premise that force should be void from social actions i.e. the right to life. "The Holocaust was always found fundamentally wrong, as is abortion." Fallacy - weak analogy, abortion =/= WWII genocide. "Sentence error - recognizing spelled wrong" Queen's English. It may be difficult for you to understand, however America is not the origin of the English language. ==

Politics

Abortion/36/

I am not saying I am for abortion, but I do think it is not a matter of what everyone other than the carrier of the child. You have failed to mention that there is such thing as rape and other causes that are able to get a woman pregnant, not just consensual sex. Say you got pregnant via rape (I don't want to harm anyone emotionally, but just putting it out there). You are young and have a whole life ahead of you. If you don't want a kid, you shouldn't be forced into having one. And let's not forget that it is in fact possible for a woman to die during child birth. I believe that the decision is to be made between the doctor and the woman carrying said child.

Darkerknight

I am not saying I am for abortion, but I do think it is not a matter of what everyone other than the carrier of the child. You have failed to mention that there is such thing as rape and other causes that are able to get a woman pregnant, not just consensual sex. Say you got pregnant via rape (I don't want to harm anyone emotionally, but just putting it out there). You are young and have a whole life ahead of you. If you don't want a kid, you shouldn't be forced into having one. And let's not forget that it is in fact possible for a woman to die during child birth. I believe that the decision is to be made between the doctor and the woman carrying said child.

People

Abortion/498/

Just as zookdook said, don't bring religion into this. A lot of people either have a lack of, or no, belief in any deity. And their faith is especially crushed when something as traumatizing as rape happens to them. Who would think "God wanted this" when they were just violated, and then impregnated?

Darkerknight

Just as zookdook said, don't bring religion into this. A lot of people either have a lack of, or no, belief in any deity. And their faith is especially crushed when something as traumatizing as rape happens to them. Who would think "God wanted this" when they were just violated, and then impregnated?

People

Abortion/498/

I'm just going to finish this by saying that there should be no law that forbids abortion. It is a matter between the two involved, and no one has the right to interfere with that.

Darkerknight

I'm just going to finish this by saying that there should be no law that forbids abortion. It is a matter between the two involved, and no one has the right to interfere with that.

People

Abortion/498/

Absolute truth exists absolutely, regardless of the subjective nature of experience. The key here is the difference between what we consider facts and what we consider truth. Facts are conditional and changeable due to entropy, but truths, such as how gravity works, are immune to such change. Because such things are immutable, unchangeable, and constant, they are in fact absolute truths. The possible existence of another universe doesn't negate these truths because one could come up with any scenario in which something fundamental could not work, but that only proves the power of the human imagination and not the reality in which we find ourselves.

Atmas

Absolute truth exists absolutely, regardless of the subjective nature of experience. The key here is the difference between what we consider facts and what we consider truth. Facts are conditional and changeable due to entropy, but truths, such as how gravity works, are immune to such change. Because such things are immutable, unchangeable, and constant, they are in fact absolute truths. The possible existence of another universe doesn't negate these truths because one could come up with any scenario in which something fundamental could not work, but that only proves the power of the human imagination and not the reality in which we find ourselves.

Philosophy

Absolute-truth-is-the-absolute-truth./1/

I want to thank my opponent for stepping into this debate with a mature and thought-provoking response. First I want to address the issue with subjective experience versus objective experience: If one's reality were to bend toward their subjective opinions and experience, then we would see people performing feats that would otherwise be impossible. This is not what is observed in the collective human experience as we clearly don't see people defying gravity to fly or accessing super speed to dodge bullets etc. Even if a person were to truly believe in their own subjective experience, others on the outside would witness their claims and possibly call them mad. An insane person sitting in a padded room might be unable to distinguish his own illusions with reality and might believe they are flying over Earth's major cities, but that doesn't affect the fact that they are still in that padded room. Secondly, I want to re-iterate the difference between facts and truths. As said in the initial post, facts are conditional and are more of a snapshot of consequences being pulled from a working logical system while a truth is the logical system itself. It is a fact that I exist in the country mankind has named United States of America, but if I were to move to another country, that fact would no longer be correct. To say that everyone experiences their own unique set of facts that pertain to their current existence in time/space is obviously correct, but the truths in the universe always apply without any contradictions. While our general vocabulary leads us to use Facts, Truth, True, and Real as synonyms; they should not possess the same definitions. Another interesting effect of assuming Absolute truth to be real is the existence of dinosaurs. At the moment of their existence, we could say that it is a fact that they exist, but that fact will change over time and become almost untrue (Ignoring the creatures that evolved from them). Now we can say that dinosaurs used to exist and it is no longer just a fact but is an absolute truth because their past existence will never change. It seems that what is true can only be confidently said to be a truth if it is cemented into the past ... besides the universal laws.

Atmas

I want to thank my opponent for stepping into this debate with a mature and thought-provoking response. First I want to address the issue with subjective experience versus objective experience: If one's reality were to bend toward their subjective opinions and experience, then we would see people performing feats that would otherwise be impossible. This is not what is observed in the collective human experience as we clearly don't see people defying gravity to fly or accessing super speed to dodge bullets etc. Even if a person were to truly believe in their own subjective experience, others on the outside would witness their claims and possibly call them mad. An insane person sitting in a padded room might be unable to distinguish his own illusions with reality and might believe they are flying over Earth's major cities, but that doesn't affect the fact that they are still in that padded room. Secondly, I want to re-iterate the difference between facts and truths. As said in the initial post, facts are conditional and are more of a snapshot of consequences being pulled from a working logical system while a truth is the logical system itself. It is a fact that I exist in the country mankind has named United States of America, but if I were to move to another country, that fact would no longer be correct. To say that everyone experiences their own unique set of facts that pertain to their current existence in time/space is obviously correct, but the truths in the universe always apply without any contradictions. While our general vocabulary leads us to use Facts, Truth, True, and Real as synonyms; they should not possess the same definitions. Another interesting effect of assuming Absolute truth to be real is the existence of dinosaurs. At the moment of their existence, we could say that it is a fact that they exist, but that fact will change over time and become almost untrue (Ignoring the creatures that evolved from them). Now we can say that dinosaurs used to exist and it is no longer just a fact but is an absolute truth because their past existence will never change. It seems that what is true can only be confidently said to be a truth if it is cemented into the past ... besides the universal laws.

Philosophy

Absolute-truth-is-the-absolute-truth./1/

Due to my opponent forfeiting the round, I have no further foundation to build my arguments. My previous one still stands and I'm not sure what to do if my opponent doesn't continue to respond.

Atmas

Due to my opponent forfeiting the round, I have no further foundation to build my arguments. My previous one still stands and I'm not sure what to do if my opponent doesn't continue to respond.

Philosophy

Absolute-truth-is-the-absolute-truth./1/

Just want to open up by saying what a delight it is to join in this debate. This is definitely a topic that can work the mind. Absolute truth is the absolute truth. Either something is true or it is not? However consider this. We all are bound by gravity and its laws and to me it is true. However what about someone who believes they escaped these laws and was flying around freely. Not that this person claims it but that they believe it in full honesty. In their mind its true. So if it's truth for them who is to say its not true or truth. We all have various levels of perceiving our world around us for which some truths are more true than others depending on how many people share them in common. Thank you for taking the time to read my opening. Thank you.

TheatreVirus

Just want to open up by saying what a delight it is to join in this debate. This is definitely a topic that can work the mind. Absolute truth is the absolute truth. Either something is true or it is not? However consider this. We all are bound by gravity and its laws and to me it is true. However what about someone who believes they escaped these laws and was flying around freely. Not that this person claims it but that they believe it in full honesty. In their mind its true. So if it's truth for them who is to say its not true or truth. We all have various levels of perceiving our world around us for which some truths are more true than others depending on how many people share them in common. Thank you for taking the time to read my opening. Thank you.

Philosophy

Absolute-truth-is-the-absolute-truth./1/

Resolved: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity. The thesis of this case is that human life should be the ultimate value. Without water you have no life, without life you have no morals. Therefor water should be valued as a human right instead of a commodity. With that being said, valuing water as a human right does not necessarily mean every human being will have water. There will be many who are deprived of water, but keep in mind that human rights are violated every day. A human right is only documented which doesn't mean it is enforced in all countries at all times. Value: Human Life is the superior value in this case Criterion: Preservation of human life Contentions: 1.Water sustains life and life is the ultimate human right. a. Without life then all other rights are irrelevant b. John Locke argued that people have rights such as the right to life, and liberty, that have a foundation independent of law of any particular society. c. Thomas Hobbes wrote "The Law of Nature" which interlocked the true definitions of rights, liberty, and law. 2.Human rights are violated but are still documented for guidelines. a.The right to life comprises the right of every human being not to be deprived of his life. In Article 18 in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. In February of 2002, 27 Hindu activist were killed by Muslims which triggered a violent spiral of religious revenge and 4 days later 2,000 Muslims were kill. Later investigations revealed that it was planned and done with mutual approval of authorities. The Hindu activist had their human rights violated. b.We agree that it is impossible to guarantee drinking water to every single human being, thus declaring that drinking water is a human right does not guarantee everyone will be provided with drinking water. Human rights are commonly violated. 3.Since water sustains life, valuing water as a commodity is putting a price on life. a.Human rights shouldn't be valued as a commodity because putting a dollar amount on life is immoral.

audreyb2014

Resolved: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity. The thesis of this case is that human life should be the ultimate value. Without water you have no life, without life you have no morals. Therefor water should be valued as a human right instead of a commodity. With that being said, valuing water as a human right does not necessarily mean every human being will have water. There will be many who are deprived of water, but keep in mind that human rights are violated every day. A human right is only documented which doesn't mean it is enforced in all countries at all times. Value: Human Life is the superior value in this case Criterion: Preservation of human life Contentions: 1.Water sustains life and life is the ultimate human right. a. Without life then all other rights are irrelevant b. John Locke argued that people have rights such as the right to life, and liberty, that have a foundation independent of law of any particular society. c. Thomas Hobbes wrote "The Law of Nature" which interlocked the true definitions of rights, liberty, and law. 2.Human rights are violated but are still documented for guidelines. a.The right to life comprises the right of every human being not to be deprived of his life. In Article 18 in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. In February of 2002, 27 Hindu activist were killed by Muslims which triggered a violent spiral of religious revenge and 4 days later 2,000 Muslims were kill. Later investigations revealed that it was planned and done with mutual approval of authorities. The Hindu activist had their human rights violated. b.We agree that it is impossible to guarantee drinking water to every single human being, thus declaring that drinking water is a human right does not guarantee everyone will be provided with drinking water. Human rights are commonly violated. 3.Since water sustains life, valuing water as a commodity is putting a price on life. a.Human rights shouldn't be valued as a commodity because putting a dollar amount on life is immoral.

Society

Access-to-drinking-water-ought-to-be-valued-as-a-human-right-instead-of-as-a-commodity/3/

I have read about 2/3 of the Holy Bible, Children Catholic, Southern Baptist, and of course KJV. I have had many mentors, Crazed-Conservative history teacher, Super-commie Teacher, 3rd generation immigrant. My views on church are grim, I think I use the WWJD not like most. They use against the wrong people. Church must be a family gathering with a daily Eucharist. I've read some of the Qur'an about a little surface on his book. I know the Old Testament well and the New Testament better. I also love learning about science, and physics, and evolution, and space. I know not believe know that God created the world NOT in seven days. Symbolic. He would but Moses to sleep with the lengthy science answer. God needed a story to explain a secret deal. Sabbath. Why do we have seven days? Sabbath day is a gift from God and he got us to love the story. The seventh day he "rested". Who does not love the weekends? I kind of fits too. Light 1st, Heaven, Plants 2nd, Day and Night, Calendar etc. 3rd, Sea-life and winged things 4th, Bugs and land beasts and humans with authority over all things (intelligence is what we call it in America) He rested on our day. According to most this is direct coronation with Darwin believe values. I researched some for about a day and estimate the real ages to Adam and Eve 12,535- 12,850 years old I used the ages of all of Jesus' genealogy & Noah's as well. I "ASSUME" that Adam & Eve lived in the garden for about 0-315 years respectably. If you think it is Longer? Earlier? or think I am a crazy Christian because yeah if you are religious that religion is the most important thing, "truth, was is truth?" - Pontus Pilate. But thank you for reading so long God bless you and peace be with friend or foe.

CountCheechula

I have read about 2/3 of the Holy Bible, Children Catholic, Southern Baptist, and of course KJV. I have had many mentors, Crazed-Conservative history teacher, Super-commie Teacher, 3rd generation immigrant. My views on church are grim, I think I use the WWJD not like most. They use against the wrong people. Church must be a family gathering with a daily Eucharist. I've read some of the Qur'an about a little surface on his book. I know the Old Testament well and the New Testament better. I also love learning about science, and physics, and evolution, and space. I know not believe know that God created the world NOT in seven days. Symbolic. He would but Moses to sleep with the lengthy science answer. God needed a story to explain a secret deal. Sabbath. Why do we have seven days? Sabbath day is a gift from God and he got us to love the story. The seventh day he "rested". Who does not love the weekends? I kind of fits too. Light 1st, Heaven, Plants 2nd, Day and Night, Calendar etc. 3rd, Sea-life and winged things 4th, Bugs and land beasts and humans with authority over all things (intelligence is what we call it in America) He rested on our day. According to most this is direct coronation with Darwin believe values. I researched some for about a day and estimate the real ages to Adam and Eve 12,535- 12,850 years old I used the ages of all of Jesus' genealogy & Noah's as well. I "ASSUME" that Adam & Eve lived in the garden for about 0-315 years respectably. If you think it is Longer? Earlier? or think I am a crazy Christian because yeah if you are religious that religion is the most important thing, "truth, was is truth?" - Pontus Pilate. But thank you for reading so long God bless you and peace be with friend or foe.

Religion

According-to-the-Bible-Adam-and-Eve-are-about-12-000-years-old./1/

The purpose of this debate is to argue whether or not, overall, from an intellectual standpoint, Adolf Hitler was an intelligent individual. I am arguing the Con side in this debate. I will start with defining some of the terms mentioned in this first round exposition and that are at the core of this debate: 1. Adolf Hitler "(<PHONE>), German leader , born in Austria; chancellor of Germany 1933-45. He cofounded the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party in 1919 and came to prominence through his powers of oratory. He wrote Mein Kampf (1925), an exposition of his political ideas, while in prison. He established the totalitarian Third Reich in 1933. His expansionist foreign policy precipitated World War II, while his fanatical anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust." [1] 2. Intelligent "Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level:" [2] These two terms serve as the general points of contention of this debate. I will present my argument as to why Hitler was not an intelligent individual in round 2, following Pro's acceptance of this debate. I would request that the first round of this debate is used solely for the definition of vocabulary and acceptance of this debate, and not for argument presentation. This is why I made the debate four rounds instead of three. I await my opponent's acceptance and wish them, whomever they are, best of luck! [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...

Jade75

The purpose of this debate is to argue whether or not, overall, from an intellectual standpoint, Adolf Hitler was an intelligent individual. I am arguing the Con side in this debate. I will start with defining some of the terms mentioned in this first round exposition and that are at the core of this debate: 1. Adolf Hitler "(1889–1945), German leader , born in Austria; chancellor of Germany 1933–45. He cofounded the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party in 1919 and came to prominence through his powers of oratory. He wrote Mein Kampf (1925), an exposition of his political ideas, while in prison. He established the totalitarian Third Reich in 1933. His expansionist foreign policy precipitated World War II, while his fanatical anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust." [1] 2. Intelligent "Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level:" [2] These two terms serve as the general points of contention of this debate. I will present my argument as to why Hitler was not an intelligent individual in round 2, following Pro's acceptance of this debate. I would request that the first round of this debate is used solely for the definition of vocabulary and acceptance of this debate, and not for argument presentation. This is why I made the debate four rounds instead of three. I await my opponent's acceptance and wish them, whomever they are, best of luck! [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Politics

Adolf-Hitler-was-an-Intelligent-Individual/2/

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and wish him the best of luck. I'd like to start my argument by wholeheartedly accepting my opponent's definition of intelligence. I will be proving how Hitler most certainly was not that intelligent of an individual. One of the most common misconceptions about Hitler is the theory that, since he got a 'lot' of people to follow him during his rise to power, that he must have been smart. First of all, while people did follow Hitler at the beginning of and during his rise to power, that 'lot' definitely did not constitute the majority. The results of the March 13, 1932 election stood as follows: Paul von Hindenburg, 49.6% of the overall vote; Hitler, 30.1% of the overall vote; Ernst Thaelmann, 13.2% of the overall vote; and Theodore Duesterberg, 6.8% of the vote [see citation 1]. Almost an entire seventy percent of the German people voted against Hitler in this election [1]. Joseph Goebbels, a strong Hitler supporter and the man who would eventually become Hitler's infamous propaganda minister, reportedly remarked, "We're beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected." [1]. It was a similar result for Hitler in the April 19th, 1932 election: Hindenburg garnered 53.0% of the vote, Hitler 36.8%, and Thaelmann 10.2% [1]. On June 1st of that same year, the newly elected Hindenburg made the decision to appoint Franz von Papen as Chancellor of Germany. What was one of the first things Papen did? Dissolve the national Congress, of course! He then called for Germany's third legislative election in five months. This is the first point where Hitler's non-intelligence shows itself. Hitler and other members of his Nazi (National Socialist) Party were "determined to bring down the republic and establish dictatorial rule in Germany" [1]. They attempted to accomplish this goal by performing horrendous acts of violence, murder, and other extremely antagonistic actions. Chaos ensued, and martial law was enacted in Berlin. This was all thanks to Hitler's brash attempt at taking advantage of the situation Papen set up for him. This is a recurring trend in the actions of Hitler: the situation in which he was supposedly 'intelligent' in was usually set up for him by some other event. It wasn't Hitler's intelligence - it was outside events that pretty much anyone could have taken advantage of, with the proper guidance of course. Hitler was of average intelligence at best, and there are many, many situations where even that seemed to be stretching the truth. Even though he may have had people following him in greater numbers after these occurrences and into the future, if you have 100 idiots following another idiot, does that make the leading idiot smart? The previously mentioned 'exploitation of prior events' that Hitler so commonly used to his advantage lies at the core of his Nazi movement. After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles imposed "particularly stringent treaty obligations upon the defeated Germany", due to the fact the Western powers viewed Germany as the instigator of the war [2]. The treaty forced Germany to concede territories that were previously under German control to Belgium (Eupen-Malmdy), Czechoslovakia (the Hultschin district), and Poland (Poznan [German: Posen], West Prussia and Upper Silesia) [2]. However, the most "humiliating" clause in the entire treaty to Germany was Article 231, otherwise known as the "War Guilt Clause". This article forced the nation of Germany, as a whole, to accept FULL responsibility for World War I. This made them reliable for all material damages inflicted upon other nations [2]. The French still pressed further in the treaty, as they sought to limit Germany's ability to recover from the war due to the fact the French were worried Germany would be able to recover from the war and start an entirely new conflict. The treaty limited the Germans to 100,000 men, with conscription prohibited. It also restricted the German Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, and no submarine fleet whatsoever. Additionally, it restricted Germany from having any kind of air force. [2] Predictably, the citizens of Germany and the other defeated nations viewed the treaty as an unfair punishment. The citizens were outraged at the 'punishments', and this only added on to the negative emotion and feelings that had been stoked by their collective defeat in the war. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, I believe, states it best: "The war guilt clause, its incumbent reparation payments, and the limitations on the German military were particularly onerous in the minds of most Germans, and revision of the Versailles Treaty represented one of the platforms that gave radical right wing parties in Germany, including Hitler's Nazi Party, such credibility to mainstream voters in the 1920s and early 1930s. Promises to rearm, to reclaim German territory, particularly in the East, to remilitarize the Rhineland, and to regain prominence again among the European and world powers after such a humiliating defeat and peace, stoked ultranationalist sentiment and helped average voters to overlook the more radical tenets of Nazi ideology." [2] The point I am trying to make here is that it was less of Hitler's supposed intelligence that resulted in his political prominence, and more the situation he rose to prominence in. His party's notorious propaganda overshadowed its blatant stupid radicalism, and the fact that so many people believed that his party stood for the German nation's resurgence as a whole was the driving force behind his and his party's ability to garner any influence at all. Hitler's intelligence had little to do with this certain facet - it was more the idea that he WAS intelligent (among many other fantastical notions), as depicted by the Nazi propaganda and its corresponding ministers, that grew followers to his cause. This is highlighted by a speech by the previously mentioned Goebbels on Hitler and the media of the time: "The newspapers today are filled with congratulations for Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler. The nuances vary, depending on the tone, character, and attitude of the newspaper. All, however, agree on one thing: Hitler is a man of stature who has already accomplished historically important deeds and faces still greater challenges. He is the kind of statesman found only rarely in Germany. During his lifetime, he has the good fortune not only to be appreciated and loved by the overwhelming majority of the German people, but even more importantly to be understood by them. He is the only German politician of the post-war period who understood the situation and drew the necessary hard and firm conclusions. All the newspapers agree on this." [3] The conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that it was of German support for the supposed betterment of their country, not the German support of the supposedly intelligent Hitler, which drove so many people to support said Hitler in the fashion that they did. In all facets of his regime, it was more this love of country, not the love of one leader, that drew so much support to Hitler. Due to the fact I am running short on space in this round of the debate, I will hold off on my arguments against Hitler's intelligence as a military leader until the next round. One of the quickest things to point out about Hitler and the military, however, was the fact that Hitler was an egotistical maniac, bent on running a war by himself and killing anyone who opposed him. I wouldn't exactly call that smart, especially considering the outcome of WWII ended in Hitler's suicide.[4] I eagerly await my opponent's response! [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

Jade75

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and wish him the best of luck. I'd like to start my argument by wholeheartedly accepting my opponent's definition of intelligence. I will be proving how Hitler most certainly was not that intelligent of an individual. One of the most common misconceptions about Hitler is the theory that, since he got a 'lot' of people to follow him during his rise to power, that he must have been smart. First of all, while people did follow Hitler at the beginning of and during his rise to power, that 'lot' definitely did not constitute the majority. The results of the March 13, 1932 election stood as follows: Paul von Hindenburg, 49.6% of the overall vote; Hitler, 30.1% of the overall vote; Ernst Thaelmann, 13.2% of the overall vote; and Theodore Duesterberg, 6.8% of the vote [see citation 1]. Almost an entire seventy percent of the German people voted against Hitler in this election [1]. Joseph Goebbels, a strong Hitler supporter and the man who would eventually become Hitler's infamous propaganda minister, reportedly remarked, "We're beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected." [1]. It was a similar result for Hitler in the April 19th, 1932 election: Hindenburg garnered 53.0% of the vote, Hitler 36.8%, and Thaelmann 10.2% [1]. On June 1st of that same year, the newly elected Hindenburg made the decision to appoint Franz von Papen as Chancellor of Germany. What was one of the first things Papen did? Dissolve the national Congress, of course! He then called for Germany's third legislative election in five months. This is the first point where Hitler's non-intelligence shows itself. Hitler and other members of his Nazi (National Socialist) Party were "determined to bring down the republic and establish dictatorial rule in Germany" [1]. They attempted to accomplish this goal by performing horrendous acts of violence, murder, and other extremely antagonistic actions. Chaos ensued, and martial law was enacted in Berlin. This was all thanks to Hitler's brash attempt at taking advantage of the situation Papen set up for him. This is a recurring trend in the actions of Hitler: the situation in which he was supposedly 'intelligent' in was usually set up for him by some other event. It wasn't Hitler's intelligence - it was outside events that pretty much anyone could have taken advantage of, with the proper guidance of course. Hitler was of average intelligence at best, and there are many, many situations where even that seemed to be stretching the truth. Even though he may have had people following him in greater numbers after these occurrences and into the future, if you have 100 idiots following another idiot, does that make the leading idiot smart? The previously mentioned 'exploitation of prior events' that Hitler so commonly used to his advantage lies at the core of his Nazi movement. After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles imposed "particularly stringent treaty obligations upon the defeated Germany", due to the fact the Western powers viewed Germany as the instigator of the war [2]. The treaty forced Germany to concede territories that were previously under German control to Belgium (Eupen-Malm�dy), Czechoslovakia (the Hultschin district), and Poland (Poznan [German: Posen], West Prussia and Upper Silesia) [2]. However, the most "humiliating" clause in the entire treaty to Germany was Article 231, otherwise known as the "War Guilt Clause". This article forced the nation of Germany, as a whole, to accept FULL responsibility for World War I. This made them reliable for all material damages inflicted upon other nations [2]. The French still pressed further in the treaty, as they sought to limit Germany's ability to recover from the war due to the fact the French were worried Germany would be able to recover from the war and start an entirely new conflict. The treaty limited the Germans to 100,000 men, with conscription prohibited. It also restricted the German Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, and no submarine fleet whatsoever. Additionally, it restricted Germany from having any kind of air force. [2] Predictably, the citizens of Germany and the other defeated nations viewed the treaty as an unfair punishment. The citizens were outraged at the 'punishments', and this only added on to the negative emotion and feelings that had been stoked by their collective defeat in the war. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, I believe, states it best: "The war guilt clause, its incumbent reparation payments, and the limitations on the German military were particularly onerous in the minds of most Germans, and revision of the Versailles Treaty represented one of the platforms that gave radical right wing parties in Germany, including Hitler's Nazi Party, such credibility to mainstream voters in the 1920s and early 1930s. Promises to rearm, to reclaim German territory, particularly in the East, to remilitarize the Rhineland, and to regain prominence again among the European and world powers after such a humiliating defeat and peace, stoked ultranationalist sentiment and helped average voters to overlook the more radical tenets of Nazi ideology." [2] The point I am trying to make here is that it was less of Hitler's supposed intelligence that resulted in his political prominence, and more the situation he rose to prominence in. His party's notorious propaganda overshadowed its blatant stupid radicalism, and the fact that so many people believed that his party stood for the German nation's resurgence as a whole was the driving force behind his and his party's ability to garner any influence at all. Hitler's intelligence had little to do with this certain facet - it was more the idea that he WAS intelligent (among many other fantastical notions), as depicted by the Nazi propaganda and its corresponding ministers, that grew followers to his cause. This is highlighted by a speech by the previously mentioned Goebbels on Hitler and the media of the time: "The newspapers today are filled with congratulations for Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler. The nuances vary, depending on the tone, character, and attitude of the newspaper. All, however, agree on one thing: Hitler is a man of stature who has already accomplished historically important deeds and faces still greater challenges. He is the kind of statesman found only rarely in Germany. During his lifetime, he has the good fortune not only to be appreciated and loved by the overwhelming majority of the German people, but even more importantly to be understood by them. He is the only German politician of the post-war period who understood the situation and drew the necessary hard and firm conclusions. All the newspapers agree on this." [3] The conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that it was of German support for the supposed betterment of their country, not the German support of the supposedly intelligent Hitler, which drove so many people to support said Hitler in the fashion that they did. In all facets of his regime, it was more this love of country, not the love of one leader, that drew so much support to Hitler. Due to the fact I am running short on space in this round of the debate, I will hold off on my arguments against Hitler's intelligence as a military leader until the next round. One of the quickest things to point out about Hitler and the military, however, was the fact that Hitler was an egotistical maniac, bent on running a war by himself and killing anyone who opposed him. I wouldn't exactly call that smart, especially considering the outcome of WWII ended in Hitler's suicide.[4] I eagerly await my opponent's response! [1] http://www.fff.org... [2] http://www.ushmm.org... [3] http://www.ihatethemedia.com... [4] http://www.historyplace.com...

Politics

Adolf-Hitler-was-an-Intelligent-Individual/2/

I am sorry to see that my opponent his round 2 portion of this debate. That being said, I shall now continue my arguments... Hitler, as a military leader, can be summed up best by this quote: "Before the war, and still more during the conquest of the West, Hitler came to appear a gigantic figure, combining the strategy of a Napoleon with the cunning of a Machiavelli and the fanatical fevour of a Mohomet. After his first check in Russia, his figure began to shrink, and towards the end he was regarded as a blundering amateur in the military field, whose crazy orders and crass ignorance had been the Allies' greatest asset. All the disasters of the German Army were attributed to Hitler; all its successes were credited to the German General Staff." B. H. Liddell Hart [1] Hitler may have appeared somewhat intelligent militarily at the start of the war, but after his unfair, pre-determined advantages were taken away by military defeats, the true Hitler was revealed to be somewhat of an insane and ignorant person. One of his greatest blunders was the infamous battle of Dunkirk. The battle of Dunkirk took place in May-June of 1940. The conflict involved the Germans, the British, and the French. The German forces eventually managed to trap roughly 330,000 enemy men on the beaches around Dunkirk, and their destruction by the Germans was imminent. The men at Dunkirk were literally sitting ducks for a German onslaught, and it was entirely possible that all the men would have been killed if the Germans would have pressed the attack. Of course, Hitler, showing his absolute foolishness, decided to issue a "Halt" order. This allowed all 330,000 enemy soldiers to escape back to Britain after Hitler PERSONALLY squandered the best opportunity he had gotten so far at destroying the British army. Winston Churchill called it a 'miracle' and it illustrated one of the best points I am trying to make - Hitler's incompetence. [2] [3] That, however, was not the greatest example of Hitler's incompetence. That award goes to the Battle of Stalingrad. Stalingrad is considered by many to be the "turning point of World War II" and was responsible for the loss of 250,000 German men - a.k.a. the entire German Sixth Army [4]. The German attempt to capture the city was effective if judged by the amount of land in the city they effectively captured, but was less effective when the fact that the portions of land they captured during the day were taken back by the Russians at night. While the fighting for the control of the actual city was taking place, six Russian armies of one million men, led by Marshal Zhukov, surrounded the city and called for the German surrender. The Germans were headed for a disaster, but the forces, led by General Paulus, could have broken out of the trap in the first stages of the enemy assault. Guess who ordered them not to do so. That's right. Hitler. Hitler's order to Paulus read as follows: Supreme Commander to 6 Army, January 24, 1943 "Surrender is forbidden. 6 Army will hold their positions to the last man and the last round and by their heroic endurance will make an unforgettable contribution towards the establishment of a defensive front and the salvation of the Western world." [4] Yes, intelligent. Due to the fact the forces were now unable to break out of the Russian trap, they had to face other enemies, such as the Winter. Food, ammunition, and morale quickly ran low. So what did Hitler do? Promote Paulus to Field Marshal, of course! As if that would somehow change the fact that a million Russians were about to hand the Germans one of the most crushing defeats of the war, all thanks to Hitler's order. By February 2nd, 1943, the German army surrendered in the wake of a complete and utter military disaster. With so much manpower lost, Germany set itself up for a fall in the rest of the war, and when they really needed the extra manpower and resources, such as when the Russians advanced on Germany, they did not have them. All thanks to Hitler's incredibly stupid decision to "fight to the last bullet." [4] Now, Hitler at least honored the soldiers that fell at the battle, right? Of course not. He organized a national day of mourning in Germany for the "shame von Paulus had brought on the Wehrmacht and Germany"[4]. To put the final nail in the coffin, Hitler stripped Paulus of the rank he had been so quick to give him before.[4] All of that being said, Hitler's stupidest decision had to have been declaring war on the United States. After being entrenched in years of war with Russia and England, on December 11th, 1941, Hitler declared War on the United States. Yes, that makes sense. He was already fighting two of the strongest nations on the face of the planet, and then he decides to declare war on a third. The man's total ignorance, arrogance, and belief that he could defeat three ostentatiously strong nations at once was exemplified in this decision, and the lack of intelligence, militarily or otherwise, shown by this action, really does speak for itself. I await my opponent's response. [1] <URL>... (Note: If this particular link appears ineffective or broken, it may need to be copy + pasted into the address bar to be viewed. Sorry for the inconvenience if this does occur.) [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

Jade75

I am sorry to see that my opponent his round 2 portion of this debate. That being said, I shall now continue my arguments... Hitler, as a military leader, can be summed up best by this quote: "Before the war, and still more during the conquest of the West, Hitler came to appear a gigantic figure, combining the strategy of a Napoleon with the cunning of a Machiavelli and the fanatical fevour of a Mohomet. After his first check in Russia, his figure began to shrink, and towards the end he was regarded as a blundering amateur in the military field, whose crazy orders and crass ignorance had been the Allies' greatest asset. All the disasters of the German Army were attributed to Hitler; all its successes were credited to the German General Staff." B. H. Liddell Hart [1] Hitler may have appeared somewhat intelligent militarily at the start of the war, but after his unfair, pre-determined advantages were taken away by military defeats, the true Hitler was revealed to be somewhat of an insane and ignorant person. One of his greatest blunders was the infamous battle of Dunkirk. The battle of Dunkirk took place in May-June of 1940. The conflict involved the Germans, the British, and the French. The German forces eventually managed to trap roughly 330,000 enemy men on the beaches around Dunkirk, and their destruction by the Germans was imminent. The men at Dunkirk were literally sitting ducks for a German onslaught, and it was entirely possible that all the men would have been killed if the Germans would have pressed the attack. Of course, Hitler, showing his absolute foolishness, decided to issue a "Halt" order. This allowed all 330,000 enemy soldiers to escape back to Britain after Hitler PERSONALLY squandered the best opportunity he had gotten so far at destroying the British army. Winston Churchill called it a 'miracle' and it illustrated one of the best points I am trying to make - Hitler's incompetence. [2] [3] That, however, was not the greatest example of Hitler's incompetence. That award goes to the Battle of Stalingrad. Stalingrad is considered by many to be the "turning point of World War II" and was responsible for the loss of 250,000 German men - a.k.a. the entire German Sixth Army [4]. The German attempt to capture the city was effective if judged by the amount of land in the city they effectively captured, but was less effective when the fact that the portions of land they captured during the day were taken back by the Russians at night. While the fighting for the control of the actual city was taking place, six Russian armies of one million men, led by Marshal Zhukov, surrounded the city and called for the German surrender. The Germans were headed for a disaster, but the forces, led by General Paulus, could have broken out of the trap in the first stages of the enemy assault. Guess who ordered them not to do so. That's right. Hitler. Hitler's order to Paulus read as follows: Supreme Commander to 6 Army, January 24, 1943 "Surrender is forbidden. 6 Army will hold their positions to the last man and the last round and by their heroic endurance will make an unforgettable contribution towards the establishment of a defensive front and the salvation of the Western world." [4] Yes, intelligent. Due to the fact the forces were now unable to break out of the Russian trap, they had to face other enemies, such as the Winter. Food, ammunition, and morale quickly ran low. So what did Hitler do? Promote Paulus to Field Marshal, of course! As if that would somehow change the fact that a million Russians were about to hand the Germans one of the most crushing defeats of the war, all thanks to Hitler's order. By February 2nd, 1943, the German army surrendered in the wake of a complete and utter military disaster. With so much manpower lost, Germany set itself up for a fall in the rest of the war, and when they really needed the extra manpower and resources, such as when the Russians advanced on Germany, they did not have them. All thanks to Hitler's incredibly stupid decision to "fight to the last bullet." [4] Now, Hitler at least honored the soldiers that fell at the battle, right? Of course not. He organized a national day of mourning in Germany for the "shame von Paulus had brought on the Wehrmacht and Germany"[4]. To put the final nail in the coffin, Hitler stripped Paulus of the rank he had been so quick to give him before.[4] All of that being said, Hitler's stupidest decision had to have been declaring war on the United States. After being entrenched in years of war with Russia and England, on December 11th, 1941, Hitler declared War on the United States. Yes, that makes sense. He was already fighting two of the strongest nations on the face of the planet, and then he decides to declare war on a third. The man's total ignorance, arrogance, and belief that he could defeat three ostentatiously strong nations at once was exemplified in this decision, and the lack of intelligence, militarily or otherwise, shown by this action, really does speak for itself. I await my opponent's response. [1] http://www.au.af.mil... (Note: If this particular link appears ineffective or broken, it may need to be copy + pasted into the address bar to be viewed. Sorry for the inconvenience if this does occur.) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://historyimages.blogspot.com... [4] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

Politics

Adolf-Hitler-was-an-Intelligent-Individual/2/

**I apologize, but due to time constraints and some things that came up I was not able to fully complete this round of the debate. I will have to end with a very brief closer** I thank my opponent for his response and will now make my final arguments and refutations. Firstly, as this is the final round of the debate, I will seek to prove how Hitler was not intelligent in reference to the definitions my opponent mentioned in his round 3 argument. This will blend nicely with the arguments I was previously developing in other rounds. 1. "Intelligence is defined as the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, and comprehend complex ideas" Hitler clearly lost the ability to reason of the course of his tenure as chancellor of Germany. The many mistakes that he made were evidence of this. Militarily speaking, he had little to no ability to solve said problems mentioned, as I said in my third round argument. Just because he thought he was able to plan and (barely) do the things provided in the definition previously mentioned doesn't mean he did them correctly. The fact that he almost single-handedly "guided" Germany to so many defeats in a War he supposedly thought he was able to win is evidence that, just because he is seemingly intelligent due to some of the things he did, his failures highlight the bad side of all of his aspects. His lack of intelligence is easily noticeable due to the fact that he experienced numerous failures during his life - whether they were strategic, diplomatic, or personal [1]. He did not "seize" power of Germany - I demonstrated this in my second round argument. His "plans" were near-sighted and were mostly all failures. "REASONED that it was caused by the Jews"? His reasoning was insane - and he probably was as well [2]. Planning means nothing if the plan is flawed or incorrectly applied to the situation at hand. I apologize for my briefness, but I believe I have accurately demonstrated as to why Hitler was unintelligent. Hitler wasn't intelligent - he was just a lucky person who didn't realize luck could run out. I urge a Con vote while I thank my opponent for this debate and for all the viewers who read our arguments. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...

Jade75

**I apologize, but due to time constraints and some things that came up I was not able to fully complete this round of the debate. I will have to end with a very brief closer** I thank my opponent for his response and will now make my final arguments and refutations. Firstly, as this is the final round of the debate, I will seek to prove how Hitler was not intelligent in reference to the definitions my opponent mentioned in his round 3 argument. This will blend nicely with the arguments I was previously developing in other rounds. 1. "Intelligence is defined as the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, and comprehend complex ideas" Hitler clearly lost the ability to reason of the course of his tenure as chancellor of Germany. The many mistakes that he made were evidence of this. Militarily speaking, he had little to no ability to solve said problems mentioned, as I said in my third round argument. Just because he thought he was able to plan and (barely) do the things provided in the definition previously mentioned doesn't mean he did them correctly. The fact that he almost single-handedly "guided" Germany to so many defeats in a War he supposedly thought he was able to win is evidence that, just because he is seemingly intelligent due to some of the things he did, his failures highlight the bad side of all of his aspects. His lack of intelligence is easily noticeable due to the fact that he experienced numerous failures during his life - whether they were strategic, diplomatic, or personal [1]. He did not "seize" power of Germany - I demonstrated this in my second round argument. His "plans" were near-sighted and were mostly all failures. "REASONED that it was caused by the Jews"? His reasoning was insane - and he probably was as well [2]. Planning means nothing if the plan is flawed or incorrectly applied to the situation at hand. I apologize for my briefness, but I believe I have accurately demonstrated as to why Hitler was unintelligent. Hitler wasn't intelligent - he was just a lucky person who didn't realize luck could run out. I urge a Con vote while I thank my opponent for this debate and for all the viewers who read our arguments. [1] http://vanrcook.tripod.com... [2] http://www.freeinfosociety.com...

Politics

Adolf-Hitler-was-an-Intelligent-Individual/2/

I am going to begin by clarifying the topic of this debate. You state that smoking advertisements should be banned, but already in society many forms of advertising already are. For example, cigarette companies are unable to use commercials or the school library additions of a few major magazines, including Times and Sports Illustrated. Therefore I am assuming that you are taking the position that all forms of advertising should be banned. With this said, i will begin by addressing your arguments. You only give one reason as to why you feel advertising should be banned, and half of it is based on assumption. You state that: government still allows the manufacturing of which when in fact it's really detrimental to the body. If the government does not want the people to smoke, to prevent lung cancer or what have they, then they should start diminishing advertising Cigarettes in television and radios and print ads basically you are saying that smoking is bad for health therefore government should ban advertisements. first: by your rational, the government would have the privilege to ban the advertisements of everything it thinks harmful to people. This is a total negation to the freedom of speech in our first amendment. In our society, every person, or business has the right to express their ideas, and make their products known, this is an important part to a capitalistic society. second: This rationale creates a host of other problems. Just about everything can be considered unhealthy if over used, or used improperly. A major example is the fast food industry, which is closely linked with the second highest behavior cause of death: obesity/dietary pattern. Yet year after year MacDonald's spends about two billion dollars on advertising, and this is not even limited. MacDonald's routinely focuses advertisements on children through commercials and toys. The 3rd highest behavioral cause of death is alcohol, followed closely by microbial agents. Does this mean alcohol and travel advertisements to areas with a high microbial rate ought to be banned as well? of course not, this is why your rational fails third: Just because you may not want other people to smoke, does not give you, or the government to regulate it. All advertisements have a warning already on them. So your pursuit of banning further advertisements does not serve to spread awareness of the dangers of smoking, rather only illustrates your prejudice. Forth: this relates to your assumption that if advertisements are banned, the number of people smoking would decrease. what basis do you have for this argument? Advertisements for Crystal Meth are illegal, as is the drug itself, yet each year more people use it. And also, what action should the government take against people who offer cigarettes? word of mouth is one of the most successful means of advertisements. Fifth: This is just something i noticed when i was looking at you info. You are both a libertarian, and a supporter of drug legalization. how can you be a supporter of less government control, legalized drugs, and government bans on smoking ads? so in summary your argument fails because 1: it violates the first amendment 2: it would allow government to ban all unhealthy ads 3: personal prejudice does not allow someone to control another persons business 4:you have not provided the link between the ban and low smoking rates 5: your personal beliefs are not as important as the other arguments but i think they do require an explanation haha and this is defiantly not part of the debate, but did you know the Nazi's banned smoking? are you a Nazi Orville?

figoitalia

I am going to begin by clarifying the topic of this debate. You state that smoking advertisements should be banned, but already in society many forms of advertising already are. For example, cigarette companies are unable to use commercials or the school library additions of a few major magazines, including Times and Sports Illustrated. Therefore I am assuming that you are taking the position that all forms of advertising should be banned. With this said, i will begin by addressing your arguments. You only give one reason as to why you feel advertising should be banned, and half of it is based on assumption. You state that: government still allows the manufacturing of which when in fact it`s really detrimental to the body. If the government does not want the people to smoke, to prevent lung cancer or what have they, then they should start diminishing advertising Cigarettes in television and radios and print ads basically you are saying that smoking is bad for health therefore government should ban advertisements. first: by your rational, the government would have the privilege to ban the advertisements of everything it thinks harmful to people. This is a total negation to the freedom of speech in our first amendment. In our society, every person, or business has the right to express their ideas, and make their products known, this is an important part to a capitalistic society. second: This rationale creates a host of other problems. Just about everything can be considered unhealthy if over used, or used improperly. A major example is the fast food industry, which is closely linked with the second highest behavior cause of death: obesity/dietary pattern. Yet year after year MacDonald's spends about two billion dollars on advertising, and this is not even limited. MacDonald's routinely focuses advertisements on children through commercials and toys. The 3rd highest behavioral cause of death is alcohol, followed closely by microbial agents. Does this mean alcohol and travel advertisements to areas with a high microbial rate ought to be banned as well? of course not, this is why your rational fails third: Just because you may not want other people to smoke, does not give you, or the government to regulate it. All advertisements have a warning already on them. So your pursuit of banning further advertisements does not serve to spread awareness of the dangers of smoking, rather only illustrates your prejudice. Forth: this relates to your assumption that if advertisements are banned, the number of people smoking would decrease. what basis do you have for this argument? Advertisements for Crystal Meth are illegal, as is the drug itself, yet each year more people use it. And also, what action should the government take against people who offer cigarettes? word of mouth is one of the most successful means of advertisements. Fifth: This is just something i noticed when i was looking at you info. You are both a libertarian, and a supporter of drug legalization. how can you be a supporter of less government control, legalized drugs, and government bans on smoking ads? so in summary your argument fails because 1: it violates the first amendment 2: it would allow government to ban all unhealthy ads 3: personal prejudice does not allow someone to control another persons business 4:you have not provided the link between the ban and low smoking rates 5: your personal beliefs are not as important as the other arguments but i think they do require an explanation haha and this is defiantly not part of the debate, but did you know the Nazi's banned smoking? are you a Nazi Orville?

Society

Advertising-Cigarettes-should-be-banned/1/

Ok orville, in your last argument you stated, "I never stated in my argument that banning such advertisements will decrease the smoking rate of the people" but at the very end of that same paragraph you say, "it[banning smoking advertising] will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but[buy] a pack of cigarettes and smoke". Just so you know, if you lower the number of people that smoke, you lower the rate. And you essentially said the same thing in your first argument by saying the government should ban advertising because people are getting lung cancer... So lets say for a second that you don't think smoking adds would diminish smoking rates, ok? what exactly are you arguing? that government should ban the adds for no reason? what is their reason for banning the adds if it doesn't decrease smoking? You stated government has reason, because people will be healthier, well if the ban does lower smoking rates how are people going to be healthier? does a ban in adds mean a cure for lung cancer? no. Ok back to reality. you also had a argument about condoms, and stated how the commercials cause people to have underage sex, and therefore are going to be banned in the Philippines. Are you really naive enough to think that people want to have sex because they saw a condom commercial? Hormones, peer pressure, puberty, porn, lifestyle, media, all have more impact than a condom commercial. i have seen more risque material on shampoo commercials then for condoms. But anyways back to cigarettes, you have still given no proof to your claim. The examples i used against condom use can carry over to this. lifestyle, peer pressure, education, stress level, movies, all have a much more significant impact then adds. And let me make one thing clear, in all of these forms, there is no warning on the dangers of cigarettes. At least in the adds you can see a warning that says cigarettes cause cancer. then finally you mention that, "it will only prove that democracy and the crying out of the parents who has scolded their children who has engaged in smoking cigarettes and voiced out their concerns has room for the government's ears" This just does not make sense. I am going to assume you want the government to listen to parents who do not want there kids smoking. Well a democracy is not run by parents who are un able to control their children. and also, why are you holding the tobacco adds totally responsible. Its the person who buys cigarettes that are the most responsible. so again here are my points that i would now like to elaborate on: 1: it violates the first amendment - i do understand that you are in the philippenes, but this does not mean freedom of speech is less important. 2: it would allow government to ban all unhealthy ads - you say you dont advicate this, but unfortunatly your rational does. 3: personal prejudice does not allow someone to control another persons business - cross apply this with your statement with mothers unable to control children 4:you have not provided the link between the ban and low smoking rates -this is crucial, i urge you to at least try 5: your personal beliefs are not as important as the other arguments but i think they do require an explanation - this is outside of the debate, yes i know, but please if you can, explain it

figoitalia

Ok orville, in your last argument you stated, "I never stated in my argument that banning such advertisements will decrease the smoking rate of the people" but at the very end of that same paragraph you say, "it[banning smoking advertising] will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but[buy] a pack of cigarettes and smoke". Just so you know, if you lower the number of people that smoke, you lower the rate. And you essentially said the same thing in your first argument by saying the government should ban advertising because people are getting lung cancer... So lets say for a second that you don't think smoking adds would diminish smoking rates, ok? what exactly are you arguing? that government should ban the adds for no reason? what is their reason for banning the adds if it doesn't decrease smoking? You stated government has reason, because people will be healthier, well if the ban does lower smoking rates how are people going to be healthier? does a ban in adds mean a cure for lung cancer? no. Ok back to reality. you also had a argument about condoms, and stated how the commercials cause people to have underage sex, and therefore are going to be banned in the Philippines. Are you really naive enough to think that people want to have sex because they saw a condom commercial? Hormones, peer pressure, puberty, porn, lifestyle, media, all have more impact than a condom commercial. i have seen more risque material on shampoo commercials then for condoms. But anyways back to cigarettes, you have still given no proof to your claim. The examples i used against condom use can carry over to this. lifestyle, peer pressure, education, stress level, movies, all have a much more significant impact then adds. And let me make one thing clear, in all of these forms, there is no warning on the dangers of cigarettes. At least in the adds you can see a warning that says cigarettes cause cancer. then finally you mention that, "it will only prove that democracy and the crying out of the parents who has scolded their children who has engaged in smoking cigarettes and voiced out their concerns has room for the government`s ears" This just does not make sense. I am going to assume you want the government to listen to parents who do not want there kids smoking. Well a democracy is not run by parents who are un able to control their children. and also, why are you holding the tobacco adds totally responsible. Its the person who buys cigarettes that are the most responsible. so again here are my points that i would now like to elaborate on: 1: it violates the first amendment - i do understand that you are in the philippenes, but this does not mean freedom of speech is less important. 2: it would allow government to ban all unhealthy ads - you say you dont advicate this, but unfortunatly your rational does. 3: personal prejudice does not allow someone to control another persons business - cross apply this with your statement with mothers unable to control children 4:you have not provided the link between the ban and low smoking rates -this is crucial, i urge you to at least try 5: your personal beliefs are not as important as the other arguments but i think they do require an explanation - this is outside of the debate, yes i know, but please if you can, explain it

Society

Advertising-Cigarettes-should-be-banned/1/

Haha i don't see your points? I think your the confused one here, i am the one who pointed out the blatant contradiction in your second argument that you failed to correct, address, or even mention. (See my opening second argument). Also, your are the one who, again, has not refuted any of my arguments. And you are the one who has changed arguments 3 different times, without responding to your previous ones. just to give some evidence of this, you mentioned in your first argument that government should ban the adds, "to prevent lung cancer or what have they." i gave five points against this arguments, and in your second arguments you simply tried to give a whole new argument by saying, "it will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but a pack of cigarettes and smoke it even though they know they do not know how to" unfortunately you failed to give proof to this statement, or any logical reasoning. Then i proceeded to show how other factors contribute to people smoking and it isn't a matter of the advertising. Again you didn't respond. Now in your third argument you tell me i have ignored your point of people's voices being heard. So let me refute this point. People do not have the right to use the government to ban, or limit a private enterprise. When this happens it is called fascism. I am not arguing the fact that people's voices shouldn't be heard, but there are other alternatives to banning smoking adds. There are many anti-smoking commercials, groups to help quit, groups to make the awareness of disease more prevalent, search google and the majority of sights that come up are anti smoking. So obviously the people's voices are being heard. Its just that when they use the government to control private business, it becomes fascism. so in review you have given two rational to why the these adds should be banned. So i would like to go over them. Smoking is unhealthy -Yes, but in advertisements, it is required to say that it is unhealthy. -government cannot ban everything that is unhealthy, which you would be giving them the power to do(see my first argument) -there are many other causes of a desire to smoke, that provide a much larger influence on naive people, therefore the government ban would be an unnecessary abuse of power. second: the people need to be heard. -i have shown how the people have other means of being heard -private enterprise is not publicly owned -there are already limits on advertisements and just some more points in general: The banning of these ads would violate freedom of speech. and probably the most important point is that you have failed completely to provide proof connecting a smoking advertisement ban with a decrease in the smoking rate. Only once you can prove this, can you begin to make an argument, because everything in your argument depends on this being true. unfortunately, again, you failed to do so, and i have shown why it is false. -illegal drugs are illegal in and of themselves, not just the advertisements, yet still continue to be a major problem. -the ban on alcohol(prohibition)failed to significantly reduce the use. -other factors are a much larger contributor to young smokers(peer pressure, and lifestyle)

figoitalia

Haha i don't see your points? I think your the confused one here, i am the one who pointed out the blatant contradiction in your second argument that you failed to correct, address, or even mention. (See my opening second argument). Also, your are the one who, again, has not refuted any of my arguments. And you are the one who has changed arguments 3 different times, without responding to your previous ones. just to give some evidence of this, you mentioned in your first argument that government should ban the adds, "to prevent lung cancer or what have they." i gave five points against this arguments, and in your second arguments you simply tried to give a whole new argument by saying, "it will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but a pack of cigarettes and smoke it even though they know they do not know how to" unfortunately you failed to give proof to this statement, or any logical reasoning. Then i proceeded to show how other factors contribute to people smoking and it isn't a matter of the advertising. Again you didn't respond. Now in your third argument you tell me i have ignored your point of people's voices being heard. So let me refute this point. People do not have the right to use the government to ban, or limit a private enterprise. When this happens it is called fascism. I am not arguing the fact that people's voices shouldn't be heard, but there are other alternatives to banning smoking adds. There are many anti-smoking commercials, groups to help quit, groups to make the awareness of disease more prevalent, search google and the majority of sights that come up are anti smoking. So obviously the people's voices are being heard. Its just that when they use the government to control private business, it becomes fascism. so in review you have given two rational to why the these adds should be banned. So i would like to go over them. Smoking is unhealthy -Yes, but in advertisements, it is required to say that it is unhealthy. -government cannot ban everything that is unhealthy, which you would be giving them the power to do(see my first argument) -there are many other causes of a desire to smoke, that provide a much larger influence on naive people, therefore the government ban would be an unnecessary abuse of power. second: the people need to be heard. -i have shown how the people have other means of being heard -private enterprise is not publicly owned -there are already limits on advertisements and just some more points in general: The banning of these ads would violate freedom of speech. and probably the most important point is that you have failed completely to provide proof connecting a smoking advertisement ban with a decrease in the smoking rate. Only once you can prove this, can you begin to make an argument, because everything in your argument depends on this being true. unfortunately, again, you failed to do so, and i have shown why it is false. -illegal drugs are illegal in and of themselves, not just the advertisements, yet still continue to be a major problem. -the ban on alcohol(prohibition)failed to significantly reduce the use. -other factors are a much larger contributor to young smokers(peer pressure, and lifestyle)

Society

Advertising-Cigarettes-should-be-banned/1/

When you buy a pack of cigarettes, you'll find below it a warning pasted,"Government Warning: Cigarette Smoking is addictive." or it could also be said as dangerous you your health in the television. What's so vague about it is that the government still allows the manufacturing of which when in fact it's really detrimental to the body. If the government does not want the people to smoke, to prevent lung cancer or what have they, then they should start diminishing advertising Cigarettes in television and radios and print ads. After all, it's still the same old story at the end of the day. A guy or a girl lights a stick of cigarette, years later, he or she's diagnosed with lung cancer. With this, i propose.

orville

When you buy a pack of cigarettes, you`ll find below it a warning pasted,"Government Warning: Cigarette Smoking is addictive." or it could also be said as dangerous you your health in the television. What`s so vague about it is that the government still allows the manufacturing of which when in fact it`s really detrimental to the body. If the government does not want the people to smoke, to prevent lung cancer or what have they, then they should start diminishing advertising Cigarettes in television and radios and print ads. After all, it`s still the same old story at the end of the day. A guy or a girl lights a stick of cigarette, years later, he or she`s diagnosed with lung cancer. With this, i propose.

Society

Advertising-Cigarettes-should-be-banned/1/

Banning advertisements about Cigarettes will and shall help. Ladies and Gentlemen, fists things firsts... I never stated in my argument that banning such advertisements will decrease the smoking rate of the people. Nor did I think or will say that this goes out to all detrimental things in this world, such as Alcohol. The issue I raised in this debate is very specific, and that is to ban the advertising of Cigarettes. How does this affect the society? Very simple ladies and gentlemen, it will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but a pack of cigarettes and smoke it even though they know they do not know how to. Just like the issue in the Philippines, where I come from, a certain organization has declared their rights for alcohol advertisements and the use of contraceptives, particularly condom that makes the youth more indulgent to sex. for this matter, I would like to clarify in advance that I am not saying sex is bad. But rather, I am saying that it will minimize the curiousity of the young people to have sex or the society defines it as "premarital sex". And it has already been approved. The relevance of this statement to the issue I dare raised is for the people. particularly the parents to be aware of the status-quo. Is this will be approved by the government, it will only prove that democracy and the crying out of the parents who has scolded their children who has engaged in smoking cigarettes and voiced out their concerns has room for the government's ears.

orville

Banning advertisements about Cigarettes will and shall help. Ladies and Gentlemen, fists things firsts... I never stated in my argument that banning such advertisements will decrease the smoking rate of the people. Nor did I think or will say that this goes out to all detrimental things in this world, such as Alcohol. The issue I raised in this debate is very specific, and that is to ban the advertising of Cigarettes. How does this affect the society? Very simple ladies and gentlemen, it will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but a pack of cigarettes and smoke it even though they know they do not know how to. Just like the issue in the Philippines, where I come from, a certain organization has declared their rights for alcohol advertisements and the use of contraceptives, particularly condom that makes the youth more indulgent to sex. for this matter, I would like to clarify in advance that I am not saying sex is bad. But rather, I am saying that it will minimize the curiousity of the young people to have sex or the society defines it as "premarital sex". And it has already been approved. The relevance of this statement to the issue I dare raised is for the people. particularly the parents to be aware of the status-quo. Is this will be approved by the government, it will only prove that democracy and the crying out of the parents who has scolded their children who has engaged in smoking cigarettes and voiced out their concerns has room for the government`s ears.

Society

Advertising-Cigarettes-should-be-banned/1/

I could not help myself from smiling upon reading your rebuttal. My dear friend (i assume i can labell you that), it's very simple, and obviously you're obfuscated by my points or you don't see it at all. If you see your little brother or sister or an older sibling perhaps, outside your home and puffing that stick of cigarette, would'nt you cry out for your voice to be heard as well? I am not merely focusing on the Mother's cries, but for the rest of the people who found their loved ones other significant others in the hospital confined and diagnosed with lung cancer. I commend your kin and critical thinking though, but still, i affirm my points are very eveident. let me elaborate and fruther expound it then. First, I don't blame it solo on the tobacco companies why people indulge in smoking nor do I put the blame on smokers, but I blame it on the ads itself. What do I mean by this? Simple again, advertising place a paramount role on influence, I pressume you'd agree with me on this. Second, lung cancer isn't the only reason why I propose that the government should ban it's advertising; but morseso with the negative effect it furnishes on the people seeing an individual doing it. It's plain and simple, italia... I propose the banning of Cigarette advertising because it neglects the rights of those who are naives, and hence, influenced by what they see in television, such as an adult smoking. This constitutes to so many things on the amendments you've been stating. I am not taking away these people's rights to smoke, ladies and gentlemen. But rather, imposing the awareness that is evident. With this, I propose firmly.

orville

I could not help myself from smiling upon reading your rebuttal. My dear friend (i assume i can labell you that), it`s very simple, and obviously you`re obfuscated by my points or you don`t see it at all. If you see your little brother or sister or an older sibling perhaps, outside your home and puffing that stick of cigarette, would`nt you cry out for your voice to be heard as well? I am not merely focusing on the Mother`s cries, but for the rest of the people who found their loved ones other significant others in the hospital confined and diagnosed with lung cancer. I commend your kin and critical thinking though, but still, i affirm my points are very eveident. let me elaborate and fruther expound it then. First, I don`t blame it solo on the tobacco companies why people indulge in smoking nor do I put the blame on smokers, but I blame it on the ads itself. What do I mean by this? Simple again, advertising place a paramount role on influence, I pressume you`d agree with me on this. Second, lung cancer isn`t the only reason why I propose that the government should ban it`s advertising; but morseso with the negative effect it furnishes on the people seeing an individual doing it. It`s plain and simple, italia... I propose the banning of Cigarette advertising because it neglects the rights of those who are naives, and hence, influenced by what they see in television, such as an adult smoking. This constitutes to so many things on the amendments you`ve been stating. I am not taking away these people`s rights to smoke, ladies and gentlemen. But rather, imposing the awareness that is evident. With this, I propose firmly.

Society

Advertising-Cigarettes-should-be-banned/1/

Back when Pac Man released, graphical quality was a huge importance because ground could be covered quickly, but I contend that diminishing returns will take hold in the next few years of gaming. Due to that, companies (Triple A's included) will be forced to focus more on aesthetic rather than graphical quality. In that regard, I ask the con: will aesthetic (the art/look of the game) become more important than graphical achievement (720p, 1080p, 4K, better lighting engines, etc.)? 1st round: meet and greet/opening claims 2-4: actual arguments

ShapelessHorr0r

Back when Pac Man released, graphical quality was a huge importance because ground could be covered quickly, but I contend that diminishing returns will take hold in the next few years of gaming. Due to that, companies (Triple A's included) will be forced to focus more on aesthetic rather than graphical quality. In that regard, I ask the con: will aesthetic (the art/look of the game) become more important than graphical achievement (720p, 1080p, 4K, better lighting engines, etc.)? 1st round: meet and greet/opening claims 2-4: actual arguments

Games

Aesthetic-will-be-more-important-than-graphical-quality-in-the-near-future./1/

Please note that frame rates have nothing to do with the graphical quality (to my understanding). I agree that framerates should stay as high as possible. 1) At the beggining of gaming, graphical quality improved with leaps and bounds; however, graphical quality hasn't changed that much from game to game. Also, modern graphical quality soaks up a great deal of development time and resources. This shows diminishing returns. We can assume that, eventually, only minor improvements in graphical quality will cost a great deal of resources from devs and/or publishers. While hard numbers are a great selling point, those numbers won't mean anything if a significant profit cannot be achieved. 2) Aesthetic can subtract from/add to graphical quality. Battlefield 3 uses Frostbite 2 engine, and 4 uses the Frostbite 3 engine. Now this is personal opinion if course, but I consider Battlefield 3's look to be better than 4's. Battlefield 4 had a more recent/upgraded engine, I, personally, found that the watered down colors negatively impacted the increased quality. Let me reiterate that that is my PERSONAL OPINION; however, what it does show is that the aesthetic of a game can be equally as important as the base graphical quality and that better quality doesn't always mean it'll look better. Thoughts?

ShapelessHorr0r

Please note that frame rates have nothing to do with the graphical quality (to my understanding). I agree that framerates should stay as high as possible. 1) At the beggining of gaming, graphical quality improved with leaps and bounds; however, graphical quality hasn't changed that much from game to game. Also, modern graphical quality soaks up a great deal of development time and resources. This shows diminishing returns. We can assume that, eventually, only minor improvements in graphical quality will cost a great deal of resources from devs and/or publishers. While hard numbers are a great selling point, those numbers won't mean anything if a significant profit cannot be achieved. 2) Aesthetic can subtract from/add to graphical quality. Battlefield 3 uses Frostbite 2 engine, and 4 uses the Frostbite 3 engine. Now this is personal opinion if course, but I consider Battlefield 3's look to be better than 4's. Battlefield 4 had a more recent/upgraded engine, I, personally, found that the watered down colors negatively impacted the increased quality. Let me reiterate that that is my PERSONAL OPINION; however, what it does show is that the aesthetic of a game can be equally as important as the base graphical quality and that better quality doesn't always mean it'll look better. Thoughts?

Games

Aesthetic-will-be-more-important-than-graphical-quality-in-the-near-future./1/

1) You're comparison is faulty. A blatantly older game will look less appealing than a newer game. Blops2 - Ghosts - AW First and foremost, each of these games were created by three different dev teams with their own separate budgets; furthermore, Blops 2 likely started its development in 2010 when Black Ops released and released in 2012. Ghosts released in 2013, and AW released in 2014. We can guarantee that Blops 2 and Ghosts had a two year cycle, but we don't know about AW aside from assuming that it had AT LEAST two years as well. Therefore, we can assume that AW started development in 2012, a full two years after Blops 2, and this assumes that Sledgehammer hadn't been developing AW for longer than two years (which is what I would believe but alas, a lack of proof). If Sledge did start development before 2012, then it's a false comparison because a two year game will be of less quality than a three year one. 2) Engines can still be improved, but I contend that devs and consumers will need to learn that these engines aren't gaining that much ground. I'm not against devs favoring graphical quality over aesthetic, but those games will be few and far between compared to the larger, more aesthetically driven market. Also, the indie industry is doing better than ever. While graphical quality IS a selling point, the simple fact if the matter is that some/most/I-don't-have-statistics people don't as much care anymore. <URL>...

ShapelessHorr0r

1) You're comparison is faulty. A blatantly older game will look less appealing than a newer game. Blops2 - Ghosts - AW First and foremost, each of these games were created by three different dev teams with their own separate budgets; furthermore, Blops 2 likely started its development in 2010 when Black Ops released and released in 2012. Ghosts released in 2013, and AW released in 2014. We can guarantee that Blops 2 and Ghosts had a two year cycle, but we don't know about AW aside from assuming that it had AT LEAST two years as well. Therefore, we can assume that AW started development in 2012, a full two years after Blops 2, and this assumes that Sledgehammer hadn't been developing AW for longer than two years (which is what I would believe but alas, a lack of proof). If Sledge did start development before 2012, then it's a false comparison because a two year game will be of less quality than a three year one. 2) Engines can still be improved, but I contend that devs and consumers will need to learn that these engines aren't gaining that much ground. I'm not against devs favoring graphical quality over aesthetic, but those games will be few and far between compared to the larger, more aesthetically driven market. Also, the indie industry is doing better than ever. While graphical quality IS a selling point, the simple fact if the matter is that some/most/I-don't-have-statistics people don't as much care anymore. http://www.gamersnexus.net...

Games

Aesthetic-will-be-more-important-than-graphical-quality-in-the-near-future./1/

1) Ghosts would still be a better comparison. 2) My opponent states that gamers and devs alike have been "striving to achieve the goal of creating a virtual reality" since games began as an established media; however, current consumer trends speak the exact opposite. The simple fact that there are other, equally as popular, genres aside from first person debunks that statement immediately. -MOBAs have sprung up as mega hits over the past few years. League/DOTA has overtaken literally every other game on the market in players. -Strategy is stuck with Starcraft; however, the Esports scene is so strong that it won't die in the next few years if not decades. -Games like Minecraft and Terraria threw graphical fidelity out the window but still sold millions. All of these genres/games have no use for a virtual reality component, yet they remain as strong as ever. -Any third person game really. But let's focus in games that could use the Rift: While it is immersive when you look onto a beautiful landscape in GTA or a ravaged battlefield in CoD or Battlefield, that immersion is broken as soon as you PLAY the game. No, the simple fact of the matter is that devs only use that term to make their game sound more mature. Call of a Duty allows people to run around with knives and sniper rifles on 40m squared maps. Battlefield allows you the ability to put C4 on your jeep and ram it into a helicopter. Heck, ARMA is designed to be realistic, not immersive. The realistic elements are in place because they offer unique gameplay, not immersion. The Oculus Rift becomes pointless in ARMA when you have the ability to go into third person. Furthermore, the Rift is a niche gadget for a niche audience. People may have heard of it, but I doubt most gamers give two potatoes what happens to it. The gaming industry's consumers, especially in recent years, have made it a point that they like gameplay, not graphical fidelity. Call of Duty is an extremely popular franchise, but it's as immersive as trying to sword fight with wet noodles because it actually has low level graphical quality compared to many AAAs. Crysis 3 pushed the boundaries with its machine melting quality. Here's what happened to it: <URL>... "Crysis 3 was also released in February and was the month"s third best-selling game in the US, moving 205,000 copies." Call Of Duty: <URL>... Gamers don't want graphical immersion. It's becoming more and more obvious, especially with the booming indie industry (who can't afford the best fidelity), to devs that they'll need to rethink their goals because gamers already have.

ShapelessHorr0r

1) Ghosts would still be a better comparison. 2) My opponent states that gamers and devs alike have been "striving to achieve the goal of creating a virtual reality" since games began as an established media; however, current consumer trends speak the exact opposite. The simple fact that there are other, equally as popular, genres aside from first person debunks that statement immediately. -MOBAs have sprung up as mega hits over the past few years. League/DOTA has overtaken literally every other game on the market in players. -Strategy is stuck with Starcraft; however, the Esports scene is so strong that it won't die in the next few years if not decades. -Games like Minecraft and Terraria threw graphical fidelity out the window but still sold millions. All of these genres/games have no use for a virtual reality component, yet they remain as strong as ever. -Any third person game really. But let's focus in games that could use the Rift: While it is immersive when you look onto a beautiful landscape in GTA or a ravaged battlefield in CoD or Battlefield, that immersion is broken as soon as you PLAY the game. No, the simple fact of the matter is that devs only use that term to make their game sound more mature. Call of a Duty allows people to run around with knives and sniper rifles on 40m squared maps. Battlefield allows you the ability to put C4 on your jeep and ram it into a helicopter. Heck, ARMA is designed to be realistic, not immersive. The realistic elements are in place because they offer unique gameplay, not immersion. The Oculus Rift becomes pointless in ARMA when you have the ability to go into third person. Furthermore, the Rift is a niche gadget for a niche audience. People may have heard of it, but I doubt most gamers give two potatoes what happens to it. The gaming industry's consumers, especially in recent years, have made it a point that they like gameplay, not graphical fidelity. Call of Duty is an extremely popular franchise, but it's as immersive as trying to sword fight with wet noodles because it actually has low level graphical quality compared to many AAAs. Crysis 3 pushed the boundaries with its machine melting quality. Here's what happened to it: http://pixelenemy.com... "Crysis 3 was also released in February and was the month"s third best-selling game in the US, moving 205,000 copies." Call Of Duty: http://www.polygon.com... Gamers don't want graphical immersion. It's becoming more and more obvious, especially with the booming indie industry (who can't afford the best fidelity), to devs that they'll need to rethink their goals because gamers already have.

Games

Aesthetic-will-be-more-important-than-graphical-quality-in-the-near-future./1/

Hello, I am new to this site and am here to argue that aesthetic, while being very important, will not match the importance of graphical quality for a variety of factors, such the fact that frame rates affect game play immensely, higher texture resolutions will continue to make games look more real (increasing immersion), and that tangible numbers relating to the games graphical quality are a better selling point that saying the game is aesthetically pleasing.

spikeybuddy

Hello, I am new to this site and am here to argue that aesthetic, while being very important, will not match the importance of graphical quality for a variety of factors, such the fact that frame rates affect game play immensely, higher texture resolutions will continue to make games look more real (increasing immersion), and that tangible numbers relating to the games graphical quality are a better selling point that saying the game is aesthetically pleasing.

Games

Aesthetic-will-be-more-important-than-graphical-quality-in-the-near-future./1/

I would object to frame rate not being included in the original wording of the debate "graphical achievement" would include frame rate due to the fact that game engine's graphics must be optimized to create both Graphical and Aesthetic beauty within a game that everyone can enjoy. It takes hard work to optimize a game, so I would call it a graphical achievement. You do acknowledge that this is very important. 1. I acknowledge that graphical quality has advanced much more quickly in the past, but not much variation between games is simply false. if I were to look at a game from just a few years ago and compare it to one now (for the purposes of picking a game everyone knows, I'm comparing Black ops 2 to Advanced warfare (not a big fan, but it will suffice to support the debate. When looking, the first thing that pops out at me is that reflections within the scopes, this is not aesthetic this is the capability of the engine being displayed. I can see a much more vivid reflection in the new game and little details such as that within the engine will help to draw players in with immersion (if you can become immersed in call of duty, that is). The second thing I notice are the shadows in both. Within the black ops two screenshot (I link it at the end, along with the AW one) there is less clearly defined and detailed shadow, shadow, in my personal opinion, is one of the most important factors in making a game look appealing, and it is control by the quality of the engine that renders them. If a game looks appealing to the eye, it will sell better, like book covers sell books. BO2: <URL>... AW: <URL>... 2.I agree with you in the case you mentioned, BF4 is no where near as vibrant or appealing as bf3. But this is the case where I can't argue that aesthetics had a greater effect on the game's looks than engine, I applaud you opponent. But if we stop innovating our graphical engines to produce greater detail, than how can we pack in the greater aesthetics craved by consumers? Aesthetics generally do depend on an engines ability to produce detail to recreate the thoughts of the art department within a game world. Can we really expect greater innovation without improving our technological capabilities first? Thank you, ponder on these questions and reply when ready.

spikeybuddy

I would object to frame rate not being included in the original wording of the debate "graphical achievement" would include frame rate due to the fact that game engine's graphics must be optimized to create both Graphical and Aesthetic beauty within a game that everyone can enjoy. It takes hard work to optimize a game, so I would call it a graphical achievement. You do acknowledge that this is very important. 1. I acknowledge that graphical quality has advanced much more quickly in the past, but not much variation between games is simply false. if I were to look at a game from just a few years ago and compare it to one now (for the purposes of picking a game everyone knows, I'm comparing Black ops 2 to Advanced warfare (not a big fan, but it will suffice to support the debate. When looking, the first thing that pops out at me is that reflections within the scopes, this is not aesthetic this is the capability of the engine being displayed. I can see a much more vivid reflection in the new game and little details such as that within the engine will help to draw players in with immersion (if you can become immersed in call of duty, that is). The second thing I notice are the shadows in both. Within the black ops two screenshot (I link it at the end, along with the AW one) there is less clearly defined and detailed shadow, shadow, in my personal opinion, is one of the most important factors in making a game look appealing, and it is control by the quality of the engine that renders them. If a game looks appealing to the eye, it will sell better, like book covers sell books. BO2: http://www.dlcompare.com... AW: http://www.cinemablend.com... 2.I agree with you in the case you mentioned, BF4 is no where near as vibrant or appealing as bf3. But this is the case where I can't argue that aesthetics had a greater effect on the game's looks than engine, I applaud you opponent. But if we stop innovating our graphical engines to produce greater detail, than how can we pack in the greater aesthetics craved by consumers? Aesthetics generally do depend on an engines ability to produce detail to recreate the thoughts of the art department within a game world. Can we really expect greater innovation without improving our technological capabilities first? Thank you, ponder on these questions and reply when ready.

Games

Aesthetic-will-be-more-important-than-graphical-quality-in-the-near-future./1/

It's the same series within 3 years of each other, neither is ridiculously outdated, and the argument shows that improvements in graphical quality over aesthetic (which is similar for both) with make a game look better. Increasing immersion. Which is my final argument, the graphical quality of games increasing to look more realistic when technologies like the Oculus Rift roll out will be more important. Through the history of games, we've been striving to achieve the goal of creating a virtual reality, it has sold before and it will sell again. With different companies moving in to sell us the technologies we need for greater immersion, our graphical capabilities will have to match. What will happen when the texture is right up close to your eye and it isn't up to expectations? What will happen when the graphical glitches of engines become that much more noticeable when you are trying to immerse yourself within a different world? Is aesthetic really going to be more important when the very thing that most gamers are trying to do, immerse themselves within the game, is being comprimised by faulty graphical fidelety and stability? Will it still sell if it is impossible to attain the immersion that the industry has been so long trying to create? Thank you opponent, reply when you feel ready.

spikeybuddy

It's the same series within 3 years of each other, neither is ridiculously outdated, and the argument shows that improvements in graphical quality over aesthetic (which is similar for both) with make a game look better. Increasing immersion. Which is my final argument, the graphical quality of games increasing to look more realistic when technologies like the Oculus Rift roll out will be more important. Through the history of games, we've been striving to achieve the goal of creating a virtual reality, it has sold before and it will sell again. With different companies moving in to sell us the technologies we need for greater immersion, our graphical capabilities will have to match. What will happen when the texture is right up close to your eye and it isn't up to expectations? What will happen when the graphical glitches of engines become that much more noticeable when you are trying to immerse yourself within a different world? Is aesthetic really going to be more important when the very thing that most gamers are trying to do, immerse themselves within the game, is being comprimised by faulty graphical fidelety and stability? Will it still sell if it is impossible to attain the immersion that the industry has been so long trying to create? Thank you opponent, reply when you feel ready.

Games

Aesthetic-will-be-more-important-than-graphical-quality-in-the-near-future./1/

1) Yes, early American settlers were racist... just as countless other nations were racist at the time. I'm not saying that it was "okay" to have that frame of mind, but many wars were fought with racism and nationalism at their cores. So what. This is an undeniable, sad truth. But I disagree with people who blame "no nuclear family" due to slvary as a reason for why the black community (in this particular example) has struggled. Reason being that many other groups have also endured a similar fate. For example, many immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries have had to separate from their families for economic reasons. It was not uncommon for men (husbands and fathers) to go to America to find work. After he had made a living, it was typical that he sent for his wife and children at a later date -- sometimes even years -- after he had already been in this country. I know that my ancestors in particular have not only separated fathers from wives and children, but mothers and siblings as well. Also, in many cases, the male head-of-household left their wives and chilren to find work in other parts of the country to send money home. Sometimes these men returned, and sometimes they didn't. 2) I am aware that racism exists in the workforce, and that blacks may have struggled to find work from the time of their emancipation until present day. However, African Americans are not the only group who have endured a great amount of racism and have had to overcome obstacles based on stereotypes and prejudice. It is common knowledge (at least it should be -- maybe that's the problem) that the Irish and Italian immigrants in particular had a Hell of a time finding decent work in this country. The Irish resorted to becoming policemen and firemen; ironically those jobs were considered the lowest occupations one could have, despite the reverence and respect that most people adhere to those positions today. And many Italian-American immigrants, such as the ones in my family, resorted to low-paying, blue collar jobs in factories and on the streets as well. They didn't make a lot of money and many immigrants from a particular culture DID live amongst one another... in "ghettos" or whatever... but these groups persevered and overcame various obstacles without any affirmative action necessary. Why should blacks (again - in the example set forth by the Instigator) be treated any differently? I thought you were all about them being given the same rights?

Danielle

1) Yes, early American settlers were racist... just as countless other nations were racist at the time. I'm not saying that it was "okay" to have that frame of mind, but many wars were fought with racism and nationalism at their cores. So what. This is an undeniable, sad truth. But I disagree with people who blame "no nuclear family" due to slvary as a reason for why the black community (in this particular example) has struggled. Reason being that many other groups have also endured a similar fate. For example, many immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries have had to separate from their families for economic reasons. It was not uncommon for men (husbands and fathers) to go to America to find work. After he had made a living, it was typical that he sent for his wife and children at a later date -- sometimes even years -- after he had already been in this country. I know that my ancestors in particular have not only separated fathers from wives and children, but mothers and siblings as well. Also, in many cases, the male head-of-household left their wives and chilren to find work in other parts of the country to send money home. Sometimes these men returned, and sometimes they didn't. 2) I am aware that racism exists in the workforce, and that blacks may have struggled to find work from the time of their emancipation until present day. However, African Americans are not the only group who have endured a great amount of racism and have had to overcome obstacles based on stereotypes and prejudice. It is common knowledge (at least it should be -- maybe that's the problem) that the Irish and Italian immigrants in particular had a Hell of a time finding decent work in this country. The Irish resorted to becoming policemen and firemen; ironically those jobs were considered the lowest occupations one could have, despite the reverence and respect that most people adhere to those positions today. And many Italian-American immigrants, such as the ones in my family, resorted to low-paying, blue collar jobs in factories and on the streets as well. They didn't make a lot of money and many immigrants from a particular culture DID live amongst one another... in "ghettos" or whatever... but these groups persevered and overcame various obstacles without any affirmative action necessary. Why should blacks (again - in the example set forth by the Instigator) be treated any differently? I thought you were all about them being given the same rights?

Society

Affirmative-Action-is-Right-and-Necessary/1/

I agree that having more successful African Americans will help demonstrate their equal capability of holding leadership roles and powerful positions to those racist people that do exist in this country. However, I am not in favor of a process that would ultimately do more harm than good by: enacting resverse discrimination, promoting lesser-qualified people over more qualified people, and perpetuate the notion that black people are underprivileged and should be treated any differently than white people in this country. In this day and age, education is arguably one's best asset when it comes to finding a job. And granted the 'system' isn't perfect in the sense that higher education tends to be increasingly unaffordable, and therefore deters many people from receiving a college degree. However, there ARE exceptions and there ARE ways to work around this problematic trend. The key is to EDUCATING minorities and the under-privileged about the options that they have. I am a firm believer in when there's a will, there's a way. The Democratic side of me is all about increasing funding for schools in poor neighborhoods. These neighborhoods will not be selected on the basis of the color of the town's population, but rather on its economic need. This will promote academics over crime, and perhaps (hopefully) increase awareness about the value of an education. Then it will be up to the INDIVIDUALS to seek out ways to attend college, stay out of trouble and find jobs. Let's face it -- affirmative action or not, large corporations SALIVATE over intelligent and qualified African Americans who apply for positions within their company. HR departments go nuts over it; hiring these employees make these companies seem open to diversity (always a good crutch to avoid lawsuits) as well as increase their popularity/promote a good image. That's what many African Americans today don't realize. People WANT them to succeed. Many people might not want to pay out of their own pockets for them to succeed, bust all-in-all most people are not angry racists who base their lives around the opression of black people. They simply do not want to be discriminated against themselves in order to assist others.

Danielle

I agree that having more successful African Americans will help demonstrate their equal capability of holding leadership roles and powerful positions to those racist people that do exist in this country. However, I am not in favor of a process that would ultimately do more harm than good by: enacting resverse discrimination, promoting lesser-qualified people over more qualified people, and perpetuate the notion that black people are underprivileged and should be treated any differently than white people in this country. In this day and age, education is arguably one's best asset when it comes to finding a job. And granted the 'system' isn't perfect in the sense that higher education tends to be increasingly unaffordable, and therefore deters many people from receiving a college degree. However, there ARE exceptions and there ARE ways to work around this problematic trend. The key is to EDUCATING minorities and the under-privileged about the options that they have. I am a firm believer in when there's a will, there's a way. The Democratic side of me is all about increasing funding for schools in poor neighborhoods. These neighborhoods will not be selected on the basis of the color of the town's population, but rather on its economic need. This will promote academics over crime, and perhaps (hopefully) increase awareness about the value of an education. Then it will be up to the INDIVIDUALS to seek out ways to attend college, stay out of trouble and find jobs. Let's face it -- affirmative action or not, large corporations SALIVATE over intelligent and qualified African Americans who apply for positions within their company. HR departments go nuts over it; hiring these employees make these companies seem open to diversity (always a good crutch to avoid lawsuits) as well as increase their popularity/promote a good image. That's what many African Americans today don't realize. People WANT them to succeed. Many people might not want to pay out of their own pockets for them to succeed, bust all-in-all most people are not angry racists who base their lives around the opression of black people. They simply do not want to be discriminated against themselves in order to assist others.

Society

Affirmative-Action-is-Right-and-Necessary/1/

James, I understand your POV. However my stance is that Affirmative Action is NOT *NECESSARY* because of all of the people who have overcome similar obstacles. I'm going to quote one of the most profound pieces of dialog in one of my favorite movies (The Departed). Perhaps it's not the most 'professional' statement or very good in a form of debate, but I think it gets right to the point: "I don't want to be a product of my environment. I want my environment to be a product of me. Years ago we had the church. That was only a way of saying we had each other. The Knights of Columbus were real head-breakers; true guineas. They took over their piece of the city. Twenty years after an Irishman couldn't get a fucking job, we had the presidency. May he rest in peace. That's what the niggers don't realize. If I got one thing against the black chappies, it's this: no one gives it to you. You have to take it." -- Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) Is that statement politically incorrect? Sure. But it does ring some truth. As I have mentioned, several minorities in this country had been oppressed for years and could not find decent jobs, lived poor and unlavished lifestyles, etc. Yet instead of bitching about life's unfairness, they went out and made something of themselves. They changed their fate. They WORKED HARD and SAVED MONEY and insisted that their children do the same. They resorted to working tough, blue collar jobs for pennies and lived modestly, instead of using government hand-outs to cloak their kids in Tommy Hilfiger or FUBU jeans. They didn't cry for help or blame others for their circumstance; instead they seized the day and took it upon themselves to make a change. Before MLK died, this is what he preached. Hard work. Dedication. Perserverance. PEACE. Non-violence. He fought for equality and justice not through gang membership or committing crimes, but by overcoming the struggle of African Americans, and proving that black people were worth equal treatment to white people in this country. No group has been more oppressed than the Jews. Now they own more than half of Hollywood, and are perhaps among the wealthiest people in America. Keep in mind that this is after they have withstood mass persecution, were enslaved in concentration camps, have had their families separated, homes raided, and lives destroyed. And this is all without any implementation of Affirmative Action in the Unisted States. Instead, the Jews put an emphasis on education, and continued to seek employment in academic fields such as law and medicine. Fighting through stereotypes and other stigmas, the Jews have overcome the barriers imposed upon them, and are no longer considered to be a minority that we need to help (economically speaking). The same goes for the Irish and Italians, of course on a much lesser scale. So you see, I am not a racist. Nor am I an extreme right-winger opposed to giving aid to the poor black communities who are struggling. Instead, I consider myself a fair person. I feel as though conditions for black people - or any minority - or any people - are subject to change from generation to generation, so long as people are willing to step up and make sacrifices on behalf of their chilren, grandchildren, etc. Fighting for your rights as American citizens is what MLK preached. He had a dream that blacks and whites would have equal opportunities -- not that blacks have preference over whites because of the color of their skin.

Danielle

James, I understand your POV. However my stance is that Affirmative Action is NOT *NECESSARY* because of all of the people who have overcome similar obstacles. I'm going to quote one of the most profound pieces of dialog in one of my favorite movies (The Departed). Perhaps it's not the most 'professional' statement or very good in a form of debate, but I think it gets right to the point: "I don't want to be a product of my environment. I want my environment to be a product of me. Years ago we had the church. That was only a way of saying we had each other. The Knights of Columbus were real head-breakers; true guineas. They took over their piece of the city. Twenty years after an Irishman couldn't get a fucking job, we had the presidency. May he rest in peace. That's what the niggers don't realize. If I got one thing against the black chappies, it's this: no one gives it to you. You have to take it." -- Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) Is that statement politically incorrect? Sure. But it does ring some truth. As I have mentioned, several minorities in this country had been oppressed for years and could not find decent jobs, lived poor and unlavished lifestyles, etc. Yet instead of bitching about life's unfairness, they went out and made something of themselves. They changed their fate. They WORKED HARD and SAVED MONEY and insisted that their children do the same. They resorted to working tough, blue collar jobs for pennies and lived modestly, instead of using government hand-outs to cloak their kids in Tommy Hilfiger or FUBU jeans. They didn't cry for help or blame others for their circumstance; instead they seized the day and took it upon themselves to make a change. Before MLK died, this is what he preached. Hard work. Dedication. Perserverance. PEACE. Non-violence. He fought for equality and justice not through gang membership or committing crimes, but by overcoming the struggle of African Americans, and proving that black people were worth equal treatment to white people in this country. No group has been more oppressed than the Jews. Now they own more than half of Hollywood, and are perhaps among the wealthiest people in America. Keep in mind that this is after they have withstood mass persecution, were enslaved in concentration camps, have had their families separated, homes raided, and lives destroyed. And this is all without any implementation of Affirmative Action in the Unisted States. Instead, the Jews put an emphasis on education, and continued to seek employment in academic fields such as law and medicine. Fighting through stereotypes and other stigmas, the Jews have overcome the barriers imposed upon them, and are no longer considered to be a minority that we need to help (economically speaking). The same goes for the Irish and Italians, of course on a much lesser scale. So you see, I am not a racist. Nor am I an extreme right-winger opposed to giving aid to the poor black communities who are struggling. Instead, I consider myself a fair person. I feel as though conditions for black people - or any minority - or any people - are subject to change from generation to generation, so long as people are willing to step up and make sacrifices on behalf of their chilren, grandchildren, etc. Fighting for your rights as American citizens is what MLK preached. He had a dream that blacks and whites would have equal opportunities -- not that blacks have preference over whites because of the color of their skin.

Society

Affirmative-Action-is-Right-and-Necessary/1/

early american settlers were racist. they captured people in africa, forced them to work in america under ridiculous conditions, then freed them and left them homeless; many families were broken up to begin with, so a lot of households had no nuclear fmaily at its core. once freed, black people had a hard time finding work due to discrimination. many found blue collar jobs as time went on and endured harsh work conditions because they had no other choice. they worked for low wages; this caused them to live in bad conditions otherwise known as "ghettos." because of bad working/living conditions, many blacks turned to crime as a way to earn money or get ahead. and thus they acquired the black sterotype that all african americans are criminals. meanwhile there were hardworking men and women trying to raise families and live by the words of MLK, who was assassinated for speaking out for equality. the blacks have been repeatedly repressed, critisized and sometimes even killed for speaking out and promoting equality. their hard work has been underminded or unnoticed. long after segregation has ended, hatred and racism still exists. maybe blacks can drink out of the same water fountains as us, but can they get the same jobs? no. my point is what's the use of ending segregation without making attempts to lessen racism? by doing one thing we are saying that blacks are equal and should not have to drink out of another water fountain. but then our racism negates that step because we keep blacks confined to ghettos; their inability to advance and make money and earn respect in our society inevitably leaves them poor with nowhere else to live then amongst themselves in poor conditions. yet we critisize them for where thye live... it's a catch 22. if we want them to stop rsorting to crime in order to survive, then we must give them opportunities!

FBJames

early american settlers were racist. they captured people in africa, forced them to work in america under ridiculous conditions, then freed them and left them homeless; many families were broken up to begin with, so a lot of households had no nuclear fmaily at its core. once freed, black people had a hard time finding work due to discrimination. many found blue collar jobs as time went on and endured harsh work conditions because they had no other choice. they worked for low wages; this caused them to live in bad conditions otherwise known as "ghettos." because of bad working/living conditions, many blacks turned to crime as a way to earn money or get ahead. and thus they acquired the black sterotype that all african americans are criminals. meanwhile there were hardworking men and women trying to raise families and live by the words of MLK, who was assassinated for speaking out for equality. the blacks have been repeatedly repressed, critisized and sometimes even killed for speaking out and promoting equality. their hard work has been underminded or unnoticed. long after segregation has ended, hatred and racism still exists. maybe blacks can drink out of the same water fountains as us, but can they get the same jobs? no. my point is what's the use of ending segregation without making attempts to lessen racism? by doing one thing we are saying that blacks are equal and should not have to drink out of another water fountain. but then our racism negates that step because we keep blacks confined to ghettos; their inability to advance and make money and earn respect in our society inevitably leaves them poor with nowhere else to live then amongst themselves in poor conditions. yet we critisize them for where thye live... it's a catch 22. if we want them to stop rsorting to crime in order to survive, then we must give them opportunities!

Society

Affirmative-Action-is-Right-and-Necessary/1/

i accidentally posted this in the comments section... the difference between immigrants and enslaved people is just that - they were ENSLAVED. they did not come to the US by choice, but were taken from their home and families to a country where they would be abused for years, then freed, and then continue to be mistreated. and i'm tired of people saying they "could have gone back to africa." that's like me saying that you could go back to whatever country YOUR ancestors came from. do you want to? probably not. because you have been assimilated into the united states culture and way of life, and supposedly live in a country where there is liberty and justice for all. but many black people do not have liberty OR justice. most of them live in fear for being attacked thanks to racial profiling, or have no method of defense (legal) when being subjected to acts of pure hatred or racism. either because of financial reasons or just outright fear. my point is this: perhaps if black people were given jobs... maybe even in leadership roles or positions of power/authority, america will no longer remain so ignorant to think that black people are incapable of holding such jobs. and eventually we will no longer need affirmative action, because our eyes will be opened to the reality that blacks are just as capable as anybody else of holding decent jobs. let's help end racism by promoting affirmative action and encouraging businesses to give these minorities a fair shot regardless of the color of their skin. 4 Seconds Ago

FBJames

i accidentally posted this in the comments section... the difference between immigrants and enslaved people is just that - they were ENSLAVED. they did not come to the US by choice, but were taken from their home and families to a country where they would be abused for years, then freed, and then continue to be mistreated. and i'm tired of people saying they "could have gone back to africa." that's like me saying that you could go back to whatever country YOUR ancestors came from. do you want to? probably not. because you have been assimilated into the united states culture and way of life, and supposedly live in a country where there is liberty and justice for all. but many black people do not have liberty OR justice. most of them live in fear for being attacked thanks to racial profiling, or have no method of defense (legal) when being subjected to acts of pure hatred or racism. either because of financial reasons or just outright fear. my point is this: perhaps if black people were given jobs... maybe even in leadership roles or positions of power/authority, america will no longer remain so ignorant to think that black people are incapable of holding such jobs. and eventually we will no longer need affirmative action, because our eyes will be opened to the reality that blacks are just as capable as anybody else of holding decent jobs. let's help end racism by promoting affirmative action and encouraging businesses to give these minorities a fair shot regardless of the color of their skin. 4 Seconds Ago

Society

Affirmative-Action-is-Right-and-Necessary/1/

yes, companies DO want educated blacks in their system to avoid lawsuits and to APPEAR as if they promote diversity. but really what they want is 1 or 2 black people to say AHA! SEE! THERE IS A TANIQUA BROWN WORKING UNDER OUR EMPLOYMENT. NO DISCRIMINATION HERE. MOVE ALONG... but that's not enough. hiring one or two black people for the sake of avoiding legal controversy is disgusting. there are thousands upon thousands of black people in this counttry receiving an education. yet most corporate leaders are white. do you think that's a coincidence? i understand that affirmative action is like reverse discrmination. however i think that's almost necessary to reverse the ideology for hundreds of years that black people are inferior. again, the reason why i say affirmative action is necessary is because it should be TEMPORARY. it should be a stepping stone towards equality. giving black people the opportunity to utilize the education they have fought to receive and show that they are competent workers, instead of the lazy criminals that the media and society portray them as, IS and SHOULD BE considered necessary for the benefit of our society. right now we are not taking advantage of our educated and willing black citizens, but are instead opressing them by keeping them to low-paying jobs and making their advancement in this country harder and harder with each passing generation.

FBJames

yes, companies DO want educated blacks in their system to avoid lawsuits and to APPEAR as if they promote diversity. but really what they want is 1 or 2 black people to say AHA! SEE! THERE IS A TANIQUA BROWN WORKING UNDER OUR EMPLOYMENT. NO DISCRIMINATION HERE. MOVE ALONG... but that's not enough. hiring one or two black people for the sake of avoiding legal controversy is disgusting. there are thousands upon thousands of black people in this counttry receiving an education. yet most corporate leaders are white. do you think that's a coincidence? i understand that affirmative action is like reverse discrmination. however i think that's almost necessary to reverse the ideology for hundreds of years that black people are inferior. again, the reason why i say affirmative action is necessary is because it should be TEMPORARY. it should be a stepping stone towards equality. giving black people the opportunity to utilize the education they have fought to receive and show that they are competent workers, instead of the lazy criminals that the media and society portray them as, IS and SHOULD BE considered necessary for the benefit of our society. right now we are not taking advantage of our educated and willing black citizens, but are instead opressing them by keeping them to low-paying jobs and making their advancement in this country harder and harder with each passing generation.

Society

Affirmative-Action-is-Right-and-Necessary/1/

Affirmative action puts an unfair burden on employers, who should be able to hire any damn body they want to. It's the American Way. Like health insurance. We hate our emloyers and foist all our social problems on them as if it were their duty to make everything right and make a profit at the same time. Every stupid problem we expect our employers to take care of hampers their ability to compete. sends more of our jobs to Indonesia, and unless this law is the first one to be completely fairly enforced, unfair. The law now punished any employer who, at any time, does not have racial balance by defining that situation as racial prejudice. I go to yard sales and estate sales frequently and I have seldom if ever seen a person of color there, yet that does not mean the estate sale is discriminatory. If the yard sale attendees were employees they would get a six-figure fine per day. If the law said that the sky were green that would be the same thing. It isn't and saying it is green does not make it green. In any population there are variations over time and culture, and a business can be fined humdreds of thousands of dollars per day for not having racial diversity. It is impossible to maintain diversity at all times. This law is unfair, unjust and wrong. Executive Order 10925 is generally credited with the first Affirmative Action program but as you can see it seeks "equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts." Well Affirmative Action is obviously not equal so it violates EO 10925. It is an attempt to adderess one inequality by creating another. What about the "Affirmative Action" already present in our criminal injustice system? A person of color is much more likely to go to prison in the first place and gets nine times the sentence of a white person for the same offense. How about some "equal opportunity" there? How about racial diversiry: More white people in our prisons? Should white people be arrested more frequently and given nine times longer sentences too? If you really want to address the problem then why not address it? Equality means equality. Not just in housing, education and employment, but throughout the system. Equality in education means not only diversity but tolerance. This is about how the students and teachers behave, not what they learn. The giving of racial preference is guarenteed to produce more racial friction as racial groups vie for the advantage it confers. This is happening. Real and perceived injustice is inevitable, and when it is not addressed is not only injustice. It multiplies. It is easily preventable civil unrest waiting to happen. Affirmative action, the giving of preferences, often results in the very dangerous practice of hiring or accepting unqualified employees and students. This is especially destructive in the educational system, where most college students do not graduate anyway. Requiring educational systems to accept inferior students hurts us all by giving us mediocre education. You now have mediocre doctor and dentist who took the place of that good doctor who is now pumping gas and selling insurance. It is a great disservice to give a person an inferior education in the first place. Why don't colleges cancel classes and just have sports? We'll save that for another debate. Village schooling is the answer to our educational problems anyway. Again another debate. With our present educational system, is it fair to admit minorities preferentially anyway to get a crappy education while white students are home schooled anyway? Poor people aren't able to home school. Well now hold on now maybe it's not such a bad idea anyway if I can play second base for the Diamondbacks. I was disadvantaged by, I'm sure I qualify somehow. I could get the whole family in if I worked it right. Hey wait, that's not fair. The umpire is calling all strikes from The Pitcher From Hell just because he is from Hell. And all the sections are assigned by Disadvantaged Status, a combination of irrelevant factors if you can just realize that a person is a person.

InfraRedEd

Affirmative action puts an unfair burden on employers, who should be able to hire any damn body they want to. It's the American Way. Like health insurance. We hate our emloyers and foist all our social problems on them as if it were their duty to make everything right and make a profit at the same time. Every stupid problem we expect our employers to take care of hampers their ability to compete. sends more of our jobs to Indonesia, and unless this law is the first one to be completely fairly enforced, unfair. The law now punished any employer who, at any time, does not have racial balance by defining that situation as racial prejudice. I go to yard sales and estate sales frequently and I have seldom if ever seen a person of color there, yet that does not mean the estate sale is discriminatory. If the yard sale attendees were employees they would get a six-figure fine per day. If the law said that the sky were green that would be the same thing. It isn't and saying it is green does not make it green. In any population there are variations over time and culture, and a business can be fined humdreds of thousands of dollars per day for not having racial diversity. It is impossible to maintain diversity at all times. This law is unfair, unjust and wrong. Executive Order 10925 is generally credited with the first Affirmative Action program but as you can see it seeks "equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts." Well Affirmative Action is obviously not equal so it violates EO 10925. It is an attempt to adderess one inequality by creating another. What about the "Affirmative Action" already present in our criminal injustice system? A person of color is much more likely to go to prison in the first place and gets nine times the sentence of a white person for the same offense. How about some "equal opportunity" there? How about racial diversiry: More white people in our prisons? Should white people be arrested more frequently and given nine times longer sentences too? If you really want to address the problem then why not address it? Equality means equality. Not just in housing, education and employment, but throughout the system. Equality in education means not only diversity but tolerance. This is about how the students and teachers behave, not what they learn. The giving of racial preference is guarenteed to produce more racial friction as racial groups vie for the advantage it confers. This is happening. Real and perceived injustice is inevitable, and when it is not addressed is not only injustice. It multiplies. It is easily preventable civil unrest waiting to happen. Affirmative action, the giving of preferences, often results in the very dangerous practice of hiring or accepting unqualified employees and students. This is especially destructive in the educational system, where most college students do not graduate anyway. Requiring educational systems to accept inferior students hurts us all by giving us mediocre education. You now have mediocre doctor and dentist who took the place of that good doctor who is now pumping gas and selling insurance. It is a great disservice to give a person an inferior education in the first place. Why don't colleges cancel classes and just have sports? We'll save that for another debate. Village schooling is the answer to our educational problems anyway. Again another debate. With our present educational system, is it fair to admit minorities preferentially anyway to get a crappy education while white students are home schooled anyway? Poor people aren't able to home school. Well now hold on now maybe it's not such a bad idea anyway if I can play second base for the Diamondbacks. I was disadvantaged by, I'm sure I qualify somehow. I could get the whole family in if I worked it right. Hey wait, that's not fair. The umpire is calling all strikes from The Pitcher From Hell just because he is from Hell. And all the sections are assigned by Disadvantaged Status, a combination of irrelevant factors if you can just realize that a person is a person.

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-a-necessary-responsibility/1/

Your position is becoming so ridiculous that I need only restate it in simple terms in order to show the contradictions. First of all is the assertion that our government, which has only been around for a couple hundred years, is somehow responsble for our thought processes. Now in the next round it is "government and society." Addressing racial (and other) prejudices would seem to require an understanding of the underlying situation. Your analysis of the history of inequality seems to lack that understanding, and therefore one can certainly be skeptical of any solution you propose. And sure enough, now you assert that the remedy for this problem is to let the government, which you believe caused the problem in the first place, to have the understanding and compassion to fix it by identifying all those who have been wronged by it and make up for it by passing it along to someone else, in this case our economic and educational systems, and telling them how to solve it as well, and making sure they do it that way, and punishing them quite severely if they do not. And this is supposed to make it all OK. And noting that your plan does nothing to actually address the problem of inequality. This proposal has so little actual thought behind it that it is obviously a prescription for more problems. It is worth noting that there are already equal opportunity measures in place which require applicants to be considered without regard to a bunch of irrelevant factors. Affirmative action is the granting of special "advantages" to those whom the government in its infinite wisdom designates as disadvantaged. Here is the first problem. How is the government to know who is disadvantaged and who is not? This would seem to require some sort of insight into the situation. What we want is equality. But our legal system works the way it does. "Affirmative Action," in its original form, is an attemt to legislate equality. This is not possible. Furthermore it does it in a way that is not workable. That way being our legal system. The situation has been improved, however, by contradicting the original notion of equality and replacing it with a system of inequality, but, in theory anyway, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to what the government perceives to be the problem. This is so insane anyway but there's more. Added to this is the vengeance mentality that if you are not complying with this impossible insane scheme you are the cause of it all and deserve to be allowed to contribute vast sums of money and beg forgiveness for your sins. It is clear that, as Einstein put it, we cannot solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them. When you discover that you are in a hole the first thing you must do is stop digging. What is needed is an intelligent and informed attempt to address the problem. Well I'm no rocket scientist but it would seem to me that, like any problem caused by man, would require an understanding and insight that can only be gained by getting inside the head of those who are causing it. Yet our mentality demands from them only that they be punished. It is a compound error. Victims of child abuse should not receive preferential hiring or educational treatment to address that ridiculous example. Why not find out by studying the most prejudiced how to end prejudice, and from criminals how to end crime, and from perpetrators of violence how to end violence, and from abusers how to end abuse?

InfraRedEd

Your position is becoming so ridiculous that I need only restate it in simple terms in order to show the contradictions. First of all is the assertion that our government, which has only been around for a couple hundred years, is somehow responsble for our thought processes. Now in the next round it is "government and society." Addressing racial (and other) prejudices would seem to require an understanding of the underlying situation. Your analysis of the history of inequality seems to lack that understanding, and therefore one can certainly be skeptical of any solution you propose. And sure enough, now you assert that the remedy for this problem is to let the government, which you believe caused the problem in the first place, to have the understanding and compassion to fix it by identifying all those who have been wronged by it and make up for it by passing it along to someone else, in this case our economic and educational systems, and telling them how to solve it as well, and making sure they do it that way, and punishing them quite severely if they do not. And this is supposed to make it all OK. And noting that your plan does nothing to actually address the problem of inequality. This proposal has so little actual thought behind it that it is obviously a prescription for more problems. It is worth noting that there are already equal opportunity measures in place which require applicants to be considered without regard to a bunch of irrelevant factors. Affirmative action is the granting of special "advantages" to those whom the government in its infinite wisdom designates as disadvantaged. Here is the first problem. How is the government to know who is disadvantaged and who is not? This would seem to require some sort of insight into the situation. What we want is equality. But our legal system works the way it does. "Affirmative Action," in its original form, is an attemt to legislate equality. This is not possible. Furthermore it does it in a way that is not workable. That way being our legal system. The situation has been improved, however, by contradicting the original notion of equality and replacing it with a system of inequality, but, in theory anyway, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to what the government perceives to be the problem. This is so insane anyway but there's more. Added to this is the vengeance mentality that if you are not complying with this impossible insane scheme you are the cause of it all and deserve to be allowed to contribute vast sums of money and beg forgiveness for your sins. It is clear that, as Einstein put it, we cannot solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them. When you discover that you are in a hole the first thing you must do is stop digging. What is needed is an intelligent and informed attempt to address the problem. Well I'm no rocket scientist but it would seem to me that, like any problem caused by man, would require an understanding and insight that can only be gained by getting inside the head of those who are causing it. Yet our mentality demands from them only that they be punished. It is a compound error. Victims of child abuse should not receive preferential hiring or educational treatment to address that ridiculous example. Why not find out by studying the most prejudiced how to end prejudice, and from criminals how to end crime, and from perpetrators of violence how to end violence, and from abusers how to end abuse?

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-a-necessary-responsibility/1/

Well now you have just gone too far critisizing my beloved government, and if you would quit throwing arguments in my face I wouldn't be so vengeful. Your discussion of how to "improve" the criminal injustice system, a system built entirely on vengeance, is particularly amusing in the light of your comments on vengeance. Is someone using my identity, claiming the government had nothing to do with institutionalizing hate? Am I in the wrong debate? I can only address real things I said, not imaginary ones or things I did not say. I gather from your diatribe that it is important to you that it be established that the government contributes in some way to inequality. Well duh. Upping the ante: Normally Affirmative Action means the giving of peferences but if you want it to mean any governmental enforcement of equality then well you asked for it you got it. You are offering up your leg to save your arm. I must thank you also for forfeiting your round and instead choosing to argue my side. You raised points I would have raised. The government, in its partnership with Big Evil, is indeed even far worse than you say. I don't know exactly what is happening, but someone seems to be influencing government, probably peddling influence using money stolen from the poor. Every act of the government further institutionalizes its evil, especially hate, especially racism. In fact racism and classism are exactly what the government is all about. It is selling and we are buying: Divide and Conquer. <URL>... In its insane war against the poor of the world, by support of suppressive military regimes throughout the world placed there for the convenience of stealing their natural resources, by ruinous fiscal policies forced upon the Third World by IMF and World Bank, by "Don't ask, don't tell" in the military, by spending programs that take money from the poor and give to the rich, by establishing toxic waste zones in minority neighborhoods, by neglecting the health and education of poor people, by cutting back on desperately needed social programs, by its trade agreements, by importing drugs to our inner cities via the CIA, by invading Third World countries that seem to have a handle on democracy, by waging war on any sort of reform movement, by using military force against those who gather peacefully to demand redress of grievances, by extravagant bailouts to the rich, by its repressive police forces that defend the property of the rich above human life, the Military Industrial Complex, in fact is there anything else the government does other than promote hate (besides despoil the environment and promote starvation of course)? Asking the government to do anything is to ask for more of the same. The government is incapable of being anything else than what it is. It is a hate machine. It is a hate machine because there are those who want it to be one, and to do the things they are too squeamish to even look at. Such as. <URL>... This is continuing because we continue to tolerate it every second. We continue to build police memorials so little boys will want to be cops. We continue to send them to Hate School. We apparently get our politicians and judges via a similar system. Media. Armed vigilantes. Border Patrol vehicles mysteriously pulling up right behind routine traffic stops but of only certain of our friends and neighbors who are disappearing. This is the most oppressed group in America today. They live in constant terror. They are beyond terrified to leave their homes because our armed thugs now have unlimited power and can break down doors with no problem. This is how we treat their children. They can be given all the preferences in hiring and education you please since it is illegal to hire or educate them anyway. It's a freebie. What a great solution. They will be lucky to live to be educated and hired. What a boon Affirmative Action will be to them. You go tell them then that this is how we make up for it. Hear them snicker in their holding cells. They will learn our hatred from us. This is happening all over the world. We are making enemies far faster than we can kill them. I would say it is a very emotionally charged issue. So what's the solution? Should the situation be addressed by those who are currently addressing it, or by those who caused it? Your answer is indeed puzzling. Perhaps we can get everyone who has ever taken a "role in having enforced inequality in the past," as you put it, including religion, big business, the UN, Israel, the Olympic Organizing Committee, France, The Christian Militia, Idi Amin, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the KKK, Marge Schott, the paramilitary groups, Italy, Ron Paul, Jetta the Hut, the corporations and organized crime to pitch in as well. Hell, I probably contributed to the problem. The truth is that we are all guilty and we must all provide the solution. We must be the solution. Not by demanding that others change. By changing ourselves. <URL>... <URL>... Many are working for equality. We should listen to them. They deserve a shot. They are the ones who can educate us, and our children, to learn and teach love instead of hate. Children learn to hate somewhere, and to love somewhere. We are the ones who will decide which.

InfraRedEd

Well now you have just gone too far critisizing my beloved government, and if you would quit throwing arguments in my face I wouldn't be so vengeful. Your discussion of how to "improve" the criminal injustice system, a system built entirely on vengeance, is particularly amusing in the light of your comments on vengeance. Is someone using my identity, claiming the government had nothing to do with institutionalizing hate? Am I in the wrong debate? I can only address real things I said, not imaginary ones or things I did not say. I gather from your diatribe that it is important to you that it be established that the government contributes in some way to inequality. Well duh. Upping the ante: Normally Affirmative Action means the giving of peferences but if you want it to mean any governmental enforcement of equality then well you asked for it you got it. You are offering up your leg to save your arm. I must thank you also for forfeiting your round and instead choosing to argue my side. You raised points I would have raised. The government, in its partnership with Big Evil, is indeed even far worse than you say. I don't know exactly what is happening, but someone seems to be influencing government, probably peddling influence using money stolen from the poor. Every act of the government further institutionalizes its evil, especially hate, especially racism. In fact racism and classism are exactly what the government is all about. It is selling and we are buying: Divide and Conquer. http://www.finitesite.com... In its insane war against the poor of the world, by support of suppressive military regimes throughout the world placed there for the convenience of stealing their natural resources, by ruinous fiscal policies forced upon the Third World by IMF and World Bank, by "Don't ask, don't tell" in the military, by spending programs that take money from the poor and give to the rich, by establishing toxic waste zones in minority neighborhoods, by neglecting the health and education of poor people, by cutting back on desperately needed social programs, by its trade agreements, by importing drugs to our inner cities via the CIA, by invading Third World countries that seem to have a handle on democracy, by waging war on any sort of reform movement, by using military force against those who gather peacefully to demand redress of grievances, by extravagant bailouts to the rich, by its repressive police forces that defend the property of the rich above human life, the Military Industrial Complex, in fact is there anything else the government does other than promote hate (besides despoil the environment and promote starvation of course)? Asking the government to do anything is to ask for more of the same. The government is incapable of being anything else than what it is. It is a hate machine. It is a hate machine because there are those who want it to be one, and to do the things they are too squeamish to even look at. Such as. http://www.mysanantonio.com... This is continuing because we continue to tolerate it every second. We continue to build police memorials so little boys will want to be cops. We continue to send them to Hate School. We apparently get our politicians and judges via a similar system. Media. Armed vigilantes. Border Patrol vehicles mysteriously pulling up right behind routine traffic stops but of only certain of our friends and neighbors who are disappearing. This is the most oppressed group in America today. They live in constant terror. They are beyond terrified to leave their homes because our armed thugs now have unlimited power and can break down doors with no problem. This is how we treat their children. They can be given all the preferences in hiring and education you please since it is illegal to hire or educate them anyway. It's a freebie. What a great solution. They will be lucky to live to be educated and hired. What a boon Affirmative Action will be to them. You go tell them then that this is how we make up for it. Hear them snicker in their holding cells. They will learn our hatred from us. This is happening all over the world. We are making enemies far faster than we can kill them. I would say it is a very emotionally charged issue. So what's the solution? Should the situation be addressed by those who are currently addressing it, or by those who caused it? Your answer is indeed puzzling. Perhaps we can get everyone who has ever taken a "role in having enforced inequality in the past," as you put it, including religion, big business, the UN, Israel, the Olympic Organizing Committee, France, The Christian Militia, Idi Amin, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the KKK, Marge Schott, the paramilitary groups, Italy, Ron Paul, Jetta the Hut, the corporations and organized crime to pitch in as well. Hell, I probably contributed to the problem. The truth is that we are all guilty and we must all provide the solution. We must be the solution. Not by demanding that others change. By changing ourselves. http://www.realchange.org... http://www.finitesite.com... Many are working for equality. We should listen to them. They deserve a shot. They are the ones who can educate us, and our children, to learn and teach love instead of hate. Children learn to hate somewhere, and to love somewhere. We are the ones who will decide which.

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-a-necessary-responsibility/1/

Respects to anyone who accepts this challenge. I stand in affirmation that Affirmative Action is a justifiable and necessary measure I choose the "pro" side of this argument and deem Affirmative Action necessary for the following reasons: Round 1:Pro-1. It helps to accelerate equalization, a responsibility of the government due to the government's role in having enforced inequality in the past Whether or not the government currently causes discrimination in the form of constitutional or legislation, historically the U.S. government did in the form of slavery laws prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, and the "Jim Crow" laws which stood through the establishment of Civil Rights protections of the 1960s. The racial inequalities are the responsibilty of the government, which enforced inequality, and the lingering consequences and effects of this inequality is also the responsibility of the government to amend because it committed these violations of civil rights. Round 1:Pro-2. It prevents non-government, racial-majority-dominated entities such as schools and employers from ignoring the repeal of slavery and "Jim Crow" laws. While government and people can "talk the talk" of non-discrimination, without special protections such as Affirmative Action, nothing could stop educational, housing or business institutions from wielding their influence to privately maintain inequality between the majority Caucasian race and minority groups. These institutions could operate with virtual impunity to discriminate against minorities without protections such as Affirmative Action. For these reasons, I believe Affirmative Action is a necessary tool and should be maintained. Evaluated for its effects and tweaked to bring about racial equality, perhaps, but it should not be eliminated nor considred obsolete, unfair, unjust nor unnecessary in its principles I stated above.

PervRat

Respects to anyone who accepts this challenge. I stand in affirmation that Affirmative Action is a justifiable and necessary measure I choose the "pro" side of this argument and deem Affirmative Action necessary for the following reasons: Round 1:Pro-1. It helps to accelerate equalization, a responsibility of the government due to the government's role in having enforced inequality in the past Whether or not the government currently causes discrimination in the form of constitutional or legislation, historically the U.S. government did in the form of slavery laws prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, and the "Jim Crow" laws which stood through the establishment of Civil Rights protections of the 1960s. The racial inequalities are the responsibilty of the government, which enforced inequality, and the lingering consequences and effects of this inequality is also the responsibility of the government to amend because it committed these violations of civil rights. Round 1:Pro-2. It prevents non-government, racial-majority-dominated entities such as schools and employers from ignoring the repeal of slavery and "Jim Crow" laws. While government and people can "talk the talk" of non-discrimination, without special protections such as Affirmative Action, nothing could stop educational, housing or business institutions from wielding their influence to privately maintain inequality between the majority Caucasian race and minority groups. These institutions could operate with virtual impunity to discriminate against minorities without protections such as Affirmative Action. For these reasons, I believe Affirmative Action is a necessary tool and should be maintained. Evaluated for its effects and tweaked to bring about racial equality, perhaps, but it should not be eliminated nor considred obsolete, unfair, unjust nor unnecessary in its principles I stated above.

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-a-necessary-responsibility/1/