The Public Waterfall RSS

Every argument gets a chance to be on top!
The Public Waterfall shows you all arguments, looking across every debate.
Atrag(2621) Clarified
1 point

LOL she still doesn't get it .

No prob. Clearly it must actually be my fault since as you can see with Atrag and DrawFour, this debate is very prone to it.

1 point

One can believe that abortion is morally wrong, but also believe that they have no right to force their moral opinion on other people through the law and thus support legalized abortions.

One could believe that abortion is morally wrong, but also believe that making abortion illegal does not prevent abortion but drives it onto the black-market and thus support legalization for the purpose of regulation and control over an inevitability.


Jace(2085) Clarified
1 point

Bloody hell. I am clearly too tired to be doing this debate thing. I am absolutely talking myself in circles on this one. The long and short: I think many/most people are ignorant and rather incapable of grasping the politics behind the pro-choice/pro-life semantic maneuver, but that nevertheless the maneuver is pretty evident. They think that one is either one or the other, when in actuality they are not even the right terms for discussing the issue of abortion to begin with (and even if they were, they would still be falsely dichotomous). Basically, I think we actually agree on this and I have just been going about my explanations a bit haphazardly. Sorry about that.

Jace(2085) Clarified
1 point

A moral relativist holds morality to be relative. An absolute relativist would hold all things relative, including but not limited to morality. So... a moral relativist could hold morality relative but claim that there objectively absolute facts, whereas an absolute relativist would hold both morality and the idea of absolute facts to be incorrect.

Does that clarify?

1 point

Well yes, so I could both kill it and retrieve it, but for my initial assumption, and a valid assumption at that, a corpse being a creature is not necessary, since like I've said I believe four times now, if I kill the creature, and remove it from the tree in the process, I have achieved the only task that was asked of me, which was to "get the cat out of the tree"

Remember when i explained how "get...out" or "get X out" simply means to remove, nothing more nothing less.

1 point

Meh, what's wrong with hypocrisy.

Here's a scenario:

I have a rally titled "anyone can speak" that rally is about letting anyone speak. A speaker comes up and says he does not feel anyone should speak. SO what if it's hypocritical that we don't let him speak, he's plugging a different message than us, which defeats the whole purpose of our function.

It'd be ironic, but human nature tends to be that way often.

1 point

Ok, so a corpse is still a creature. Gotcha.

1 point

I likes the jelly filled cuz it feels good when I stick my tongue in it.

Tee hee hee. 8D

1 point

That's a generalization. You don't know everyone so you don't know if that is everyone's desire. As far as we know that could be a prized tree, and the owners of said tree just wanted the cat infestation out of it.

However, I take you back to my valid question that asked if it had to be alive. Even if they did want the cat back, retrieved, more so than removed from the tree solely, that doesn't specify if they want it alive.

In old western movies, wanted posters ask for criminals to be brought to the jail, except they specify if they want the criminal dead or alive.

1 point

When anyone wants a to get a cat out of a tree, it always means they want it retrieved.

1 point

Yes, but the word retrieve isn't used here, I could say to you I don't see that as being the only meaning for get.

Let me give you an example. You call an exterminator, and frantically you say, get these bugs out of my house. When you say that does that mean you want him to capture them, safely, and give them to you? It absolutely does not, it means you want them removed. The phrase "get...out" does not mean retrieve, it means remove.

So I take you back to my initial question, does it has to be a live? This is both a valid question, and assuming they just want the cat out of the tree, and nothing more, it's a valid answer, since I would effectively be able to remove the cat from the tree if it were dead, but ultimately in asking I was ensuring that they wanted it removed, instead of retrieved.

1 point

That doesn't answer my question.

1 point

I don't see that being the only meaning for retrieve.

I agree with a lot you mention here. I agree that they are not dichotomous - therefore, if they are presented as a dichotomy, it would be a false one. (that's the only reason I clicked Dispute rather than Support)

I probably should just have used the question in the description as both the title and the description since several people have unfortunately gotten caught up with the title, much to my chagrin.

I agree that the terms often get in the way - I find that people who consider themselves on one "side" or the other generally agree on almost everything.

1 point

To retrieve would be to get it for someone, to simply get it out of the tree is at the bottom line meaning remove it from the tree. So I take you back, if we aren't calling a dead cat a cat, it's no longer a cat in the tree, I got it out. If we are calling it a cat, then after killing said cat, I can go and get it out of the tree, if they wanted me to retrieve it, then I'd get it out for them.

It should also be noted I asked if it had to be alive, which is a valid question since the question asks how to get a cat out of a tree, not how to retrieve a cat.

Re: organ damage:

If a dog consistently bites people's fingers, or face, or genitals, etc. would you not get rid of it since it did not wound people in life-threatening ways?

Re: potential danger:

You start by saying no, but then proceed to support my assertion. The risks are given a statistical probability which can rise or fall until an actual incident does or does not occur.

A dog represents an entirely different type of threat than a fetus does, and is simply handled differently.

Probability of harm for dogs and fetuses may be calculated differently, but they are both still statistics.

Keep in mind that successful pregnancies have near certain chance of pain, fatigue, hormone imbalances, mental/physical changes, etc.

Also, note that many severe complications are not discovered until the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks.

With Obamacare, this may no longer be a concern in the US, but: if you can't afford to keep an animal you can give it away, would this be an acceptable reason even when the fetus reaches animal status in your view?

1 point


to retrieve

You didn't retrieve the cat. You can retrieve its corpse after you kill it, but the cat has already passed on, thus, you can no longer retrieve it.

1 point

I've noticed this too. Very serious debates in his history, yet always with a humorous overtone, and even when we argue (rarely but surely) he makes mostly good points and defends them well, humorously all the same though.

1 point

Are you his wife? :O

We are just arguing over semantics now ;)

Semantics: the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

1 point

But there is no longer a "cat" in the tree, I could also go up and retrieve the corpse afterwards since now it'll be less inclined to scratch me.

2 points

I just think think he's freak.

1 point

Stuff four doughnut holes in your mouth at once, and no one bats an eye. Stuff four doughnuts in your mouth at once, and everyone loses their minds, and start pulling out there camera phones, while the dunkin donuts staff warns you if you make a mess on purpose they'll make you clean it up or bar you from the establishment.

1 of 34 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]

About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.