- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
It all has to do with the purchasers intent, really. to support the organizations purpose
One small correction - an organization can have multiple purposes, and a person's intent might be to support only a subset of those purposes.
A bit of a metaphor
I believe I get the metaphor, but I don't yet see an elucidation of why it would apply to the charitable organization and not the grocery.
I was obviously in disagreement with the consensus. This is why "no" fit better.
People can agree that it is an issue and disagree on its importance. You could have posted under yes and explained your concerns, or posted a clarify under someone else - both would have been more congruent with the position you now seem to be taking.
Why are you still confused?
A) "issues" can refer to the combination of global warming issue and climate-related issues ("issue" + "issues" = "issues")
B) "issues" can refer to climate-related issues which include global-warming
C) "issues" can be used to segregate other climate-related topics for further study, and leave unaddressed whether GW is an issue. (An insufficient response to the question.)
Also note: you seem to be saying that GW is less important than the other climate related topics - so, can the lesser be an issue while the greater is not?
"Global Warming" debate is not as important "
Big picture vs little picture.
Radiative forcing is a small aspect.
I personally don't care about either of you, but just from someone else's perspective, you're totally the dick in this situation. (I'm just mad, cuz that's my job.)
She's not that great a debater - so what. She's on site that's open to anyone, and maybe she'll learn stuff, maybe she won't.
You cyberstalk every post she makes, create fake accounts, etc. etc.
I know lot's of people know I'm an asshole and when they call me on it, I usually don't care - and I don't expect you to either, but just saying...
your related debates showed nothing.
They weren't provided to show anything.
There is no false dichotomy, just inaccurate labels.
That's a false dichotomy of its own. One can believe that the current labels are inaccurate and that they present a false dichotomy.
Pro life people only want a law
Your debate had a total of 10 people (including you and me) and over half of them were on our side - not exactly a good survey of pro-life thought. Polls show that a majority of people who are pro-life think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances (ref). And those polls are not telling the full story (ref)
financially supporting a company via custom need not imply that the individual support's anything the business does at all from any kind of moral, ethical, or any other standpoint beyond the fact that they support that the company carries/provides that product/service.
You seem to be saying that it is the case, but not why it is the case that replacing company/business with charitable organization wouldn't fit just as well. An organization is a distinct thing from all of the causes it might support - the same way a grocery is distinct from its products.
Never claimed it was not an issue.
In a debate titled "Is global warming an issue?" - you posted under "No"
I even tried to clarify by asking "So, basically that warming is an issue, but that there are other climate-related issues as well, right?"
and you said "Not so much issues", etc.
Even if I make my intention clear - that I like coke, I still support the store generally. They use money from the sale of cokes to help pay employees, pay rent, electricity, etc. which also helps facilitate the sale of sprite (or cigarettes, condoms, alcohol, nudie mags, inorganic foods, etc., etc.)
Donations are 100% voluntary and optional
Therefore I'm only comparing them to voluntary purchases.
Similarly, you may give to an organization (purchase) which provides mammograms (service/Coke) without that donation meaning you like abortions (Sprite). Planned Parenthood isn't a "cause", it is a multi-faceted organization which provides many products/services.
I wasn't offering evidence, per se, just related debates.
In them I make the case that pro-choice and pro-life are a false dichotomy as some people (whether liberal or conservative) might be against abortion personally, but still think that a woman who does get one should not go to jail.
What do you consider the takeaway from that debate? Several people seemed to agree with you that fewer abortions was the goal rather than the ban. And the number of arguments and the points seem to be in favor of your argument for fewer abortions as well.
I think you are going in the right direction here.
People who advocate that abortion be legal should make a more concerted effort to appeal to the conservative mindset. (Power of the state, etc.)
I think one route is to use the language of self-defense - pregnancy always poses a risk of harm to the mother and therefore she should have a right to self-defense.
For people willing to have a longer discussion, it is worth pointing out that it is not a simple issue. I put together a sample of the relevant questions here.
The debate creator and the two posters have been squabbling lately (well, for a long time actually, but intensely again for the last few days). A new account was setup to look similar to the debate creator's account and they were creating mock posts to look like (a caricature of) hers.
The site owner/moderator is aware of it - though one key element of the site is that it is open to anyone. That has its negatives, but, if you like to debate there are certainly good moments too.
Welcome to the island of misfit toys :)
my focus of the debate was the entire climate change field
Maybe you should create your own debate for that; this debate is specifically about whether global warming is an issue.
You can come up with solutions for GW through studies
Why would you devote any time to that if GW wasn't an issue?
far short of a molecule that can copy itself
I didn't say that it did copy itself - only that it copies sequences longer than itself. (longer than itself would by definition not be the same as itself...)
These experiments are all about translation length of one sequence on another.
Only the ones I mentioned - there are certainly other factors that they are working on (like this), etc.
The point is/was progress (filling the gaps).
I said a creature such as bigfoot
The same argument applies.
I also said 'assuming'
And I'm saying don't do that.
[forgery] may be your best bet.
No, it isn't. Your still basing it on knowing what you say, an untenable assertion, but even if we ignore the practical exclusions to your argument, you are trying to claim credit for more than you have done and take it from someone who was able to do what you didn't/couldn't.
here's his hair and a blurry pic!"
They check your hair and find out what it actually is.
Or, if there is some species found in the future, they compare the hair and find they are different.
There could be no opposite effect.
I imagine there are consequences (laws) regarding making false representations, no?
See also Piltdown Man - how many hours of dedicated scientists were wasted on proving it a forgery - how many creationists still use it to say evolution is false?
There are, of course, many instances of animals that take actions which kills themselves - usually to preserve their kin (their own genes, or their colony, etc.), but also sometimes out of sadness.
To try to say they have to have the same level of knowing is to try to create an impossible comparison (your own rhetorical strategy).
Now, can you say how any of this relates to what rights animals and humans do or should have??