CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Lolzors and Chuzlife are making pro-lifers look real bad
Lolzors and Chuzlife are seriously making pro-lifers look bad, I say you should keep your mouth shut when debating abortion, because your ruining the small chance prolifers have in winning such a debate.
Well this is a debate site. If you feel as if they have something wrong you can correct them or show them the correct way to argue for the pro-life side.
I have only presented logical arguments. If people have problems with logic, then I can't help them. If anything, logic should push people to be pro-life. How have I made pro-life peoples look bad? I thought I made them look good.
Except that all I have presented to you are logical arguments.... But to a person who thinks that logic is illogical, my arguments are illogical even though they are logical.
People don't have rights. You are begging the question. Please tell me from a logical standpoint, not a preferential one, why people have rights. Use logic, please and actually make a sound argument.
Rights are necessarily unalienable. That means that they cannot be taken away or given away in any circumstance. Suicide is the taking of one's own life. If you have rights to life, then you cannot commit suicide. People commit suicide, therefore, they do not have rights. However, if rights is in the sense of a justified ability to exercise, then they necessarily require a duty to those rights. Duties, however, cannot be universalized except for one to allow everyone to have X. However, that then means that murderers cannot be killed for anything, which takes the logic to not allowing abortion, or put in jail because of their freedom, etc. Therefore, anarchy ensues under the second definition of rights. Also, it means that these types of rights necessarily fall into the first type of right, which is logically impossible. You actually used examples in your response that fit into my argument. Moreover, you are assuming that simply because we have X, then it means that we have the right to X. That is begging the question again. I have life but that does not mean I have a right to it. Therefore, rights do not exist. That is logic for you.
P.S. your examples of life and death cross over one another and actually point to me being correct. Because if you have rights in those places, then you cannot die and you cannot live using the same logic that you presented. It contradicts itself. Better luck next time.
Rights are necessarily unalienable. That means that they cannot be taken away or given away in any circumstance. Suicide is the taking of one's own life.
If you have the right to both live and die then suicide(the taking of ones own life resulting in death) is not taking away either one and makes both are inalienable.
You can commit suicide therefore those rights are inalienable.
However, if rights is in the sense of a justified ability to exercise, then they necessarily require a duty to those rights. Duties, however, cannot be universalized except for one to allow everyone to have X. However, that then means that murderers cannot be killed for anything, which takes the logic to not allowing abortion, or put in jail because of their freedom, etc. Therefore, anarchy ensues under the second definition of rights.
If universal rights exist then societal constitutional rights and law can exist and limit what is possible by inacting the universal law of consequence within universal right only if it is accepted by that society.
Constitutional rights and law and are accepted by society therefore universal rights exist, are inalienable and can be exercised at any time but, constitutional rights and law provide consequence for the actions specified therein.
If universal law requires and subjects itself to no legal responsibility and provides absolute freedom then those rights require no duty.
The universe provides absolute freedom therefore, there is no moral or legal responsibility. Therefore, no duty.
This statement supports my logic: Duties, however, cannot be universalized except for one to allow everyone to have X
P.s this is where the term order out of chaos comes from
P.S. your examples of life and death cross over one another and actually point to me being correct. Because if you have rights in those places, then you cannot die and you cannot live using the same logic that you presented. It contradicts itself. Better luck next time.
If you have the right to live and the right to die then you can live and you can die.
That simple.
If death is the consequence of life then my examples do not cross over and you are wrong.
You have to live to die therefore my examples do not cross over and you are wrong.
If the above logical statment is true then you have proven yourself to have been illogical.
Here's the thing: you don't understand what unalienable is. It means that is cannot be taken or given. If someone commits suicide, then he takes away his life, which means that he does not have the right to life, which means that it is not unalienable. You keep making contradictory claims of having a right to life and death. You are making the incorrect assertion of "if one has life, then he has a right to life." Therefore, under your own premises, then you cannot have both a right to life and a right to death, because that would mean you would have to be in a state of death and life to have both. However, the logic is this: "if you have a right to life, then you have life." However, under this logic, you cannot have your life taken away and you cannot die if rights exist. People do die; therefore, rights do not exist. In your last post you had the former; now you have the latter. You are logically contradicting yourself and don't even see it. I didn't realize how bad your logic was until I saw you actually try and exercise it...
Here's the thing: you don't understand what unalienable is.
Here`s the thing Lolzors unalienable: Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable.
When you realize that the universe can not be separated, given away, taken away. You will realize my logic is 100% irrefutable.
The mind can only make sense of things by dividing them into smaller more understandable parts. I am not contradicting myself. You are just failing to see the big picture. The universe is perfect. Your logic and understanding is not.
I never said that you have the right not to follow universal law. Everything degrades. Your body degrades which is why you die in old age. You are subject to all universal law. Therefore you have the right to life but life like anything else degrades and spends it`s fuel. A star is the prime example of this law. This probably stems from life forming after the inanimate. From dust to dust, no?
You are still ignoring the two formulas for how to arrive at rights. They are both flawed. It doesn't matter if you think that they are real if they are logically impossible.
You are still ignoring the two formulas for how to arrive at rights. They are both flawed. It doesn't matter if you think that they are real if they are logically impossible.
wouldn't this be begging the question?
you still fail to see the big picture. The universe has rights that it shares with everything. Not one thing is excluded from the rights it gives. Rights are entitlements. Some rights trump other rights and is all situational.
So everything illogical except for you Lolzors? That to me seems like a logical fallacy.
Argument from Personal Incredulity
I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true
The Fallacy Fallacy
As I mentioned near the beginning of this article, just because someone invokes an unsound argument for a conclusion, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. A conclusion may happen to be true even if an argument used to support is is not sound. I may argue, for example, Obama is a Democrat because the sky is blue – an obvious non-sequitur. But the conclusion, Obama is a Democrat, is still true.
It is irrelevant if your arguments for right are unsound. I have presented you with logical proofs that show that they cannot be real. You can find a thousand ways to make the argument not work, but you only need one way to prove your point. And then like most people would say, someone is going to say that things cannot be proven to not exist. However, that is wrong. You can prove the negation of something through logic, which I have done with you in regards to rights.
Lolzors it is illogical to deny proof. The proof is everything around you. You are entitled to used everything as you see fit. If you cannot except that an entitlement is the exact same thing as a right then you are being illogical. When you enter a government contract the constitutional rights are what you are entitled to. You are entitled to so much and you believe you are entitled to nothing. Which is completely illogical. You have an entitlement to your own body for example. If you do not have the right to inhabit your own body for as long as it will last then you are being extremely illogical. You haven't proven any logical proof that they don't exist. You have proven to me that you will deny facts and present those denials as truth.
I have proven using the logic that you have entitlements. Constitutional rights (the contract legal rights) highlight those entitlements for use in society. However, noone can take away your entitlement to use your own body in anyway you deem fit. It's a right that you owe to yourself. If you didn't have this basic right then we all could use your hands and your arms. We can't we are not entitled to it. We have no right to it.
You are still equivocating the word "right". And you are still using the same premise that I showed you to be illogical; simply because you are does not give you the right to anything. However, simply because one does not have a right to something does not mean that morality is negated. You are mixing up a lot of terms here. And you are still missing the part about rights being unalienable, which means that they cannot be taken or given. That means that governments cannot do anything, logically, to take away the rights. Anarchy, thus, ensues under a country believing in rights. However, people's lives can be taken away, which means that rights are not real.
And you are still missing the part about rights being unalienable, which means that they cannot be taken or given.
They are inalienable. You just don't understand how it all needs to work together to be logical.
That means that governments cannot do anything, logically, to take away the rights.
They cannot take away your natural rights. Contract waves your rights and gives them rights to what ever they please. But, you inevitably don't lose them.
Anarchy, thus, ensues under a country believing in rights. However, people's lives can be taken away, which means that rights are not real.
The universe is the state of anarchy. We never left it to begin with.
I'm not arguing with you any longer on this issue. You are reverting to multiple logical fallacies. You don't understand the arguments or are trolling. I have won and it clear that I have.
I'm not arguing with you any longer on this issue. You are reverting to multiple logical fallacies. You don't understand the arguments or are trolling. I have won and it clear that I have.
What ever bud. You haven't won the debate isn't over.
You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.
Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.
You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.
Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.
and this one
black-or-white
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
You are still begging the question my assuming that they are real without a logical answer to show that they are real. I have already showed you the flawed logic of believing rights exist. You are either trolling and just trying to mess with me or completely illogical and don't even see it.
Lol Lolzors93 jist because you have questions that you are neglecting to ask doesn't mean it's begging the question. I'm not avoiding the questions you have no intention of asking. Seriously. You exist bro. It's a given. No need for proof. If you did not have the right to exist. By universal standards you simply wouldn't.
You don't understand logic.... begging the question is a type of logical fallacy....
Furthermore, you are switching back away from what you said last time, to the previous way of attaining rights, which comes from simply being. That, as I have demonstrated, is illogical. Simply because you are does not entitle you to rights. I already showed you this. You are either ignoring the logic and trolling or you don't understand it.
Well, if morality is not objective, then it reverts into that which is preference. Therefore, throwing those cats over the line and finding it immoral is necessarily equivalent to liking blue rather red. -Lolzors
Well, if preference is the opposite of objective then you are logical.
Objective:(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
You are making a straw man argument, which is exactly what I would have expected from someone who doesn't understand logic. Did you even read the article I told you to read? Subjective morality necessarily reverts into preference. What does that mean? It means that it deductively follows. Therefore, both ways I am logical.
He probably meant that rights are pretty much a concept that is based upon morals or something. Then he also said that rights, if they exist, should be treated equally so why wage which right is better? Or why place this right above that right? I dont think this is illogical. This comes down to opinion though.
He probably meant that rights are pretty much a concept that is based upon morals or something. Then he also said that rights, if they exist, should be treated equally so why wage which right is better? Or why place this right above that right? I dont think this is illogical. This comes down to opinion though.
Lizzy... Would you take my side for once?
His argument clearly says "PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS."
Do you have rights Lizzy?
and then goes on to say.
"and even if they did"
Which is 100% illogical because he's now confirming that he does not understand he has rights. I have rights. You have rights. On top of that he argues for the Pro-life side of the debate of which claim that a fetus has rights. do you understand why this doesn't make any sense?
He probably meant that rights are pretty much a concept that is based upon morals or something. Then he also said that rights, if they exist, should be treated equally so why wage which right is better? Or why place this right above that right? I dont think this is illogical. This comes down to opinion though.
The first statement clearly says "PEOPLE DONT HAVE RIGHTS." And then goes on to ask a question. I'd like it if you are on side here Lizzy. Here he is saying that people don't have rights when Pro-life is about saying fetus have rights.
This is a logical statement:
if P then Q
P
---------
Therefore Q
Ifpeople don't have rights then Lolzors is correct and logical in his reasoning
people don't have rights
--------------------------------------------
Therefore,Lolzors is correct and consistent in his reasoning.
OR
ifpeople do have rightsthenLolzors is incorrect in his reasoning and is illogical
People have rights
--------------------------------------
Therefore,Lolzors is incorrect in his reasoning and is illogical.
Here he is saying that people don't have rights when Pro-life is about saying fetus have rights.
This is exactly what i would have expected from someone who doesn't understand logic. You are making a hasty generalization by assuming that all Pro-life peoples say that fetuses have rights.
It is as justifiable as it is to cut of your nail.
Yet, a fetus has its own genetic code. Does it not?
Morality was your argument, not mine. You just proved yourself wrong. Congratulations.
How have I proved myself wrong? Yet another logical fallacy from your proponents' side. Maybe you don't understand logic? Because your statement that I have proved myself wrong is a non-sequitur. In case you don't know what that means, it means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
No, its that the being is a human that is separate from the mother. Therefore, the mother has no justified reason to kill it except for her own benefit.
I said that killing a fetus is just as justifiable as cutting off a nail.
You said, that the fetus has it's own genetic code.
Is it odd that I assumed your point was that something with an original code should not be killed? Because you can not be against abortion with the argument that a fetus has it's own unique genetic code, when every ant in this world also has it's own unique genetic code.
Is it odd that I assumed your point was that something with an original code should not be killed? Because you can not be against abortion with the argument that a fetus has it's own unique genetic code, when every ant in this world also has it's own unique genetic code.
It is an ant. Humans are humans. Treat humanity as an end in-of-itself and not merely as a means.
I am afraid logic won't push people to any position what so ever. Logic is about the modes of reasoning, it is not about the content of the debate. Validity of the arguments supporting a position has nothing to do with the truthvalue of a proposition. It's the truthvalue of the premises that is important. So it's the premises you pick that are important - consistency with the laws of logic is an elementary requirement. If you aren't consistent with these laws, then your argument can be automatically refuted. Making logical arguments therefore isn't really something special, it's just the minimum requirement for having a respectable opinion.
To assume that every argument you make is sound, i.e. that everything you say is true, seems to me to be a pretty arrogant starting point of debate. Also, if you are so sure that you are right in every and all aspects, why do you even care to debate things with people?
I'm not assuming that I'm right in all things, just these things that have caused this commotion. However, even in the things outside of this commotion, I'm generally pretty right and make sound arguments. Unlike other people here, I am not here to debate. I hate debating.... I only come here to teach other people how wrong they are and so I can learn their own flawed reasonings.
Fair enough lets narrow it down to this particular commotion then. Your arguments are based on normative premises. Unless you can argue indisputably that your particular normative premises can be derived from non-normative, objective phenomena, then you have no way of proving that your premises are true.
Exactly because you are incapable of proving that your premises are derived from objective phenomena, it is an impossibility for you to prove that your premises are true. So because you can't prove that your premises are true, you will have to use convincing arguments. But convincing arguments are just that; they are convincing, they aren't undeniable, which is what you think your arguments are. But let me assure you. Your arguments aren't undeniable. They are merely reasonable and valid, but they are also controversial.
That just reverts into beliefs-properly-so-called. Everything, when regressed back into that, cannot be proven objectively. However, when we take reason as objectively true, after having the belief that it is reasonable, then we can see that I am right, objectively. People are killed. Rights are unalienable. Therefore, rights do not exist because it would be logically impossible to take them away.
"Therefore, rights do not exist because it would be logically impossible to take them away."
Your assumptions about what the term 'right' imply are pretty weird. You assume that rights have some kind of physical component. E.g. you assume that if people have the right to life, then it's physically impossible to kill that person. This is wrong due to the fact that your argument is based on a misinterpretation about the term 'right'. If an individual has a right, then it just means that it's wrong to contradict that right. It doesn't mean that the right can't be broken.
If an individual has a right, then it just means that it's wrong to contradict that right. It doesn't mean that the right can't be broken.
However, you are still missing the fundamental piece. It is unalienable. That means regardless of how one defines it, if someone is killed, then the right has been taken away. Furthermore, your definition, which is almost equivalent to the second definition of right that I gave the other dude, which in the end reverts into the one I first gave you, requires a duty. That duty must be universalized if a right is a right. Therefore, because the only duty that can be universalized is to allow someone to have X, then rights cannot be real. Why? Because that would mean that our duty would be to not ever kill anyone for any reason, even in self-defense, we would not be able to put anyone in prison, etc. Anarchy would, thus, ensue. However, this definition, regardless, regresses into the first definition that I gave you. And because people die, rights cannot be real.
Well I think it's wrong to say that a person has his rights taken away when he is killed. It's wrong because one can only lose something if one exists. But if an individual has been killed, that person doesn't exist, and therefore he can't lose anything. When he is killed, or even while being killed, the only thing that happens is that somebody is ignoring his right to life. He has no rights taken away from him, and once he is dead it makes no sense to talk about rights, because he doesn't exist as a person anymore.
So rights are indeed unalienable, and even if we could semantically say that a person has lost his right to life when he is dead, such a proposition seems to assume that the 'he' still exists, which he doesn't.
Well I think it's wrong to say that a person has his rights taken away when he is killed. It's wrong because one can only lose something if one exists. But if an individual has been killed, that person doesn't exist, and therefore he can't lose anything. When he is killed, or even while being killed, the only thing that happens is that somebody is ignoring his right to life. He has no rights taken away from him, and once he is dead it makes no sense to talk about rights, because he doesn't exist as a person anymore.
Once someone has been killed, then at that moment of death, his rights have been taken away. It reverts into the question, "which comes first?"
1) If someone has X, then someone has rights to X.
OR
2) If someone has rights to X, then someone has X.
Both ways are illogical.
So rights are indeed unalienable, and even if we could semantically say that a person has lost his right to life when he is dead, such a proposition seems to assume that the 'he' still exists, which he doesn't.
It is irrelevant if he exists or not. His right to exist has been taken away because he does not exist any longer. Put it into the above formulas and you get this: "If someone has existence, then someone has rights to existence." However, when he dies, then that right is no longer in existence, then it changes to: :If someone has no existence, then someone has rights to no existence." That is contradictory to the former because you cannot have a right to exist and not exist at the same time; and if rights retain in death, then it can be seen as illogical; and if the rights are distinguished at death, then they are not unalienable and do not exist. If you put it into the second, then you get this: "If someone has rights to exist, then someone has existence." However, some people do not exist; therefore, rights to exist do not exist. Therefore, rights do not exist.
Zors,... I wish that you would consider something must first exist in order for it to be capable of being violated.
The fact that a right to life is something that can be violated is not proof (as you suggest) that the right never existed. The fact that it can be violated actually proves that it does or did exist.
LOLZORS, if the founding fathers of this country shared your view, we would never have had the Declaration of Independence or the Revolutionary War which helped established our rights and freedoms as they did. Our rights are real. They are a legal and ethical reality and like I said... the fact that they can be violated (and people prosecuted for violating them) is proof positive that they (rights) actually have been established and that they exist.
And the founding fathers based everything they that resulted in the United States off of John Locke's philosophy. I have read it; it is self-contradictory. Rights are in some legal and ethical systems, but those are simply human constructs, because the law is based upon what one thinks should be enforced by the government and ethics is the philosophical determination of morality, which requires an ethical judgement. However, neither require the notion of rights and even if they include rights, it does not necessarily mean that they exist. I could right down in the Constitution that a married-bachelor should be given special treatment and it should be enforced by the law and then write an ethics paper of why they should be given special treatment. However, simply because I do those things does not deny that they are logically impossible. Furthermore, you were the one who came up with the notion of them being violated. They are not really violated; they are negated. Modus Tollens teaches us that if you deny the consequent, then you necessarily have to deny the antecedent. I never said that rights are violated except in my last post to you, which was to keep up the communication line. However, you were the one to bring into the discussion that rights have been violated. I'm simply saying that they have been negated. And if I did say violated, which I very well might have said, it was in a different context. So please do not take me out of context. Therefore, still, rights do not exist.
Dude... there are a lot of things that exist only as a human construct. They still exist. What we think of as Love is a human construct, so is hate, so are contracts and obligations... That doesn't make those things any less real. I disagree too that you can add rights to the Constitution without a solid basis in reality to support them and even if you could do that.... it wouldn't stand for very long. I am the one who said that the fact that rights can be violated is proof that they exist.... Because, you can't violate something that does NOT exist.
If I attack you or one of your family members - physically and you do what you have to do to protect them or yourself... your justification for doing so is undeniable evidence of a right to life.
You seem to think that a right to life means that a life can not be taken or that the right must not exist if it can be violated... The reality is that a right is just another way of saying a "justifiable claim."
You have a justifiable claim to your life. You have a right to your life. It is not only logically possible.... it's a historical fact.
If a right is that, while it necessarily has to be unalienable, then no one can be killed for any reason, no one can be put into prison, etc. Therefore, under your own logic, then anarchy ensues and the United States having a government is pointless. And you are also assuming the formulation for rights is "life, then right", which is as I have shown to others, illogical.
As I have yet to see a comment from or a message from even one pro-lifer who thinks that any of my arguments have hurt the pro-life cause.
Furthermore, most of my arguments are along the same lines which have won us the most gains in court in recent years... After forty plus years of the same old same o'.... it's time to try some new arguments.
You arguments are nonsense, failed logic. You usually create debate con/pro with options "Profile" vs "I'm retarded". You have zero knowledge about embryology or biology in general.
Why do you think pro-lifers have a small chance at winning the argument? You know how easy it is to cite the atrocities that happen yearly regarding abortion?
