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.
Self-evident means "clear or obvious without needing any proof or explanation". If it obvious to you, how would you communicate it to the minority who disagree?
As to the question of rights, what conditions exclude the unborn child from the rights afforded to every other living human being, and why?
You claimed your answer was "self-evident", then refused to support your answer when it was challenged with reasonable questions.
I'm not gonna engage stupidity like that
So you engaged in debate with the intention of not debating? And that makes WHO stupid?
The pure irony of your bullshit is like something out of the twilight zone. Seriously, you are the most stupid individual I've ever encountered on the internet.
This could have done without the swear word. The best way to show up a person's flaws is just to ask straight questions and let them run their mouths. If the words they choose are stupid, it will be made more obvious by contrast to level headed questions. The longer that goes on, the more damning it gets. In my experience it's much more effective than calling people idiots to their virtual face. Just saying. Thanks for the back up though.
The best way to show up a person's flaws is just to ask straight questions and let them run their mouths.
Believe me, I've been doing that for the last six years. The problem is that excon is immune to shame and will very happily resort to egregious defamation and lies as a means to save face. You're talking about a deeply immature, lowbrow cretin who cares not a single shit about factual reality. He simply wants to feel like he "won" against you, and if that means making up a bunch of lies or using circular reasoning he's happy to do it.
He's a liar, a coward, and a pathetic piece of shit. In six years here, he's managed to find himself despised in equal measure by both the political left and right. He's a one man solution to political conflict.
Actually excon, I am very sure. I was hoping for somebody to bring an argument that challenged that surety, so that I can learn. Perhaps I will learn more reasons to be sure. Perhaps I will have to change my mind. Either way I wanted to get out of my echo chamber and discuss with others, some of whom may disagree with me.
Since you're so eager to talk about the issue of rights though, let's do it.
You claim that the unborn child is a living human. You claim that the this living human being has no rights. Do you consider that other living beings have basic human rights? If so, why do you make an exception for a living human being who is yet to be born?
You claim that the unborn child is a living human. You claim that the this living human being has no rights. Do you consider that other living beings have basic human rights? If so, why do you make an exception for a living human being who is yet to be born?
That's the entire reason he refuses to engage in further discussion. He could see from your previous post the angle you were going for, and he knows he can't rationalise what he believes, so he played the typical move of a coward and gave himself a false excuse for leaving. The idiot does this all day, every day. He's too immature to accept being proven wrong about anything, so when he begins to lose a debate he runs away then comes back three days later with a bunch of insults and a false version of history. It's fucking pointless ever conversing with him about anything because he's a thoroughly dishonest, immature little twat.
Are we to take it that you believe a child is not alive until some period after birth? If so, at what moment or in what period do they gain life? If so, what qualifies the child as alive when it reaches that developmental milestone, and why?
Are we to take it that you believe a child is not alive until some period after birth?
Hello Dan:
I'm sorry for not being clear.. I kinda thought I was.. Lemme try again.
In my view, a person is alive at conception, and maybe even earlier. Is an ovum alive? I think so. Is a sperm alive? I think so. Does the unborn have rights? No. Not because I say so, but because the law says so.
Does the unborn person gain their rights after they're born? Not fully, but yes. Do I think they should they get their FULL package of rights sooner? I do.
Finally, let me answer the question you're dying to ask. Notwithstanding the above, is abortion wrong? It is. It's just a tad LESS wrong than forcing a woman to carry her baby to term..
Would it be fair to say that if we follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion then you must consider that the excess sperm ejaculated during sexual intercourse should be retrieved and receive a religious burial in accordance with the faith of donor?
Would it be fair to say that if we follow your reasoning excess sperm should be retrieved and receive a religious burial in accordance with the faith of donor?
Hello N:
I tried that once.. But, those fuckers are too small for me to even see 'em, no less gather 'em up for burial.. But, I appreciate your 2 cents.
Ha, I still feel that a solemn procession of funeral directors and relations walking dignifiedly down the church aisle with a matchbox sized coffin would be a fitting end for the poor little spermatozoa.
Finally, let me answer the question you're dying to ask. Notwithstanding the above, is abortion wrong? It is. It's just a tad LESS wrong than forcing a woman to carry her baby to term..
Questions?
In other words you think not taking steps to prevent getting pregnant, and then killing someone is less wrong than saving someone's life. Jesus fucking Christ dude.
Nahh.. I'm not going to discuss whether a baby is alive, in the womb or out.
Which proves that your positions on politics are always appeals to emotion and feelings rather than facts. The fact is, it's alive. The other fact is that if you accept that it's alive, you have to accept that you are a murderer and that being a murderer doesn't make you feel very good. So in order to protect your feelings, knowing that it is alive, you have no choice but to opt out so that you don't wake up feeling like a complete piece of dog shit and knowing that you're no better than a cop who kills someone.
That they're alive is self evident.. A better question would be, do human beings have rights before birth.
The answer to that question is no..
You keep saying this as though you are knowledgeable on the law, all while killing a pregnant women is a double homicide. Do you just make it up as you go along?
I interpret your question;- ''what philosophical constraints help to construct a sound answer'' to be a contradiction in terms.
Insofar that a constraint is a limitation or restriction to achieving a declared objective, which in this case is the formulation of a sound answer to your question, I fail to understand why you feel that the inclusion of such a negative word as constraint will help respondents to find an empirical answer.
Also, your thread implies a natural link between the two words, i.e., philosophical constraints when, (as far as I'm concerned,) grammatically, no such an association exists without qualification.
With respect, this dispute is inane. Philosophy is "the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of the real world and existence, the use and limits of knowledge, and the principles of moral judgment". The very definition contains the word "limits" (synonymous with "constraints"), and requires that "reason" is the sole tool applied. In turn, reason is "the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts". The healthy mind reaches understanding using logic and fact. Thus philosophy is the use of logic to judge whether an interpretation of reality is logically sound, or not. "Contradiction in terms" this is not. Quite the opposite.
If you want the positive, then simply say, "what philosophically sound ideas..."
Finally, constraints are used all the time to achieve objectives. For example, "I need to build a house." Isn't enough for the draughtsman to draw it up. If he draws a mansion and you have only a small plot of land, you wasted your time on a fantasy. So you tell him the constraints, such as budget, land, a project deadline, etc. The same is true of philosophy and science. In order to further understand what is, it is often useful to understand what cannot be.
In short, instead of being negative and trying to deconstruct the question, find something constructive to say that might add value to the discussion.
Well, in your new guise you are new here but how many alts did you hide behind before slipping on your latest mask?
Your embarrassing failure at attempting to find a logical correlation between philosophical and constraint within the context of the sentence in which they were used, along with your reproduction of the dictionary's meaning of the two wholly incompatible words only serves to underpin the unsophisticated nature of your mentality and depth of your illiteracy.
There is little, if any point in continuing a discussion with a vanity driven inconsequential narcissist whose literary ignorance causes him to present irrational, eye-watering gobbledygook in defence of his deplorable benightedness.
Yes they are alive. Being born is the first day Not in the belly. They do not need to be aborted, because abortion is murder! We do not need abortion, ban abortion.
