- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).|
Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
That's not the analogy. Leaving the house and having sex are the equivalents. Both are choices made that can have potential problems. When leaving the house, and equally when having protected sex, the risk aspect is greatly reduced to a point where it shouldn't have a bearing on the decision to act.
So, the argument of not having protected sex if you can't afford an abortion is equivalent to saying don't leave the house if you can't afford any risks that may equally occur from that decision, such as being hit by a car.
Engaging in protected sex and leaving the house are both choices that can have negative consequences. Saying you should spend your life avoiding possibilities because of potential unlikely negatives is ridiculous.
"They still took the risk of pregnancy KNOWING that they may not be able to hold the burden. Why should we feel sorry for these people?"
Again I ask, are you advocating that finances should be a criteria in people having sex? Is that seriously what you're saying? Because to me, it looks like your argument is "don't have sex if you're poor."
The poll found 50% not wanting government run healthcare, and 47% wanting it. The poll itself has a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points.
I actually agree with almost all of what you said, apart from one or two tiny bits.
"Democracy incorporates Capitalism as the economic goal..."
I think a lot of the more successful democracies actually incorporate a good mix of capitalism and socialism. I don't think either as complete theories could ever be implemented successfully, however implemented together they seem to work very well. It's just such a shame that when implemented in its pure form, capitalism is great for those embracing it, but terrible for those who are the victims of it (e.g. Africa).
"keeping voters from taking away individual rights (unfortunately, politicians suck at reading the Constitution)."
Another unfortunate property of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which often leads to individual rights being taken away by the voting majority (as evident with proposition 8). Do you happen to think that that is an unfortunate property of democracy itself, or simply bad implementation? Maybe it's a symptom of what I call "collective morals," where as a group people will often agree that, just as a crude example, something needs to be done about healthcare, however when it actually comes to the time when they may have to dip their hands in their pockets, suddenly the collective morality of society as a whole doesn't actually fulfil its promise when we are given the choice as individuals. What do you think?
It seems such a shame that all of the experiments into communism so far have failed (though, they are always actually dictatorships disguised as communism from the very start). If communism could be applied in a way that stayed true to its original ideals, what would you think of communism then? (ie. What are your thoughts on communist theory rather than the failed implementations?)
Congratulations on the most stupid Reductio ad absurdum argument ever made. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Just so we're clear, I'm not arguing that you are bigoted and I'm not. My argument is that everyone is bigoted about some things. What annoys me is when people (as you're doing) apply their own individual bias to a situation to excuse their views from having the property that they try to attach to others views because of that bias. I'm a bigot, you're a bigot. We all are about certain things. So...
"No, you're wrong. I never said that every liberal was a bigot. Or that every liberal attacks white people. A lot of them yes, but not all of them."
There's no difference between saying all or most, because both statements are clearly ludicrous, based on your individual bias, and bigoted. Have you met or spoken to most liberals? No. Therefore you are extending your individual bias beyond the realms of its actual limitation. You tar people with the same brush because they have differing views to you, and that is the very definition of bigotry. Do you understand? Does that make sense?
"There is a difference between criticism and straight up mocking and making fun of something."
Satire does not make bigotry. Bigotry in its nature must be both irrational and animus. I've personally seen you attack atheistic morals with both irrationality and ill feeling. I'm bigoted about your religion, just as you are bigoted about the lack of mine.
"That's not true, Thypyg is kind of a hybrid and leans to the left on some issues but I don't "attack" him. Same for anyone else, even liberals. Now I'm not perfect, sometimes I can be a jerk. But I have gotten better at not attacking people."
I have noticed you getting better at not attacking people. But the statement before that, about Pyg, is utterly irrelevant. You cannot pick one individual relationship that you have with someone and attempt to show that it proves you're not bigoted. In fact, this whole debate is an attack on liberals. You are literally doing the very thing you're accusing liberals of doing, which, quite frankly, is ridiculously hypocritical. But I suppose you'll try to find some way or worming out of it rather than just accepting it.
"please note that debating and attacking are not the same thing"
And attacks disguised as debates (such as your initial argument in this debate) are not the same thing either.
"Your right you don't have to have respect."
Exactly. I'm pretty sure you disagree with me on this point, so please explain why anyone's beliefs deserve any respect without earning it? Again, as I said, you're utterly entitled to have them. But claiming that they deserve any sort of respect is to attempt to stifle any critique or debate about those beliefs.
"You even have the right to be a bigot."
Yes we do.
"And you very often take advantage of those rights."
As do you, and as you did when you made your first argument on this debate.
"I never said that was the reason."
You don't have to say. It's clearly the reason. You're a conservative, and you've picked an entire group (liberals) to brand with the same label based on your opinions. That, by your very definition, is bigoted. I can't believe that you can't see the irony in this.
"Maybe the people that constantly attack white people"
Bigoted opinion number 1.
"Christianity, [religion it's self],"
I attack Christianity (and other religions) no more than you attack Atheists. I've seen plenty of debates where you've given inaccurate, biased and bigoted opinions of Atheist views. Get off your high horse.
"anyone who leans toward the right."
And in your case, anyone who leans to the left.
"Yeah, who does that sound like."
Like I said... it sounds a lot like you.
"Atheists also come to mind. Who are the ones and making fun of anyone who disagrees, comparing our god to Santa Clause and the easter bunny not having any respect for the beliefs of others. How arrogant could you be!"
Why do you presume that your beliefs deserve respect? You're certainly entitled to have them, but I absolutely do not have to respect them. They're based on absolutely no evidence, outdated, and provide a framework for people to express homosexual and misogynistic views whilst cowering behind their "religious freedoms." I'm sorry, but nothing in this world should be instantly granted respect; respect should be earned.
Anyway, as I said, all of the things you pointed out as being bigoted are things you yourself do. But, as always, you'll apply your own individual bias and believe (rather arrogantly) that when you do the exact same things you're currently speaking out against it isn't the same as when some "liberal" does it.
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. One who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion... Who does this sound like?"
You. Calling liberals bigots because they have opinions that differ to yours is pretty bigoted, by your own definition.
"This has nothing to do with poor or rich people."
Unfortunately it does, because what is proposed is financial help for the poor towards the cost of an abortion; being rich or poor has everything to do with the argument. However, this is slightly different to what I am opposing, which is Joe's view that "People who cannot afford an abortion should abstain from sexual intercourse."
Clearly, this is advocating a criteria on those who should be allowed to engage in sex, which is both ridiculous and naive. Paying for the abortions of those who cannot afford them when they are patently required isn't going to encourage people to have sex. I doubt the cost of an abortion would ever be something that is going through someone's mind when they decide to engage in sex.
The thing you have to decide is: do you just ignore the problem, or try to combat it? Allowing this regression of poor kids born to poor families, not to mention the fact that these kids are most likely unwanted, unplanned, and unlikely to be born with the proper financial planning which should always be a factor when having or planning to have a child, means that, in the long run, this child will mostly likely have a poor quality of upbringing and be more of a financial burden then initially paying for the abortion.
Sex happens, and you can't stop it. What you can do, however, is make a decision about how you best combat the rising gap between the poor and the rich in America, and how your tax dollars are best spent. Do you want 18 years of supporting a child through welfare (and most likely far more than 18 years), or do you want a small one-time financial burden, not to mention stopping an unwanted child who will most likely have a poor quality of life being bought into the world?
Just as I thought, avoid the point.
Why do you hate poor people so much Joe? Are you seriously saying that your solution to this is that if you're poor, you can't have sex, because there is a small chance that contraception may fail? Just so we're clear, is that actually what you're suggesting? That there should be a minimum criteria that you must meet to engage in something that humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years?