"I gave you way too much credit as a debator, my bad lol"
So you insult anyone who disagrees with you? that should bring some fun to the site.
You have right to opinion, of course.
I can't say I care much about voting outcome. But don't vote on your own debates. That is literally cheating, and if everyone starts doing it, then might as well abolish voting system because then it's all about who makes the most alts.
He still didn't define key terms?
I appreciate your flawed opinion.
Also, description is basically just nonsense. "it does not restrict reproduction" - how would you know? Are we debating some fairy tale stories here where real world doesnt apply? Education has consistently reduced reproduction.
thank you for obviously correct vote.
thank you for obviously biased vote.
this site has forum too. More fun there.
Now be a good boy and vote Pro.
So basically taking a short course on how to be parents. this is the "useless small improvement" I talk about. Its basically "solve nothing, but pretend to do something" which politicians do all the time. I have full trust voters will vote Pro here, even tho spending billions to create a small improvement still wont achieve anything, even when assuming perfect government doing a perfect course. there is a reason why improvements such as these exist only in society of failure. Contrary to popular belief, small improvements dont benefit society, they drain resources, and when you increase costs of having kids, then you can expect lower birth rates.
Debate doesnt even define key terms. there is nothing to debate there. Honestly, its like saying "there is some form of "whatever test" parents must pass". Yeah, that explains everything. the solutions like this which dont improve anything significantly are reasons why parents today raise most depressed, least socially capable generations with lowest birth rates and highest suicide rates.
Anyone can easily win this debate by merely pointing out this would waste billions while giving very small improvements, and billions for small improvements arent really worth it. Also, the amount of parents who pass competency tests and arent actually competent is huge. this is like suggesting a driving license makes someone a responsible driver.
tho I dont think anyone will accept this debate, because Pro's obvious argument is that this would create incentive to be better parents (it wouldnt actually) and voters would of course believe it because they believe false promises easily.
Well, my parents cant be described as competent in any sense of that word, but I wouldnt object to them getting benefits anyway.
I will enjoy reading this debate, I am still wondering about this view.
Not wrong. Banning abortion is crucial for birth rates to raise again.
Who needs nukes when you have Allah. And if Allah wills it, Allah will give nukes.
Now this is a good way to make a topic.
thanks for taking time to vote.
I dont think moral frameworks can be logically justified much by deductive logic. I mean, the big argument for subjective morality and moral nihilism is that moral frameworks arent logically justified in any way but justified by mere wants, which defeats the point because if wants justify things, anything can be justified.
And yeah, of course opponent tries to attack the framework, person must defend it to convince voters. Justice framework is a big thing in law, because making laws based on consequentialism alone usually fails a lot, because consequentialism doesnt always predict consequences accurately. Consequentialism only looks good on paper. In reality, predicting consequences is so difficult long term that leads to cases where consequentialist reasoning in some cases causes more harm than good because some long term consequences werent considered.
Justice is usually defined by lex talionis (eye for eye) or draconian principles (two eyes for one eye).
And yeah, justice value in this case would justify killing of Ayatollah, and justice moral framework generally doesnt care for consequences of action, merely responding to harm with harm, as long as action's only goal is to return harm for harm, not do careless harm elsewhere.
"Planes hit on ground; damaged but not destroyed"
thats just US report. Reality: Planes can no longer fly (same as being destroyed).
Iran keeps bombing US bases and achieving its goals.
And this is just first week. Iran will probably destroy more next week. And as for "strikes are decreasing" - not true, Iran strikes more now than before. But number of strikes is irrelevant. What is relevant is achieving goals such as destroying US oil, which Iran has achieved a lot.
World oil production dropped by 15%, so that is victory for Iran. Also, US targeting system is outdated so USA says it doesn't know what it is hitting. USA mostly just hits civilians.
So Iran achieved goal of increasing oil prices in USA, as well as destroying US base in Saudi Arabia destroying 5 US advanced airplanes.
If USA keeps attacking Iran, Iran will have to achieve a goal to reduce world oil by further 30%.
You seem to be using outdated info. Iran just destroyed 5 US planes, destroyed almost all US oil fields and bases in region. So Iran achieved its goal, and achieving goal counts as victory.
I am not a Muslim. I just know Allah is powerful God, and Iran just destroyed five US planes at base in Saudi Arabia.
Which explains why Iran is scoring victory after victory.
Allah fights for Iran.
I mean, you are barely putting effort in a debate while your opponent writes a lot.
Your round is 3 sentences long.
Its a good round if voters accept your framework, but voters usually appreciate more of text more.
My advice to you is, if you are going to make very short arguments like this, at least limit number of characters in a debate for opponent as well.
Why give 20,000 characters if you will only use 1000 of them?
If you like short debates, at least make it so your opponent must write short arguments too, by setting character limit equal to your opening argument which you already prepare.
You are losing debate anyway.
