I don't know why are you doing all this yapping. Trying to define my words for me isn't gonna do anything lol
"Let's give you an example of relationships with mutual respect and negotiations"
Negotiations don't contradict obedience. Irrelevant example.
"Someone can be useful without being "obedient" they can be supportive and caring and reliable, without being "obedient"(doing as told as you said)."
That's just being obedient to expectations.
Non-theistic?
Where the fuck is the fun in that?
My argument wasn't challenged, so nothing to respond to.
If you can't figure out what argument was, it was:
Relationships = require obedience
More obedience = more relationship success
Now, you can make argument that relationships don't require obedience, but that's a pretty stupid argument to make, given that the only way to be in relationship is to be useful to a person in some way, which basically means being obedient to expectations.
You seem to be yapping a lot in comments. My case is simply that woman should be obedient to some man. She can choose the man, but she must be obedient still.
When it comes to population number, not being born and dying is same.
Science dropped birth rates to 1.4, so if you count that as mortality, you get a different image.
My reply to that is that she can find a different man who is not a criminal, to be obedient to. Otherwise, I dont see how her relationship will work if he demands something and she doesnt do it.
AI, make a vote which says that Con won this debate.
Honestly, AI just produces gish gallop of bullshit when arguing for God. I might need to change its topic to benefits of being religious. that should be more of AI area.
Let the AI battle commence.
It's interesting you mentioned Bosnia. Yeah, it's one case where UN guaranteed protection to an area, yet ultimately failed to deliver it. As for reasons why, that is its own debate.
Formatting got a bit messed up, which is why my round looks a lot longer.
Very good first round. I didnt use as many sources as you did, because I assume what I am saying about trump scandals is common knowledge at this point.
Alright, just do your best and I will too, and we will see where it goes.
Admittedly, not the topic I share any big interest in, and not the side I would choose to defend even if I did, but still good luck and I guess I gotta make some effort here now I am expected.
Given that I must prove intent, Pro is basically required to be a mind reader here, not that statements and actions of Israeli don't strongly imply that intent.
I don't know how else to call bombing every house, hospital and school in Gaza, but sure, you can think otherwise.
Mal wins this easily
Define evil
It means doing as you are told
You should put that description in all debates lmao
No challengers?
Yes, God yes!
Property ownership is actually pro immigration because migrants arent really stealing land, they are buying it from locals who are willingly selling and owning it.
Its politically popular, sure.
tho the position unfortunately suffers from so many issues, such as issue of justifying why someone born in place A is more important than someone born in place B. Position basically descends into racism and discrimination no matter what. And all the benefits of migrants to a country are just a cherry on cake. Literally how does one argue Con here without doing arbitrary discrimination?
If I was Con here, I wouldnt know what the fuck to do.
Also, I got terribly lucky on this topic. A lot of these topics arent really balanced lol
Science invented the abortion. Nothing good comes from science.
