ShtLp

🤣

...so no study proving your unjustified assumption?

Dodging again lol. Where’s the study that proves swearing benefits children? Not adults, children.

And stop appealing to “likeliness” like it’s doing analytical work lol. In any meaningful sense, probability/likelihood requires three things...a clearly defined outcome, a model or mechanism linking variables, and data to estimate how often that outcome occurs. Of course, you’ve provided none of those, just an unjustified conclusion...'it works in adults, so it likely works in children because of repetition based likeliness'.

That’s not probability...that’s an unsupported guess. You haven’t shown that the populations are comparable or that the positive effect transfers.

So...where's that study, buddy lol

All good bro, it happens. Every debate has different time limits, I've had a hard time keeping up with mine. I accepted way too many up front...I was excited lol

Lol is avoidance your only debate strategy? Its a big world, you should try out other ways. Once again, you didn’t engage the substance of the argument...you just labeled it. Calling something “assumptions” isn’t a rebuttal unless you identify which claim is unsupported and show why.

And once again, you shifted the burden. You’re the one making a positive claim that swearing benefits children. That requires evidence. I don’t need to prove the opposite for your claim to fail.

Your core argument is an unsupported generalization...because something shows effects in adults, it likely applies to children. That’s not how development works. Children differ in habit formation and emotional regulation, which is exactly the point you didn’t address, twice now.

Saying “likelihood moves in favor” doesn’t establish anything without actual data or reasoning. It’s just a conclusion without justification, restated.

So your failure still remains...you still haven’t provided evidence that swearing produces better long term outcomes in children.

Can you provide a single study showing that children who swear develop better cognitive, emotional, or social outcomes than those who don’t?

Big surprise, you’re not able to support your own point and shifting the claim again. Your own topic is kids, but your evidence is based on adults lol. That doesn’t automatically apply to developing children, who are forming habits and emotional regulation patterns.

This also follows a pattern in your responses...focusing on style complaints, dismissing points without justification, making broad claims with little to no supporting evidence, and not actually advancing your own position with direct support. Resorting to insults like calling your opponents “programmed” or an “NPC” doesn’t strengthen your argument...its just you dodging because you don't have any substance to your arguments.

More importantly, you didn’t actually engage the core arguments (big surprise). The concerns about habit formation, long-term developmental outcomes in children, and whether any short-term benefits outweigh potential risks were not addressed. Pointing to isolated adult effects isn’t a response to those points.

Even if swearing provides short-term relief, that doesn’t make it beneficial long-term for kids. A behavior can feel good in the moment and still become a default coping mechanism that limits control over time.

You also never established what kind of benefits actually carry over from child to adult. Intelligence, emotional control, social outcomes...none of your sources show improvement in children specifically. At best, they show narrow effects in adults.

So your failure to.establish your point or refute/answer his remains...adult, situational findings don’t justify encouraging the behavior in kids.

Which of those core arguments did you directly refute with evidence...habit formation, child-specific outcomes, or long-term effects?

And can you provide a single study showing that children who swear develop better long term cognitive, emotional, or social outcomes than those who don’t?

Actually my apologies, I was being rude. Ill tighten that up. I have a personal disdain for disingenuous debates, but I can let the work speak for itself and mind my mouth.

And if all you thought they were was "a little inconsistent ", I gave you way too much credit as a debator, my bad lol

You earned the debate win, just like they earned their epithets, multiple times. Uneducated doesnt only have to do with formal schooling, it can reference general ignorance, which they display regularly but I can provide examples if you want.

It was just a friendly warning because you seemed like an honest debator about to engage with a generally ignorant, and almost assuredly dishonest actor. They don't deserve your bravery Mr. White Knight.

Thanks man! I enjoyed the talk, you gave some legit pushback especially with the administrative burden point.

We should maybe consider doing a maximal freedom vs pure freedom, or what defines maximal freedom, debate?

Lol I see you're using your favorite debate tactic, "I disagree, because you're wrong".

Very cool im absolutely interested. Any topics you woukd want to debate specifically?

Oh no im sorry I missed it! My apologies. Please continue as you see fit, ans ill cover all i can. I will post in here a bit so the convo can flow.

Dude...lets debate eachother a lot. Its hard to find good faith debators (keep watching this debate, and you'll see in your own).

Whats your area of research? Im just a disgusting casual who enjoys learning and debating.

Lol I justified my reasons, you failed to write a well formed prompt, failed to define any terms, and then failed to defend your point besides lazily posting links. At best i coukd have rewarded a tie, but you consistently do this and have been told about it from what i've seen, and still continue. So you should be voted against instead of neutrally for purposefully avoiding learning and growth, and wasting other peoples time. They shouldn't have to respond to a poorly worded/defended prompt just for a disingenuous argument to follow.

Enhanced benefits means expanded family support beyond baseline services, which will still remain available to everyone. This includes things like larger child tax credits, priority access to subsidized childcare, additional housing assistance tiers, and extended parenting support programs such as home services or early childhood development placements. The structure mirrors existing policy logic...core rights and emergency services are never restricted, but additional public resources are often conditional on meeting reasonable criteria. Here, the condition is a short, free competency course designed to ensure families can effectively use those added supports.

Evidence supports pairing support with early parenting guidance. The Nurse-Family Partnership program has shown reduced child abuse and improved long-term outcomes (Nurse-Family Partnership, “Evidence of Effectiveness”). Home-visiting programs broadly improve child health and family stability (Casey Family Programs, “Home Visiting Programs"). Parenting education improves parenting practices and home environments (National Academies of Sciences, “Parenting Matters”).

This is one of the most fun types of debates in my opinion. Heavy fact bed to draw from, and usually has a lot to do with peoples identities so it can get heated. Hopefully we do a good job for you lol

Im arguing pro evolution.

The way you argue is more suited for a forum. It would be polite if you stayed in the forum.

Dont expect logic from SatanLucy bro, shes a very dishonest actor. Or if not dishonest, extremely uneducated.

Lol Im not a fan of lying.

Lol I figured you'd still run. Such a dishonest approach to this website, why waste your time on here if you dont want to engage in a meaningful way?

Debate topic was vague and useless. "Kids", "curaing" and, "Many" are left undefined, the argument does not even attempt to qualify what they mean, or even examples supporting it besides some links. Overall, very poorly put together and very lazy argument. Con seems like they need to research how to make a debate prompt and how to defend a claim do we can have quality debates on this site and not waste our time.

Well you have to have the debate to find out all the details instead of just assuming you know. So far I have counters for every complaint you've raised. Also, what parts need defining? Seems like a pretty straight forward prompt. But ill add some clarifications in the description and see if you still dodge.

Then you should take the debate and win easily.

Why don't you stop making arguments in the commentsAnd start accepting debates, it's starting to seem like you might be afraid of debating.

Both your comments show you don't understand the topic. So maybe don't actually.

Why dont you just accept the debate instead of trying to have it in all the comment sections?