As advised by private message, I have removed tyour vote on this debate due to lack of analysis of both participants relative arguments in support ofr, or denial of the Resolutiuon. please enter a new vote to include the merits of bother aerguments to support you vote conclusion.
Bravo.
The fact remains that DebateCraft, a debate and open forum website, is established and operated in the United States, where all data storage is maintained. Therefore, to my knowledge, the majority of members live within the U.S., and DebateCraft aplies freedom of speech according to U.S. statutory law.
If some members are going to let whatever someone else says offend them, that is by their choice that they are offended. So be it. I maintain that the only barrier remains when "offense" crosses over to perosnal attack rather than attack of a position one may take. I don't care when someone says I said something stupid. But when someone says I am stupid when they have no idea of my educational background, they have just lost the argument because they have any other relevant argument against my stated position. Whe. it comes to personal trhrerat against me or my family, for whatever reason, that also violates the standard of free speech.
I'm not sure I agree. Separating free speech from bad-faith action implies that some speech drive action, and I cannot agree with that statement. That just assumes that people have surrendered their free agency to act only on their own impulse, when that is almost never true. Just because someone says "go jump off a cliff," am I compeled to do so? Some may think, "Yes, I'll do what he says," but that dimwit should know the statrement should not compel him to obey. That's surrender of individual freedom of choice.
"While the site does allow for minors' participation once achieving age 13, I have to imagine by that time, in this time, in language, a minor has seen it all."
There's my full statement, not truncated as you interpret it. I'm not saying blanketly that 13-year-olds have seen it all. "seen it all" was clearly limited to language, wasn't it? Now, I grant you that maybe in Bagdad, CA, that may not be fully accureate, if there even are 13-year-olds in Bagdad, CA [that's out in. the Mojave Desert], but I grew up in L.A., and then San Francisco That's my paradigm.
It would appear the Con vote is going to prevail, with voting apparently ending later today. This is appropriate, considering the largest notice on the Home Page by font size, which says "Where Every Opinion Matters." That ought to be taken at face value. While the site does allow for minors' participation once achieving age 13, I have to imagione by that time, in this time, in language, a minor has seen it all. While personal offense may be taken, censorship, short of personal threat to another, ought to be damned.
You claim a fetus is not human? Tell me what other animal a human fetus will be since its DNA, when tested, matches as human when tested. It is possible to test the DNA of any animal or plant and determine exactly what lifeform it is. Just because the fetus is prenatal [before birth] doea not mean we do not know what it is postpartum [after birth]. Guess what: it is human from even before conception, because science can also test the DNA of the gametes [the ovum and sperm] to know they are human and no other animal nor plant. That, even though both sex gametes reepresent just half the whole DNA double-helix.
Miscarriage is a natural event. Abortion is a deliberate, unnatural [i.e., it is intervention by either the pregnant woman herself, or another, hopefully a medical professional] to perfoerm the abortion] event. Miscarriage ≠ abortion, eventhough the results are about the same: the pregnacy is ended. Legally, the commission of murder is the deliberate ending of a human life. I've just defined for you what constitutes "human." Life," I hope you already understand.
Legally, murder is the deliberate taking of a human life. Also legally, there are variable circumstrances that play into why the murder occurs, and those circumstances addreess what the legal consequences there are for the murder taking place. We do not murder a dog or a horse, even if they are deliberately killed, soimply because they are not human. Murder only applies legally to humans.
Clear, now?
One might also review the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Currently, it specifically disallows prosecution under this act for purposes of abortion, where legal, but, that specific provision in this act could be legislatively removed in consideration of the reversal of Roe v. Wade,
Your claim in your R2 that "murder is a legal term," as if there is no other use of it, is according to Yale
Law, incorrect. Furthermore, there may be, according to the same source, now that Roe v Wade has been overturned, murder cases may be brought in several states, such as GA.
https://yalelawandpolicy.org/prosecutorial-discretion-and-crime-abortion
mic drop
All of you denigrate the Quran as if the Bible were any more conclusive. I've read both, and see numerous internal contradictions in both. so neither, and in fact, no "scripture" I've read of any religion of the world [I've read about a dozen differfent volumes of religious script] is perfect in its text. No wonder; they are all the work of fallible men and women. Nevertheless, there is truth found in all of them. Just like anything else made by man: good and bad. That's life.
Having just voted, what could have been a great discussion became a boring read of water at the Big Bang, and tactical battle reversals, none of which, to me, is proof of literacy, let alone truth of the Quran.
The entirety of the comments is a sideline argument between Con [SkepticalOne] and SatanLucy on whether or not the debate is a misuse of positive [or negative] claims as evidence for the Pro and Con positions.
Part of the problem of the Debate Challenge is that it did not include any definitions or structure of the debate, which makes it still another open-season of arguments. Very sloppy.
This "debate" has already acquired more votes than the typical topical debate ever does, and I expect there will be more to come beforee close of voting in ten days and change, but not a lot more. I'm glad to see it. Now that some have recognized that voting is also a consideration, the consequence is all or nothing [and that was not stipulated in the debate set-up as far as I can tell], and that is probably for the best. If the CofC was not violated by RemyBrown, and 68% of us currently voted that way, it seems counter-productive to apply a lesser penalty if acquittal is the resulting decision. I voted to acquit, thinking if that decision prevailed, that was that. Either that, or toss the CofC as being, effectively, a useless document on which to judge anyone's language on this site. I do not suggest a free-for-all, but on the other hand, I prefer thinking that, as adults [the great majority of us] we ought to have learned by now that language should have personal barriers we just don't cross and call ourselves responsible adults.
This was probably the hardest vote on a debate I've ever made, because, starting out, I was planning to vote for your argument, but Brandeis' assessment of the 1A was a more powerful argument, and it justified itself. I just had to align with the idea of lack of imminent threat of demise when continued effort of speech overwhelms silence.
What do you mean you didn't make comments on your own? Who coerced you to make any comment? You did. All 200 of them. And I just voted. Will you? You claim to have "joined the party."
Look in the mirror.
Of 200 comments, you contributed 27% of them; the highest contributor to this “ witch trial”
You #157; "You just hate..."
Sorry, were you able to get into my head - and that quote is the evidence that you try - you would know that hate is not in my lexicon. Don't assume otherwise.
Related to your post, gutter-snipe is my moniker for langauge of personal attack rather than attack of the behavior. That is, the separation such as I offered an example in my #131.
Your #142: "Irrelevant to point." [that I have committed to stop gutter-snipping]
That is exactly the point. I have committed to stopping. Have you? It starts with each of us committing to keeping a civil tongue. T/here's nothing wrong with having differing opinions. There's everything wrong with making it personal.
Your #141: "You act hypocritically and your religion is against it.
Your #149: "What separates me from Fauxlaw?
Beforer both your comments cited above, was...
My #125: "I am guilty of it myself, and will redouble my efforts to stop completely. I hope others join me in supporting each other. That we differ in opinion on many subjects is clear and appropriate, but let's keep it out of the gutter.
The answer to your question to Double-R is this: I have made the commitment to stop gutter-snipping, and, apparently, mine has not been as egregious since I have never been sanctioned by moderation in DA or DC while having more than 700 posts and comments just on DC.
Do you really think there is no difference between "You are stupid," and "you did a stupid thing?"
One is a personal attack. The latter is acknowledging that one obviously does many things, but one thing was sub-standard. That is not a personal attack; that is pointing out one among many actions was not well thought out and should have been better performed.
Your #134 said, "I can say the same thing about any speech, even your speech against trans people, which could lead someone to attack a trans person."
Did you not read the concluding 2 sentences of my post #125?
x
KohaI argued in R1 "when properly analyzed this content is not used for genuine debates, but to marginalize women, rape victims, and minorities."
And as Double-R argued in his #128 ""And merely pissing people off isn’t why Remy is on trial"
Both conditions go beyond being merely offensive speech. It is dangerous, suggestive, even violent-egging speech. There is, apparently, a "dark web" where such can be offered.
Sorry, you missed my main point. Two, in fact. First, it isn't merely occasional "offensive" speech, but repeated to an extreme. Second, not just random offensive, but directed specifically to a member[s] by argument to belittle them. As I said, that's a losing argument on such a site as this.
You appear to ignore both matters.
In no case of the examples of my leading posts in the forum to initiate conversations do I single out any forum members for ridicule, etc. I am offending offered ideas. Ideas cannot be offended. There is a difference between "You are stupid," and "you did a stupid thing."
The recent back-and-forth between Double-R and Satanlucy in these comments demonstrates, I think, the base argument over "freedom of speech" and its First Amendment language. That document does not stipulate, but I think it demands understanding that while freedom of speech ought to extend up to, but just before and not beyond, the cause of physical injury to a recipient. That said, I think there is an unwritten, but apparent rider that a recipient of offensive, insulting language ought not have the right of censure, if an infrequent quantity of such offensive language is spewed. Just to try to avoid such offense, even randomly, however, for it really has no place in a civil society. I support a short-term denial of site privileges for occasional, but infrequent use of it. On the other hand, where that offense is rendered repeatedly and consistently, the offender should be permanently banned from the site. There is no rational reason to allow continuous gutter-belittling speech on a site trying to hone communication skills, for which this site serves as a potential for all. My personal belief is that an argument that descends to personal attack is a lost argument. I am guilty of it myself, and will redouble my efforts to stop completely. I hope others join me in supporting each other. That we differ in opinion on many subjects is clear and appropriate, but let's keep it out of the gutter.
Con's forfeit of R2 is a critical, but not fatal issue of this debate. Critical because Pro's arguments are strong in both rounds; however, his R1 has an argument that potentially has an issue of its own. I'll not speak to it here, as I may vote on this debate, and it may now be too late to save the argument. I'll wait to see if Con discovers the potential, but should have used R2 to engage it and didn't. It may turn Con's argument on its ear to have not rebutted the point in R2.
Yes, but what that purpose resolves is really a root question. Some purposes just are not worth the time of day, let alone anything more substantial. I am hoping this debate will address a meaningful purpose expected by the CofC, and then whether RB meets that threshold.
Both first-round entries met that challenge. But the goal to achieve is that stipulated by the entire first paragraph of the CoC. That must be the measuring stick used by voters.
There is a Code of Conduct here. Some may not agree with it, but our obligation as members is to abide by it, regardless of any other considerations. I don't care how filled with light any member is; if the Code of Conduct is perceived by those in charge of maintaining order on the site feel the Code has been violated, the violator ought to receive equal justice according to the offense given, with all due deference given to due process. That is, all accusations must be proven to the satisfaction of voters [judges?] in this debate/trial. So it is written. So let it be done.
Glad to vote on this one. The factor of novelnotions being from India is not relevant to the debate parameters, and would not be given lack of that detail in either the Topic or the Description, so it was not relevant to the debate, even though mentioned in Pro's R1, Arg. #2. If he intended his homeland to be relevant, it was not sourced as relevant, and if relevance is just his opinion, it is not convincing relative to the Topic unless it was shown in Pro's argument that social media was developed in India, or that India has made more progress toward social media being a boon to society.
One aspect of Pro's argument you might have rebutted, though it was not necessary due to the superiority of your other arguments was Pro's assumption that, during Covid, for example, people could not maintain close association with family and friends, thus limiting those associations. The assumption was that land line telephones, or use of smartphones for that matter, were not available to use for that needed connection. In-person connection is always preferred, but not an absolute necessity.
This would-be voter wonders what some members here think is legitimate debate. This is not an example of debate; it is an exercise in choking a rooster in the middle of its morning crowing; I learned about as much about the challenged debate, discovering little interest in it by either opponent, given the total lack of argument for his Topic by the instigator [Pro] and the argument of sideline commentary only by the Contender [Con] rather than true argument to satisfy his contrary BoP. I therefore have to conclude that neither opponent met the requirement if debate to offer argument to prove their relative BoP to a voter's satisfaction.
Were I voting, my only option is to render a tie, but neither opponent deserves the half-vote each would receive. I suggest this debate be ignored entirely, and let it go with no award to either side.
Pro offered nothing whatsoever beyond the challenge other than non-argument comments, and effectively forfeited all rounds [non-debate commentary cannot count as an argument.
Con offered nothing but scat-humor, which is not an argument either for Taco Bell, and not argument for real Mexican food. Not all Taco Bell faire drives one to the outhouse, and some real Mexican food may do so, as well, for some. And the final round request for a vote killed that choking rooster. A point for that commentary? That is a poor argument not worthy of point value.
I suggest this debate be either voided or at least avoid voting because both participants failed to make an argument, rendering a two-sided forfeit. In addition, the instigator/Pro does not have an adequate definition of "beauty" to produce a valid argument. "Physiognomy" a term used in the Description, is a discredited concept developed in ancient Greece, but abandoned at the close of the 19th century, that a person's character traits can be determined from outward appearance. This proposal does not match the apparent Pro BoP of strict physical appearance of the human [we presume] female [it's not specified that "human" is the intended species to discuss [reference only to female and male], having naught to do with associated characters of the female, so the entire format of the debate is at cross-purposes as originally challenged by the instigator.
