Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilightsfire
*shrugs*
In my opinion they haven't been made well at all. (If you don't like it that's too bad.)
|
Watch yourself. Your "opinion" is the defining keyword there, you hadn't made that distinction before, and when you stated "your arguments haven't been well made," it's as a fact without you specifying that it's
just your opinion. So in
that case, if I don't like it it's not "too bad", rather you will face consequences for such rash posts in the future. This is a warning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilightsfire
I'm with the majority. I don't have to provide anything. In a genuine debate, the onus is on the minority.
|
Incorrect. It's never about the "majority" or the "minority" in a debate, it's about those who are on the side of change and those who are on the side supporting "staying the course," so to speak. Those representing the side for change must present the prima facie case, which I have done, supporting my arguments with research and actual material sources. Your job as the opposition--if we were following debate standards, would be to rebut my arguments and research with opposing
research and support, not just your opinion. Your opinion, albeit interesting
, is not
relevant to this debate lest it is supported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilightsfire
Again, attempting to associate "stealing" and "murder" with abortion. That may work for you and and other radical fundamentalists but it doesn't work in debate.
And again, this didn't work before, and it most certainly will not work now.
|
That's not what I've been doing and I've outright
told you that--my intentions with that argument--at least
three times now, yet you persist to blatantly misrepresent my argument. There is no association there. They are separate. The association is with the logic you presented to me (not abortion), but the logic defending it that
people are going to do it, so why should society continue to try and stop it?. That "logic" can be used to defend literally any immoral, irresponsible or stupid behavior. There was no association between abortion and "stealing" (although abortion is legal murder, so yes, those are similar) and it's incredibly low-class for you to continue misrepresenting my argument in that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilightsfire
Your interpretation of what is considered "murder" is different from what most
of society considers murder. (FYI: Murder is a legal term and "abortion" doesn't
equate murder in the eyes of the law.)
|
Incorrect. Murder is not purely a legal term. This is a moral debate about a moral issue within society--the issue of unjustly killing human beings for selfish reasons. My interpretation of "murder" is the dictionary's interpretation of murder:
Murder - Definitions from Dictionary.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
|
That is the one true definition of the word murder. The "law" doesn't decide what constitutes murder--only in a legal setting is that necessary. Otherwise it's fairly obvious by clear social standards that to kill a human being for selfish, unjust reasons--inhumanely--is blatant murder.
In your "legal" terms, the only thing that constitutes murder is that it be an "unlawful" killing. That's it. That makes a lot of sense, huh?
So the law determines what equates "murder" as a generic and general term?
No. Hardly. The law decides what equates murder in a legal setting. "Murder" as a moral--or
immoral term, rather--is something in and of itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilightsfire
I suggest you tone your rhetoric down. Your posts for the most part are too
divisive for genuine debate.
Debate is supposed to be convincing the opposing side in some way.
|
Have you ever witnessed a "genuine" debate? Maybe taken part in a collegiate level debate course? It would seem that the answer to that question would be a very blatant "no." "Genuine" debate is very aggressive. "Genuine" debate is not meant to convince the opposition, it's meant to convince the onlookers and, if there are any--judges--of the debate. Since the only real onlookers who voice their opinions in this debate are by default participating members in this debate, there's really no way to conform with your completely absurd "suggestions," so what I would suggest is that you keep your pointed "suggestions" to yourself and follow them if you will, but do not expect others to do the same--especially when it would seem that your "suggestions" are based not on experience of actual "genuine debate" but of completely outlandish and blatantly incorrect assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilightsfire
Convince the majority that a zygote deserves the same Constitutional Rights that
a newborn has.
|
I already presented the research to support that, my friend. This isn't about "convincing" people, it's about supporting arguments with facts. Now as the opposition, you can either rebut the research--according to your so called "genuine debate" standards--with opposing research, or you can continue to blast us with opinionated nonsense. It's entirely up to you...