- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
It is actually convenient because I have no computer and am using the site from my phone and it's already difficult to navigate without adding that.
But that's not why I don't use them. Look it up yourself if you don't want to debate ME on here and just want someone else's words. I'm not Google for you, and where are your links then?
I prefer to use my own experience and mind for debating rather than someone else's words, and I see many others with this view have used links to support their views. Also I believe you can search both sides yourself if you wanted something like that. I'll stick with myself for those reasons.
I believe onus is completely the wrong word there. It doesn't take work on the fetus' part to do anything whatsoever. And it's not my requirements. It's my opinion. I think a brain is required to be considered human. A human brain, before you point out animals.
And living is not what you asked about, being a human being is. Of course a cell splitting into more cells is living.
This debate isn't about the right to live, that's your other debate. I told you when I believe a human starts. Now please explain why what I said isn't factual. What makes the clump of cells that has potential to form into a human, though there's always a chance it won't, different from a clump of cells that is a tumor?
I think part o f the problem is viewing the whole event from conception to birth as one phase is the problem. I wouldn't consider a tumor to be human and it is really similar to the start of human creation of creation with the fact that it's a lump of cells. But at a later stage in pregnancy, when a brain is formed and such, I would never say it's the same. It's all in stages, sort of like from egg and sperm to human, except more complex.
You simply repeating and saying im unreasonable is not explaining why I'm wrong or debating back.
What do the amount of points I have have anything to do with this?
The codes of morality are not the same for everyone, check out what's going on in other areas of the world and you'll find their normal life distasteful for you. And the fact we disagree on something like abortion is also proof that morality is not the same for all.
I explained why. Fetuses are useless while they are in the womb, though it has possibility to change for the time that they aren't they don't have.rights based on what I've said. Animals on the other hand aren't generally useless.
Because what we're talking about is just that, talk. Just because something makes sense one way or the other does not mean it's how things are. For example, abortion isn't right to you it's still legal in a lot of areas.
I find it debatable whether a lot of people who are useless have a right to live and waste resources, and im not speaking about strictly mentally disabled people. Most animals, on the other hand, have some use to society. Transportation and food are some examples. I personally don't have an opinion one way or another, I'm just thinking of this from an opposing position.
Also, I personally never claimed to protect animals, so why you brought that up like I had confused me.
While I disagree with you banning almost everyone in the two debates you made, I saw they we're too busy focusing in what was expected of this topic instead of what you we're asking. I'm sure.many of them just misunderstood and saw your banning as an attack though.
No problem though. :)
I'm not replying with what I believe, but rather what I've witnessed. A person has no rights until they are able to start making decisions for themselves. Children don't start making ANY decisions for themselves until they're at least toddlers, and even then it's little things. You can't have rights until you can start living by them, a child can't decide to live by any rights because parents generally do it for them.