Best Fallacy Content - DebateIsland Development Environment The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Best Fallacy Content

  • just good old god

    ethang5ethang5
    @maxx

    >oh forget it.  It’s a hypothetical question and all you are doing is talking in circles.

    I am not talking in circles, you just don't know what debate is. You also seem intellectually ill equipped for the topic at hand.

    >if you can not accept that god has character the same has humans then you are blinded by your faith.

    I guess you do want your opinion taken on faith. As I am not a liberal, I will require logic. It is humans who have some of the characteristics as God. God has no "bad" flaws (or flaws of any kind)

    >the bible itself points out that he has both bad flaws and good traits; or must I point them out for you?

    You can try, but I think you'll find that you are conflating your opinion with scripture. The bible affirms God as perfect in every way and without fault. But like Abdul, perhaps you think some trait of God is "bad". It is your opinion, so what?

    >And if you can not understand that they add up to his character, then it is worthless to debate it.

    I have not disputed that, I have rejected your designation of those traits as "bad".

    >how is my opinion uniformed when I am getting these traits from the bible?

    The problem is not the traits you get, or where you get them, but your silly way of calling them "bad".

    >Why don’t you look up the definition of the word “ character

    I know English better than you. Drop your politically correct mindset and think with an open mind. You have not even once mentioned any trait that is supposed to be bad.

    There are good resources on the net that teach what debate is and how to debate. Avail yourself.
    Plaffelvohfen

  • Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?

    ethang5ethang5
    >You haven't demonstrated anything as I correctly presumed...

    Lol. Confirmation bias.

    You tried to argue about the Duty to rescue principle,

    No. This is based on the same principle used to prosecute businesses that refused to serve minorities. A responsibility is created when one causes a person to place themselves in their care.

    If the person needs to be "rescued", and it is you who caused them to need rescuing, then it is you with the responsibility to rescue them.

    >but there is no federal level laws regarding that in the US, and a majority of states do not either... 

    The question is not whether there is a law. We all know Roe vs Wade exists. The question is one of inalienable rights. Of morality.

    >...unanimously held that after an eight-year-old boy negligently....


    False analogy. The boy was negligent and trespassing. Neither is true of a baby.

    In the 1907 case People v. Beardsley, Beardsley's mistress, Blanche Burns,....

    False analogy. Beardsley did not cause Burn's overdose, and Burns did not require Beardsley to use his body.

    >Some states such as Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island make it a misdemeanor offence if it is known that someone is in serious danger and someone can intervene safely or call 911 and they do not (Trinh, Li, 2015).

    Do you know why?

    >There are Good Samaritan laws though, but those protect the helper from liability resulting from the help provided... If someone is bleeding on the side of the road you can legally move on without doing anything, you'd be an asshole sure but in any state this would be an nonindictable offense...

    Do you know why moving on without doing anything makes you an asshole? What about the case where you caused the person to be bleeding? Can you simply move on?

    >You haven't even got close to addressing the problem: How to you go from A to B... From a right to life to a right to use someone body without consent... Still going to evade I guess...

    First, your silly test does not show in any way that abortion is correct. I just wanted to show you the sloppiness of your thinking. Going from A to B is just an absurd ad hoc argument you've put up.

    My showing you your poor logic does not mean I accept your silliness that a baby is using the mothers body without consent, or that a baby needs the "continuous consent" of the mother.

    >What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant, 
    I disagree. A person has undeniable rights.
    Comprehension problems I see, unsurprising but I'll try to explain it like to a 5 year old: It's irrelevant because I already granted the fetus a legal person status, with all the rights a full grown adult may have... 

    When a crime is committed, who or what the perpetrator is, is irrelevant in assessing the guilt or not.. Do you agree?

    No, I disagree, because I do not allow my biases to make me stupid. No crime has been committed. That is the fakery you're trying to slip past us.

    >Whether a murderer is white, black, jewish, Buddhist, tall, small, fat, republican or democrat, doesn't matter at all right?

    When did we decide a murder had taken place? If you don't see the fakery, you are dense, and dishonest otherwise.

    >It's in this sense that what the fetus is, is irrelevant...

    What sense is that slick? The baby being a criminal? Lol. You must think I'm as dense as one of your liberal mates.
    A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen...
    All persons within the borders of my country get their right to life protected.
    >Funny, you used "person" this time instead of "citizen", changing your terminology during the course of an argument now? LOL

    The words can be synonymous.

    >Person and a citizen are not the same...  A citizen is a born person, there is no unborn citizens by definition... 

    Who's definition? Both of them have a right to life that should be respected by the authority of the jurisdiction.
     the baby did not invade the mother's body. The baby was invited in.
    The association between pregnancy and sexual intercourse is a mere construct born of our traditional ways of thinking about gender and reproduction.

    Let me stop you here, because your argument is so ridiculous I hesitate to respond least I break the forums civility code.

    But your argument instantly absolves every murderer who used a tool to kill a person. I can see now that you're one of those people who values debate over honesty.

    >But I maintain, however, that this action is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman’s pregnant condition.

    You can "maintain" any stupidity you want, but when you leave logic behind, Ethan cannot remain with you.

    >like choosing to get out of bed in the morning is a factual sequential link to anything that may happen to you on any given day...

    False. There is no causal link between getting out of bead and being killed by a drunk driver, whereas there is a direct causal link between being inseminated and becoming pregnant. I blush to have to point out something so silly to you.

    >This is so because “pregnancy is a condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman’s body.” Not a nanosecond before...

    I reject this as absurdist nonsense, for then no rapist could be convicted of impregnating a victim, and no deadbeat dad can be held for non support.

    >This being the case, we can identify the fertilized ovum to be the factual cause of a woman’s pregnancy state.

    This is not the case. Logic will be required here.

    >In the eyes of the law, too, therefore, the fertilized ovum should be the legal cause of a woman’s pregnancy. Not the man nor the woman...

    But lucky for me, the law tends to be logical and completely disagrees with you.

    >Men and women who contribute to a situation in which it is foreseeable that a fertilized ovum might be conceived and make a woman pregnant against her will contribute no more to the woman’s harm than does a woman who walks down a street late at night contribute to her own rape

    False. There is no direct causal link between a naked woman walking down a street at night and rape, as is with consensual sex of a man and a woman and pregnancy.

    >... Men and women who engage in sexual intercourse, therefore, cannot be held as contributing to the harm imposed on a woman by a fertilized ovum making her pregnant without consent.
     
    So please tell us, how would a woman "consent" to a fertilized ovum making her pregnant?
    Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women
    >Absolutely not, this principle is valid for anyone at anytime, I don't make exceptions for woman, you do...

    I do not. My wife does not need "continuous consent" in making love to me. Marrying her is consent enough. My doctor does not need "continuous consent" in operating on me. My signature on the consent form is enough. My pilot does not need my "continuous consent" to keep flying me. The fact that I purchased a ticket is consent enough.

    I asked you to tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance and you dodged the question.

    >By denying her a right that everyone else has, the right to bodily integrity/autonomy...

    No one is denying her that right. The baby's body is not hers.
    Consider this analogy. You volunteer to give me a blood transfusion directly from your circulatory system, and change your mind mid transfusion. If you stop the transfusion, I die. Here are my questions.
    1. Do I need your "continuous" consent?
    2. Once we start, do you have a responsibility to continue due to my life being on the line?
    3. Can you tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance?
    >1: Yes. I can rescind my consent at any time for any reason... Unless we actually did sign a formal legal contract, then I would be guilty of a breach of contract... I would agree that it would make me a despicable asshole for doing so but being a despicable asshole is not illegal anywhere...

    We aren't talking legality. Some actions constitute a legal contract within themselves. You are wrong about the legality in this particular case, and right about being a despicable asshole.

    >2: See 1...

    Untrue. You do. "Once we start".

    >3: Sure, I verbally agree to give you a vital organ (any) that'll help you survive, the morning of the operation before we go in surgery I can rescind this consent for whatever reason, you will die and I'll have to live with it but it still would be legal, even if questionable, yes (See 1)

    You have dodged my question. You changed your mind BEFORE the surgery. And thus my life is on the line because of my illness which you didn't cause. But during surgery, if you change your mind, I die due to the surgery having to be abandoned mid stream. You are wrong.

    >... It might be difficult to rescind it during the surgery obviously, because I won't be conscious then but at this point it's purely rhetoric..

    No it isn't. You just wish to dodge it. The question is theoretical and can be answered.

    >Now, you deflect and evade but have yet to directly make the connections between A ) The right to life,  and B ) A right to use someone else body without consent... 

    I need make no such connection because I do not accept...
    1. That the baby lacks consent, and.... 
    2. That the baby needs "continuous consent", and....
    3. That a baby is "using" the woman's body in the way you mean "using" here

    >I guess you'll play around the bush and will not directly address my question as usual?

    People are forced to have their bodies used all the time. Under court orders, or by police action, or by immanent domain of a state when it would result in lives being saved.

    I have addressed your fakery, but my guess is that you won't like it, and you won't notice my questions you dodged.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987Dee

  • Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?

    TKDBTKDB
    @Dee

    (What about the babies voice?

    What about the father's voice? 

    Because if it takes two individuals to create an unborn baby, shouldn't they, get to have some sort of a voice as well, in the conversation?)


    "You say ......What about the babies voice?

    My reply ......What what are the unborn saying?

    You say .....What about the father's voice? 

    My reply .....I care not as it’s nothing to do with what I said 

    You say ......Because if it takes two individuals to create an unborn baby, shouldn't they, get to have some sort of a voice as well, in the conversation? 

    My reply .....No they shouldn’t"

    "A woman’s body a woman’s choice , maybe people should mind they’re own business regarding what choices women make regarding bodily autonomy."


    "Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?"


    I googled the above, and the below was the primary response;

    "Tell Congress you stand with Planned Parenthood The federal government is in the hands of extremist lawmakers who have tried for years to shut down Planned Parenthood health centers and cut patients off from care. ... Tell Congress you're ready to fight like hell to protect reproductive health and rights in this country."

    A sad reality about two individuals creating a baby, in the after process of being intimate?

    Both individuals have forms of birth control, that could have been used to prevent, an undesired pregnancy?

    So either the some of the consenting adults, are missing the point about practical birth control, or abortion is being looked at, as an after measure, that happens because some were mindfully lazy, when it came to the utilization of OTC birth control, by either of the consenting adults, before becoming intimate?

    Because, if an unborn baby isnt being given a voice, or the father of the unborn baby, isn't being given a voice, as well, in the light of the abortion conversation, than the lacking of those two missing voices, goes to show, that the abortion conversation, needs to be broadened then, to accomodate those additional voices?

    Thus making the abortion conversation, more fair, and equal.



    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987Dee

  • Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?

    ethang5ethang5
    The same people championing a woman's choice here, are against a woman's choice in prostitution, pornography, and incest, and if women begin to abort only female babies.

    The issue here is there are two bodies, not one. The woman is welcome to her choices concerning her own body. The baby's body is another thing.

    Choosing to kill a fellow innocent citizen of mine is indeed my business. I will stay out of your "bedroom", but when you start murdering people in your bedroom because you think that because they're in your bedroom, you're have a right to kill them, you will hear from me.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987

  • The Difference Between Science and Religion

    ethang5ethang5
    @Dr_Maybe

    >Here is a simpler example.

    One which better allows you to dodge the logical error in your argument?

    >Two plus two equals four, do you understand that or do you believe in it?

    How are those things mutually exclusive? I believe in and understand the principle that the equation is built on.

    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood it. They believe, just like everyone else.

    The distinction you are trying to make is fakery.
    Plaffelvohfen

  • i beleive god fined tuned the solor system. tell me why i am wrong

    crossedcrossed
    MayCaesar
    Sure, but if you have billions galaxies with billions solar systems in each of them, then chances are quite a number of them will be tuned exactly as needed for abiogenesis to occur. 

    Furthermore, we do not know very well what conditions are necessary for abiogenesis to occur; we know the sufficient conditions, but the space of the necessary conditions can be much wider. It is possible, in fact, that virtually every solar system will eventually develop life in some form, we just are not knowledgeable enough to even conceive of the possibility of some of those forms.

    this stuff is more then fined tuned he measured some of this crud out when placing it


    I don't think you are getting the gravity of this one argument.


    Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible

    my conclusion

     god measured the sun and moon when placing it and as a result of that when you look at it from earth they come out to be the same exact size.
    the sun and moon are the exact same size from the viewpoint of earth. as a result of this perfect solar eclipses are possible



    for this to happen god would have had to measure the sun and moon when placing him






    these are not real numbers i have no idea how big the sun and moon are but i needed numbers to show what kind of measuring god did.




    the sun is 10 billion feet long and  10 billion miles from earth. The sun appears to be around 7 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth. I want the sun and moon to be a perfect 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth.


     The moon is 7 billion feet long and is 10 billion miles from earth. From earths viewpoint the moon appears to be 5 billion feet long . i want the moon to  be 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth


    i need to place the sun and moon where they are both 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth.




    how god would have had to measured the sun. not real numbers and god would have not needed to do trail and error like me.

    the sun right now is 10 billion miles from earth and from the viewpoint of earth is 7 billion feet long.

     I want the sun to be 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth.
    So  i bring the sun up 2  billion miles and as a result of that the  sun appears to be 5 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth and is 12 billion miles from earth.
     that is still not the the size i want the sun to be from the viewpoint of earth right now it is 5 billion feet long i want it to be 3 billion feet long. So i need to bring it up some more.
     so i  bring the the sun up another 2 billion feet. now the sun is 14 billion miles from earth and from the viewpoint of earth the sun appears to be 3 billion feet long.
    3 billion feet long is the size i wanted it so i keep it there and consider my measuring done.

    I placed the sun 14 billion miles away from earth so from the viewpoint of earth the sun would appear to be 3 billion feet long. i did this via measuring and trail and error but god would not have needed trial and error


    I want the moon to appear to be 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth to.
    right now the moon is 10 billion miles from earth and from the viewpoint of earth the sun appears to be 5 billion feet  long.
    So i move the moon up 2 billion miles now the moon is 12 billion miles and from the viewpoint of earth appears to be 3 billion feet long.
    3 billion feet long i show big i wanted it so i keep it there.


    i measured the sun out and placed it at 14 billion miles and because i wanted  the sun appears to be 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth

    i measured the Moon out and placed it 12 billion miles and because i measured it the moon appears to be 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth.


    though i do not know the numbers god used.  god measured the sun and moon when placing them so they would be the same size from the viewpoint of earth.

    god would have had to measure them out like this but without the trail and error. he is god.

    the sun and moon are the exact same size from the viewpoint of earth. so god measured it out just like i did up above



    and for the alien thing.

    It is possible, in fact, that virtually every solar system will eventually develop life in some form, we just are not knowledgeable enough to even conceive of the possibility of some of those forms.

    the talking point that space is so huge why would we  be the only life forms. This can only be true if the equally matched talking point "how can life just happen out of nowhere. How can nothing create life" is wrong.

    because if life did not start here by accident then life is not going to start over there by accident. life is created by god. so since life did not start here by accident. life is not going to start on another planet with aliens on it.


    i recommend you watch one of the you-tubers who covers the false alien invasion that seems to be going to happen. it will give you a good weekend. i forget who said this but it is believed the only way all the nations would team up is if we were attacked by aliens. so the free masons and the Illuminati are going to plan a false alien invasion in order to unite the world and bring the new world order. plus an alien abduction would be a good explanation for the rapture. my dad brought that up.



    Alexoakland said
    That is not what I meant... have you ever tried asking anyone WHY they are circles? I am really surprised as to how you do not know of this but there is this thing called "gravity".


    it is still a huge coincidence that the planets are all round.  theirs a few holes in this. Why is it only the planets in which gravity effects all sides and makes it perfect circles. Why are the meteors smashed down and made into perfect circles. if there is a gravitational Poul across surrounding this entire planets and it is pushing everything into being a circle. why are the trees and us are not being crushed down by it. since gravity is mashing this planet together into a perfect circle surly we would be mashed together with it

    https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/planets-round/en/




    Dee


    My reply ......Who created the devil? How do you know the devil didn’t create the Universe?
    because the devil is trying to make everyone believe that believing in Jesus is like believing in Santa. Satan has succeeded in this. the greatest trick that Satan ever did was convincing the world he never existed


    Santa is just Satan rearranged

    Satan and Santa are both red colored. Satan is depicted as pure red with horns
    santa wears red.

    santa clause last name is claws


    almost all the haunted houses in old tales are mansions. why are almost all the haunted  houses mansions.
    it seems only rich people get haunted. why is that is it because these people got rich by selling there soul to the devil and as a result of that they got haunted.


    dee said

    You say ......What i am saying that it is impossible for life to come out of nothing.

    the guy who wrote the book of nature would have had a stroke that you guys believe that the universe came from an explosion from nothing. aka the big bang theory.because he keep talking about in the book about how absurd the bible is for saying god created life from nothing. god voice thunders when he speaks so maybe he said let there be a planet and a huge explosion happened and then there was a planet



    dee said
    You say a lot of things without proofs. How is it impossible? Who created your god?
    idk all i have proof for is god created life.





    the apple when consumed feeds the good bacteria and not the bad. that is intelligence


    sweet flag roots go up into the brain and fixes the part of your brain that deals with stuttering. that is intelligence

    turmeric roots create new stem cells. that is intelligence.and revitalize neurons


    are appendix attacks bad germs but is a safe house for good germs. that is intelligence


    now i do not believe that the apple is an intelligent life form.


    we call are retarded people vegetables for Pete sake.

    But i believe are Creator is intelligent

    i believe god designed the apples to feed the good bacteria and not the bad.  because he had knowledge that good bacteria is good and bad bacteria is bad


    I believe it was god who designed sweet flag roots to go up into the brain and fix the part of the brain that deals with stuttering. He would have had to have knowledge of the brain in order to traverse it like that and would have to have knowledge on how to heal it in order to help the brain.


    you get the point etc



    i am tired of writing so i going to take a small break.










    AlexOlandPlaffelvohfen

  • Is free speech a human right?

    John_C_87John_C_87
    WinstonC said:
    @John_C_87 "How do you prove it in a court of law as a human right?"

    It's article 10 of the European convention on human rights. Of course, over here comedians still get arrested for offensive jokes so it may as well not be.

    A human right is not a constitutional right, nor united state constitutional right. Such things as theft are a human right, animals can speak, it is not like a persons way of communication. The animal may not be understood, a person may be ignored. A human right by claim is not bound by a specification of legality precedent before introduction as right. A constitutional right has two qualifications. One it must be a basic principle. Two it must follow legal precedent. A united state Constitutional right has three qualifiers, the united state must be a connection of the basic principle, or legal precedent. It can even be both.

    Yeah, but In Europe we use to be able to just duel and make a point stick by who was run-through by sword. That was a human right, duels of honor.
    Plaffelvohfen

  • Should Youtube silence the right?

    WinstonCWinstonC
    @piloteer Is it also OK for YouTube to deny service to blacks and gays based on their skin color and sexuality?
    Plaffelvohfen

  • Are video games a healthy distraction or a threat to our society?

    RS_masterRS_master
    I believe video games are threats because it spoils peoples mental health. It prevents strengthening of physical health. Video games also are bad for the environment. Some teenagers sometimes even drop out from schools and lock themselves in rooms only to play video games for 13 hours a day. 
    Zombieguy1987

  • Are there contradictions in the bible?

    ethang5ethang5
    @Dee

    >Typical hate filled rant from ET. Incidentally that’s exactly what Sand said and admitted then said “oh it is wrong to own people as property but the Bible’s form of slavery was ......a good thing “

    Because the slavery mentioned in the bible was not owning people but owning their services.

    Sand agreed that owning people was immoral, he disagreed that that is what the bible is talking about. You can try to lie as you always do, but we can scroll to his comments.

    >.....takes a nut to know one that’s why you’re defending him.

    He needs no defense. You just insult and twist people's words. I've seen Sand debate, you aren't a threat to him.

    >Incidentally the stupidity is with you and Sand.

    If this were true, you wouldn't need insults. And if you've already decided, before any debate, that Sands position cannot be defended, what are you doing here?

    >You are so stupid you have to lie in an attempt to cover what you and your buddy cannot defend,

    The only one who lied was you, when you claimed that Sand said God was immoral.

    >let’s revisit here is what @Sand  actually said .......

    Sand said - I stated that modern slavery is immoral, but Biblical slavery is moral.
    I have not lied in anyway, my points are very clear.

    >There you go Doofus .......Owning people as property is and was moral in biblical times his words not mine

    He said nothing about "owning people". He said "slavery", and there are different meanings of slavery. "owning people" are your words, not his.

     >.......You really are offensively stupid

    At least I can read.
    PlaffelvohfenSand

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch