Should We legislate Against Absurdity? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Learn more about DebateIsland.com's EdTech solution aimed at Middle Schools and High Schools, DebateIsland Education, here!

Should We legislate Against Absurdity?

Debate Information

Of course, what is really meant by the word "absurdity" is a word that begins with "st" and ends in "upidity".
Would the world be better off if we brought in legislation to prevent absurdity or help those who are absurd in their thinking and ways?

For example, we could ban religion and "natural" medicine and therapies. We would then turn Churches and chiropractic clinics into drop-in centers to deal with those who are absurd. 
So, what laws should we introduce to deal with this affliction that has been around since time immemorial?

«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • anarchist100anarchist100 535 Pts   -   edited July 20
    @Swolliw
    No, That would be a violation of the first amendment. Also there is nothing absurd about natural cures, the reason they haven't completely replaced modern medicine is because the medical system exist to make money, there's no money in natural cures.
  • Debater123Debater123 565 Pts   -   edited July 20
    @Swolliw No, the world would not be better off if we banned or regulated absurdity. People have a right to say anything as long as it doesn't break the non-aggression principle, regardless of its content. I should be able to say absurd things and no government should be able to stop me.
    JulesKorngoldanarchist100
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 860 Pts   -   edited July 20
    @Swolliw

    Whose determining the absurd?  I'm certain many people on this site determine many things you post to be absurd.
    This would've prevented you from providing this argument in the first place.
    Debater123PlaffelvohfenJulesKorngoldMayCaesaranarchist100
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2656 Pts   -   edited July 20
    One man's absurdity is another's revelation...  

    S!tupid people can't help being s!tupid, might as well ask if we should legislate IQ and other characteristics people have no control over like say, skin colour? In a way, I guess this post could get you fined (or jailed?) under your own proposed legislation because, let's face it, it's pretty absurd... 
    Debater123JulesKorngoldMayCaesaranarchist100
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 116 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: How Absurd

    @Swolliw
    What an absurd suggestion!  By your own thinking you should be jailed.
    Debater123anarchist100
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -   edited July 21
    @anarchist100 there's no money in natural cures.

    Of course, there is plenty of money in natural cures. For example, a local chiropractor charges $120 for a twenty minute consultation. And naturopathic creams sell for on average, three to four times the price of their nearest counterpart in pharmacies. Natural cures are nothing but about making money because there is absolutely nothing curative about them whatsoever.You are completely wrong, and I suggest that you do some research before making such flippant and incorrect assertions.@Debater123
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    I should be able to say absurd things and no government should be able to stop me.

    Good for you, but do you think that you are bettering the community?

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -   edited July 21
    @MichaelElpers
    I'm certain many people on this site determine many things you post to be absurd.

    Their determination would be wrong, and "the many things" I allegedly posted (of which you failed to cite even one) would not be deemed absurd in the first place.

    I could quite easily determine therefore that your post is totally absurd and should be banned then have you recommended for the appropriate treatment.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen
    let's face it, it's pretty absurd...

    Come on now. Is reporting on the evils of Hitler and the Nazi Party being evil? No, it isn't.

    Is reporting the issue of legislating against absurdity being absurd? No, it isn't. 

    Talk about shooting the messenger. Now that is absurd.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 860 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    There are obviously people that find you absurd, as plenty have requested your spamming be removed from the site.

    "I could quite easily determine therefore that your post is totally absurd and should be banned then have you recommended for the appropriate treatment."

    I never advocated that absurd comments should be banned. 

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:

    Come on now. Is reporting on the evils of Hitler and the Nazi Party being evil? No, it isn't.

    Is reporting the issue of legislating against absurdity being absurd? No, it isn't. 

    Talk about shooting the messenger. Now that is absurd.

    It depends on how said "reporting" is done. If you are reporting on the evils of Hitler and the Nazi Party by advocating for a legislation that would send Hitler and all members of the Nazi party to a gas chamber, then you are not being much less evil than the targets of your legislation.

    Here, you make an absurd proposal aimed at dealing with absurd proposals. You are not opposing absurdity as a whole; you are opposing specific manifestations of absurdity with your own manifestation of absurdity.

    The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Opposition to something does not always imply not being a part of that something. A response to absurd ideas is not always not absurd.
  • @Swolliw
    To late...
    As Bob, the builder once said " Can we fix it, yes we can."
  • TreeManTreeMan 261 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw
    so u want to kill everyone below the average IQ?
  • TreeManTreeMan 261 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw
    so u want to kill everyone below the average IQ?
  • TreeManTreeMan 261 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw
    so u want to kill everyone below the average IQ?
  • TreeManTreeMan 261 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw
    Do u want to kill everyone below the average IQ?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    There are obviously people that find you absurd, as plenty have requested your spamming be removed from the site.
    There are not "obviously such people". "Plenty" have not requested my spamming be removed from the site and I have never once posted any spam. Furthermore, you have not submitted one single shred of evidence to back up your erroneous and absurd claims.

    I never advocated that absurd comments should be banned. 

    And I never said you did. However, I specifically advocated that your trolling, spamming, completely unqualified comments (for which I have rightly and fully explained) should be banned.

    CYDdharta
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    Here, you make an absurd proposal 

    What absurd proposal. I never made any absurd proposal and neither did you state what absurd proposal I allegedly made, let alone explain why such alleged proposal is absurd in the first place.

    Talk about making prejudiced assumptions. Huh.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @TreeMan
    so u want to kill everyone below the average IQ?

    Not at all. There are many people who have abnormally low IQs who don't go around believing stu-pid things such as God and natural medicine. What brain capacity they do have, they know how to use it.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -   edited July 21
    Swolliw said:

    What absurd proposal. I never made any absurd proposal and neither did you state what absurd proposal I allegedly made, let alone explain why such alleged proposal is absurd in the first place.

    Talk about making prejudiced assumptions. Huh.

    The proposal in question is legislating absurdity. Why it is absurd was explained by other posters before me.
    Swolliw said:

    Not at all. There are many people who have abnormally low IQs who don't go around believing stu-pid things such as God and natural medicine. What brain capacity they do have, they know how to use it.
    There has been no demonstrated correlation between a person's IQ and the likelihood of them believing in God or natural medicine. You do not have to resort to making stuff up: there is plenty to criticize in religion as it is. You seem to just be on a holy crusade against it, and your goal is to not make a valid point, but to vent your frustration with the fact that not everyone believes the same things you do.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -   edited July 21
    What is absurd is a man thinking he is born the wrong gender and doctors who agree to mutilate his body; or a woman thinking she really is a man and a doctor mutilating her body.
    What is absurd is a man wearing makeup and putting on a dress and high heels thinking that is what it takes to make a women; or a woman putting on men's clothes thinking it makes her a man.  
    What is absurd is same gender sex.
    What is absurd is thinking there is no spiritual realm.
    What is absurd is denying plants have medicinal powers, when scientists even make some drugs from herbs.
    Plaffelvohfen
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • TrueLove said:
    What is absurd is a man thinking he is born the wrong gender and doctors who agree to mutilate his body; or a woman thinking she really is a man and a doctor mutilating her body.
    What is absurd is a man wearing makeup and putting on a dress and high heels thinking that is what it takes to make a women; or a woman putting on men's clothes thinking it makes her a man.  
    What is absurd is same gender sex.
    What is absurd is thinking there is no spiritual realm.
    What is absurd is denying plants don't have any medicinal powers, when scientists even make some drugs from herbs.
    People of the same gender do not have sex in basic principle they only impersonate a couple, male and female having sex and doing so for only physical pleasure,  emotional pleasure, and desire. There are a series of constitutional rights that can be held in basic principle if serious effort and work went to finding the proper united states to which the connection would create a more perfect state of the union.

    There are no legal reasons a religion needs to witness a state of the union which does not directly bring offspring into a nation's citizenship pool. However, a state-licensed medical doctor or scientist industry as a whole has a legal obligation to report livers it creates through controlled fertilization to a much larger patient directory of some kind. By not doing so they medical protection has abandoned the rights of patients.
  • @Swolliw
    No, That would be a violation of the first amendment. Also there is nothing absurd about natural cures, the reason they haven't completely replaced modern medicine is because the medical system exist to make money, there's no money in natural cures.
    It is not a violation of the First Amendment it is part of a 1st Amendment that addresses a state of the union between liberty and freedom which is not written yet as a united state to be held by courts. All true herbal treatment starts in a place of health before a disease takes place there is money to be earned doing many things the basic principle of medical practice as a profession is a person is licensed to fail by a state broad. A medical doctor can lose that liberty so they by necessity migrate to a best practice known at any moment.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -   edited July 21
    John_C_87 said:
    TrueLove said:
    What is absurd is a man thinking he is born the wrong gender and doctors who agree to mutilate his body; or a woman thinking she really is a man and a doctor mutilating her body.
    What is absurd is a man wearing makeup and putting on a dress and high heels thinking that is what it takes to make a women; or a woman putting on men's clothes thinking it makes her a man.  
    What is absurd is same gender sex.
    What is absurd is thinking there is no spiritual realm.
    What is absurd is denying plants don't have any medicinal powers, when scientists even make some drugs from herbs.
    People of the same gender do not have sex in basic principle they only impersonate a couple, male and female having sex and doing so for only physical pleasure,  emotional pleasure, and desire. There are a series of constitutional rights that can be held in basic principle if serious effort and work went to finding the proper united states to which the connection would create a more perfect state of the union.

    There are no legal reasons a religion needs to witness a state of the union which does not directly bring offspring into a nation's citizenship pool. However, a state-licensed medical doctor or scientist industry as a whole has a legal obligation to report livers it creates through controlled fertilization to a much larger patient directory of some kind. By not doing so they medical protection has abandoned the rights of patients.
     It is absurd that same gender people don't think their union is absurd.   It is a double absurdity that they get married like heterosexuals.
    Plaffelvohfen
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -   edited July 21
    @TrueLove

    What is absurd is the idea that two adults cannot figure out whether they love each other or not without some old book telling them that. The whole marriage institution makes little sense: it is a relic of ancient times, when the tribe’s shaman had to approve each union officially, as individuals were too submissive to make their own decisions without some authority’s approval.

    If I love someone and want to share my life with them, I certainly do need the government or the church to tell me, “Very well, I permit it”. Who in the world are you to permit or not permit it? It is none of your business, guys.

    It all comes down to responsibility. If you are a strong and independent person, then you make your own decisions and face their consequences. And if not, then you let books, priests and bureaucrats to make decisions for you.
    anarchist100
  • anarchist100anarchist100 535 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @anarchist100 there's no money in natural cures.

    Of course, there is plenty of money in natural cures. For example, a local chiropractor charges $120 for a twenty minute consultation. And naturopathic creams sell for on average, three to four times the price of their nearest counterpart in pharmacies. Natural cures are nothing but about making money because there is absolutely nothing curative about them whatsoever.You are completely wrong, and I suggest that you do some research before making such flippant and incorrect assertions.@Debater123
    There is some money in it, but not for the people who currently have a monopoly medical science, they make billions of dollars off of modern medicine every year, if it was discovered that natural cures where more effective people would stop giving them money, they would go out of business.
  • @TrueLove

     It is absurd that same gender people don't think their union is absurd.   It is a double absurdity that they get married like heterosexuals.
    A partnership of equal genders is not absurd as it has legal precedent the only obstacle to a legal union was the proper united state used to hold a witness account, Binvir and unosmulier negate the interpretations of prejudice by a formation of a constitutional right. In basic wording and basic differences detail on obvious visual things which take place in a suitable way to the greatest group of people held as a union of legal powers.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -   edited July 21
    MayCaesar said:
    @TrueLove

    What is absurd is the idea that two adults cannot figure out whether they love each other or not without some old book telling them that. The whole marriage institution makes little sense: it is a relic of ancient times, when the tribe’s shaman had to approve each union officially, as individuals were too submissive to make their own decisions without some authority’s approval.

    If I love someone and want to share my life with them, I certainly do need the government or the church to tell me, “Very well, I permit it”. Who in the world are you to permit or not permit it? It is none of your business, guys.

    It all comes down to responsibility. If you are a strong and independent person, then you make your own decisions and face their consequences. And if not, then you let books, priests and bureaucrats to make decisions for you.
    I think it is between the two people and God.  However, even if you don't get legally married in California, and you merely live with someone for 7 years, it automatically causes some legal clauses as if you were legally married.  In addition, there are some financial reasons to get legally married, such as having to be married to someone for at least 10 years to be able to qualify for their Social Security, and maybe other reasons to involve the government in your marriage. 
      
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @anarchist100 there's no money in natural cures.

    Of course, there is plenty of money in natural cures. For example, a local chiropractor charges $120 for a twenty minute consultation. And naturopathic creams sell for on average, three to four times the price of their nearest counterpart in pharmacies. Natural cures are nothing but about making money because there is absolutely nothing curative about them whatsoever.You are completely wrong, and I suggest that you do some research before making such flippant and incorrect assertions.@Debater123
    There is some money in it, but not for the people who currently have a monopoly medical science, they make billions of dollars off of modern medicine every year, if it was discovered that natural cures where more effective people would stop giving them money, they would go out of business.
    I wouldn't be surprised if drug companies and the government kept some herbs away from people because it cures.  It seems like many herbs that cure can't be found anymore, or the ones too common to eradicate have a warning on them that they will destroy your liver.  If that isn't a deterrent to use something that will heal your cancer, or arthiritis, etc., then what is? 
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -   edited July 21
    Swolliw said:
    Of course, what is really meant by the word "absurdity" is a word that begins with "st" and ends in "upidity".
    Would the world be better off if we brought in legislation to prevent absurdity or help those who are absurd in their thinking and ways?

    For example, we could ban religion and "natural" medicine and therapies. We would then turn Churches and chiropractic clinics into drop-in centers to deal with those who are absurd. 
    So, what laws should we introduce to deal with this affliction that has been around since time immemorial?

    You are wrong about a lot of things.  I can hardly believe you put down herbs for medicine.

    Where do you think opium comes from?  Do you think it is only one's imagination that it is a pain killer?

    The use of plants for healing purposes predates recorded history and forms the origin of much of modern medicine. Many conventional drugs originate from plant sources: a century ago, most of the few effective drugs were plant-based. Examples include aspirin (from willow bark), digoxin (from foxglove), quinine (from cinchona bark), and morphine (from the opium poppy). The development of drugs from plants continues, with drug companies engaged in large-scale pharmacologic screening of herbs

    .https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071505/


    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove

    Well, these laws are a horrible intrusion of the government in people's private lives, as taxpayers are forced to subsidize other people living together and loving each other. The government should be fully separated from people's private lives; it has no role in them. Neither does church, god or any other entity.

    It is the same kind of laws as all the child support laws that are supposed to encourage high fertility... As if women are some kind of government-owned incubators that must provide a certain yearly output. Or as those indulgences the Catholic church sold in Medieval times, where people who "donated" enough into the church system were given various social privileges such as being able to marry a person from a different class than them.

    Authority is only needed when two or more people have a conflict they cannot resolve. It surely is not needed when two people negotiate on whether to sleep with each other or not, and what the result of them sleeping with each other should be. As I like to say, "The space under the pants should be invisible to the Big Brother". ;)
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
     Why it is absurd was explained by other posters before me.

    No, it was not.

    There has been no demonstrated correlation between a person's IQ and the likelihood of them believing in God or natural medicine. You do not have to resort to making stuff up

    I never mentioned nor alluded to any such correlation whatsoever. You made it up, not me.

    You get the drift now about why absutdity should be legislated against when your arguments have been proven to be way off the mark (to say the least) and therefore absurd.

    Thank you for perfectly illustrating the point.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove
    What is absurd is a man thinking he is born the wrong gender and doctors who agree to mutilate his body.......

    That is not absurd in the least bit given that society (and the law) fully accepts LBGTQ.

    What is absurd is someone who goes against society and proclaiming villification and bigotry against minority groups.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    People of the same gender do not have sex in basic principle they only impersonate a couple, male and female having sex and doing so for only physical pleasure,  emotional pleasure, and desire.

    So do people of the opposite gender. You are singling out a minority group for no other reason than to mouth your homophobia and bigotry.

  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @TrueLove
    What is absurd is a man thinking he is born the wrong gender and doctors who agree to mutilate his body.......

    That is not absurd in the least bit given that society (and the law) fully accepts LBGTQ.

    What is absurd is someone who goes against society and proclaiming villification and bigotry against minority groups.

    You must know it is absurd to have a doctor mutilate a person's body to pretend it is another gender.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    There is some money in it

    There are tonnes of money in it. That is all natural medicine is about, 100% money since there is absolutely 0% efficacy involved.

    There is a giant market for natural medicine charlatans to exploit in the form of ill-informed, naive, gullible nitwits. 

  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @TrueLove

    Well, these laws are a horrible intrusion of the government in people's private lives, as taxpayers are forced to subsidize other people living together and loving each other. The government should be fully separated from people's private lives; it has no role in them. Neither does church, god or any other entity.

    It is the same kind of laws as all the child support laws that are supposed to encourage high fertility... As if women are some kind of government-owned incubators that must provide a certain yearly output. Or as those indulgences the Catholic church sold in Medieval times, where people who "donated" enough into the church system were given various social privileges such as being able to marry a person from a different class than them.

    Authority is only needed when two or more people have a conflict they cannot resolve. It surely is not needed when two people negotiate on whether to sleep with each other or not, and what the result of them sleeping with each other should be. As I like to say, "The space under the pants should be invisible to the Big Brother". ;)
    It is true that the government gives more money to those who keep having babies, but you make it sound as if they are deliberately hoping to motivate women to keep having children they can't afford. lol  As for child support, both parents should be held accountable monetarily, except that the government isn't fair about it.  I think it is wrong that a woman can get an abortion, and wrong also that the father doesn't have to be notified first and also agree.  
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove
    I wouldn't be surprised if drug companies and the government kept some herbs away from people because it cures. 

    Nothing like a good ole conspiracy theory, is there?

  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -   edited July 22
    Swolliw said:
    @anarchist100
    There is some money in it

    There are tonnes of money in it. That is all natural medicine is about, 100% money since there is absolutely 0% efficacy involved.

    There is a giant market for natural medicine charlatans to exploit in the form of ill-informed, naive, gullible nitwits. 

    You are a nit wit for saying herbs don't work.  Where do you think morphine comes from?  People don't get high off of marijuana?  People don't get cocaine from a plant?  Caffeine doesn't come from a plant?  
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @TrueLove
    I wouldn't be surprised if drug companies and the government kept some herbs away from people because it cures. 

    Nothing like a good ole conspiracy theory, is there?

    You are gullible? 
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove
    I can hardly believe you put down herbs for medicine.

    Nor can anyone else because I never said any such thing nor anything that comes remotely close.

    What you are trying to conflate is the use of "herbs" and products such as opium. Medical companies use products taken from nature but the resulting drugs are highly refined, tested and precisely measured and controlled.

    Opium, for example, is a crude, unrefined drug that will vary dramatically in its strength which is why qualified, conventional pharmacists prescribe a range of (usually synthesized) refined opioids that do not kill or maim when used correctly, raw opium does. Also, herb extracts do contain substances with healing properties. What the naturopaths don't tell you is that the degree of efficacy of the active ingredient is so miniscule as to have no effect whatsoever (except as a placebo). Also, herbal concentrate tablets which contain a higher concentrate of the active ingredient also contain high concentrations of the toxic ingredients that also come with the source. Ther are many growing instances of people taking these herbal cures and ending up with chronic kidney and liver diseases.

    Conventional medicine has been there and done that eons ago and has dramatically refined and improved drugs through thorough research. "Natual" medicine is nothing more than taking crude, primitive, unproven (yes, unproven) treatments from the dark ages, mix it with a bit of mysticism and fool the naive, ill-educated and gullible masses who want to believe such nonsense.

  • TrueLoveTrueLove 295 Pts   -   edited July 22
    Swolliw said:
    @TrueLove
    I can hardly believe you put down herbs for medicine.

    Nor can anyone else because I never said any such thing nor anything that comes remotely close.

    What you are trying to conflate is the use of "herbs" and products such as opium. Medical companies use products taken from nature but the resulting drugs are highly refined, tested and precisely measured and controlled.

    Opium, for example, is a crude, unrefined drug that will vary dramatically in its strength which is why qualified, conventional pharmacists prescribe a range of (usually synthesized) refined opioids that do not kill or maim when used correctly, raw opium does. Also, herb extracts do contain substances with healing properties. What the naturopaths don't tell you is that the degree of efficacy of the active ingredient is so miniscule as to have no effect whatsoever (except as a placebo). Also, herbal concentrate tablets which contain a higher concentrate of the active ingredient also contain high concentrations of the toxic ingredients that also come with the source. Ther are many growing instances of people taking these herbal cures and ending up with chronic kidney and liver diseases.

    Conventional medicine has been there and done that eons ago and has dramatically refined and improved drugs through thorough research. "Natual" medicine is nothing more than taking crude, primitive, unproven (yes, unproven) treatments from the dark ages, mix it with a bit of mysticism and fool the naive, ill-educated and gullible masses who want to believe such nonsense.

    You are trying really hard not to look stu pid, and it isn't working.  You are embarrassing. 
    So there are no prescription drugs that cause liver and kidney disease?

    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Debater123Debater123 565 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw If I were to say absurd things, likely not, but that isn't an excuse to create a hypocritically absurd proposal such as censoring such absurdity.
  • @Swolliw
    So do people of the opposite gender. You are singling out a minority group for no other reason than to mouth your homophobia and bigotry.
    In basic principle couples of an opposite gender need to use birth control... 
    It is possible a person may allow hate to obstruct their constitutional duty to preserve the honesty of a witness. You ever try to force me to commit perjury in a civil court as a witness by allegations of prejudice I will not alone file, the grievance of malpractice, I will file a grievance of criminal witness tampering. I have no received one legal objection of  binivir or unosmulier I had been asked to witness.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
     hypocritically absurd proposal 

    Oh yeah. I can cite one very good example, nay two (identical) for which censoring absurdity makes very good sense.

    Each of the quotes (two of them) goes like this: spammer/spammer/spammer/spammer........repeated over 5000 times).

    I know, it is an extreme case, but I can quote many more extreme cases from the same source.

    So, you see, I have presented a reasonable case with solid evidence, to censor absurdity.

    Would you like me to reveal the name of the source for all on this forum to see?

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1621 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    It would make a lot more sense to censor the spammer, since spam adds nothing to the forum.
  • Debater123Debater123 565 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw
    Each of the quotes (two of them) goes like this: spammer/spammer/spammer/spammer........repeated over 5000 times).
    A person screaming something constantly outside is not a valid excuse for the government to shut that person up unless they are on government property.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    TrueLove said:

    It is true that the government gives more money to those who keep having babies, but you make it sound as if they are deliberately hoping to motivate women to keep having children they can't afford. lol  As for child support, both parents should be held accountable monetarily, except that the government isn't fair about it.  I think it is wrong that a woman can get an abortion, and wrong also that the father doesn't have to be notified first and also agree.  
    No, but what they do is partake in social engineering, introducing perverse incentives for people to do things they would not have done in the absence of interference - and forcing everyone else to subsidize them. Social engineering necessarily sees individuals as serving some greater cause, project - just like your religion does.

    Abortion is clearly the pregnant woman's business. If she wants to consult with her partner on whether to perform abortion or not, that is great: it is a display of good will and regard for certain shared values and experiences with that person. But if she does not, then it is none of the father's business: he may resent her and choose to abandon her, but he does not get to have a say in what she does with her body.
    On the flip side, I also do not believe that he should subsidize the mother and the child, should she choose to give birth to the child. He should be free to walk away and move on with his life, never interacting with the mother or the child, if he so desires. Freedom always goes both ways, and abortion rights do not in any way infringe on the father's rights. Just as the woman is the sole decision-maker, she also is ultimately the sole bearer of responsibility for her decision.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    A person screaming something constantly outside is not a valid excuse for the government to shut that person up unless they are on government property.

    It would be a valid reason for that person to be removed by anyone responsible for the property.

    Similarly, it would be a valid reason for the administrators of DebateIsland to remove a person who maliciously (and weirdly) spams by uttering the same word over five thousand times in one sentence, does it again then continues to post malicious, trolling messages. Such a person, who obviously lacks debating skills and self-control should have no place whatsoever on a debating website. Do you agree?

  • Debater123Debater123 565 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw
    It would be a valid reason for that person to be removed by anyone responsible for the property.
    I agree, but the government shouldn't be forcing any private property to remove those people.
    Similarly, it would be a valid reason for the administrators of DebateIsland to remove a person who maliciously (and weirdly) spams by uttering the same word over five thousand times in one sentence, does it again then continues to post malicious, trolling messages. Such a person, who obviously lacks debating skills and self-control should have no place whatsoever on a debating website. Do you agree?
    I agree, in which case they should remove you.
    Debateisland is private which means the government should have no place in its affairs.
    JulesKorngold
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch