Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Euthanasia:Mercy Killing

Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 10:32:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

Please check this debate. I'm getting voted against over individual freedom despite a lack of appreciation for consent under duress. He even admits understanding this, yet still ignores it and says the topic was inadequately addressed.

I'm not sure why the demand for evidence over social alienation exists either. It's actually insulting because in order to provide evidence to the point of wanting to kill euthanasia, someone would have to be alienated. Perhaps he would enjoy being alienated to the point of wanting to kill himself in order to prove the argument? He's setting up a rather atrocious burden of proof.

(I'd argue the debate further here, but it would be bad form.)
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 12:07:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I was determined enough to win my debate on China without committing a major conduct violation, I'd tear your RFD apart until you reduced it to an assumption about nations having good relations because of their philosophies. The fact that you complained that he ignored your "social alienation argument" is deliciously ironic in that context. We don't make entire threads because we are losing by one point, we put them here: http://www.debate.org...
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 4:17:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tries... to put... analogy... together.

*Falls over* Ugh...

Anyway, I didn't think it was a vote-bomb issue. It wasn't about being random. It was about not making sense.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 4:30:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 12:07:10 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If I was determined enough to win my debate on China without committing a major conduct violation, I'd tear your RFD apart until you reduced it to an assumption about nations having good relations because of their philosophies. The fact that you complained that he ignored your "social alienation argument" is deliciously ironic in that context. We don't make entire threads because we are losing by one point, we put them here: http://www.debate.org...

Is it ironic that I saw this post then voted on your debate?

(sorry for voting you down btw :P)
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 5:38:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 4:30:38 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/17/2013 12:07:10 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If I was determined enough to win my debate on China without committing a major conduct violation, I'd tear your RFD apart until you reduced it to an assumption about nations having good relations because of their philosophies. The fact that you complained that he ignored your "social alienation argument" is deliciously ironic in that context. We don't make entire threads because we are losing by one point, we put them here: http://www.debate.org...

Is it ironic that I saw this post then voted on your debate?

(sorry for voting you down btw :P)

It's fine. Lol.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 5:39:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 4:17:38 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Tries... to put... analogy... together.

*Falls over* Ugh...

Anyway, I didn't think it was a vote-bomb issue. It wasn't about being random. It was about not making sense.

You would know, given that you yourself are the king of votebombing.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 8:42:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 5:39:36 PM, TUF wrote:
At 3/17/2013 4:17:38 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Tries... to put... analogy... together.

*Falls over* Ugh...

Anyway, I didn't think it was a vote-bomb issue. It wasn't about being random. It was about not making sense.

You would know, given that you yourself are the king of votebombing.

Please... don't tease me. There has to be someone else out there who's better at giving RFDs than me. LOL

In all seriousness, I really try to analyze debates before voting on them. My explanations are usually rather long and involve details from the actual discussion, even if I don't personally agree with the position voted for.