The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Republican Party

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/30/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 928 times Debate No: 113291
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




This debate is designed to be the sequel to our "Democratic Party" debate. But this time, In reverse. You can start us off this time if you want to.


All righty, then. Let's get into this. You always put up a good fight- just not quite good enough. Here we go. Here's a bulleted list of the crucial reasons why I hate the Republican party. This will be how we do the debate- rebutting this one bulleted list, over and over. We'll stay with this list, and nothing else. With that said, here are a few big reasons why the Republican party truly stinks to High Heaven:

1. Abortion. Republicans refuse to grant women the right to get an abortion- but they also refuse to give any money to poor women, so the poor women are unable to support kids and they have to get abortions. Pretty counter intuitive, when you think about it. It really is. Children cost. There's no denying that. If you Republicans don't give people welfare, then they'll have no choice. They'll have to get those babies out somehow. Better to end the fetus's life while it's still in the womb than to have it starve to death on a street somewhere. Democrats actually decrease the number of abortions. Poor people get more money, and thus, they can raise their kids. It makes complete sense.

2. Global Warming. You guys are notorious for denying the existence of climate change, even though there have been countless statistics which say otherwise. Saying that climate change isn't real is like saying that the Earth is flat. It's a ridiculous idea. Climate change is absolutely real, and it's destroying the world.

3. Gun control. You guys want guns to be sold everywhere, and can't seem to understand that guns are weapons and that they can kill people.

4. Class structure. You hate poor people and, because you're rich, you refuse to pay any taxes to give to the poor people.

The Republican party, in summation, is a group of backwards people who don't understand how the world works. Go ahead and rebut the five points that I've made above. Sorry about my brevity, I'm almost out of time. Go ahead and rebut. I'll wait.
Debate Round No. 1


You cut it a little close there Frankfurter. I was expecting a forfeit. I'm glad you came through.

Let's jump right into your abortion argument. Just as I argued in our abortion debate, having a child you can't afford to support does not give you the right to kill your baby. As I also proved in that debate, the fetus is alive and human and thus is entitled to the inalienable right of life. Just as before, you fail to recognize that there are a plethora of options apart from killing a baby. Adoption just being one of those. Democrats also fail to recognize that by using government funds to cover for children that the people can't afford to support, that they incentivize poor decision making and also, probably deliberately, fosters economic dependence on the government and specifically the Democrats. Democrats don't decrease the number of abortions in Democrat controlled cities the abortion rate is higher. Even lefty fact-checking source Snopes, admits that your claim is false.

Now onto global warming. There was actually a recent study that shows that the estimates made by the Democrats are not tenable. That the alarmism of the left was unfounded. All along we were right. The climate change being seen is only slightly higher than normal ice age recovery and we are on the tail end of a global cooling period.

Guns are a necessity to defend one's home and family on two fronts. The first most immediate threat is that of criminals. While it can be argued that if a criminal breaks into your house that you can call the police, it only takes moments for that criminal to harm you and your family. I have every ounce of respect for our boys in blue, but when seconds count, the police arrive in minutes. Having a personal firearm is necessary for the defense of life and home. The second threat is that of government. When the founders drafted the constitution they knew all to well the encroaching nature of government. So as a bulwark against federal encroachment they gave an unprecedented power to the citizens of the United States. The right to bear arms. This right ensures that if the government attempts to overstep its bounds, they will be met with armed resistance from the American people. The idea propagated by the left that a democratic government can never turn usurptuous is not only utterly asinine but extremely dangerous. It also ignores all historical precedent in which most democratic governments have turned on their citizens in the past.

Frankfurter commits an ad hominem logical fallacy by assuming that the rich hate the poor. This is false. one, I'm not rich but rather upper middle class. Neither being poor nor rich endows any additional virtue because of your economic status. Your claim that the rich don't pay taxes is also unsubstantiated. It's a well documented fact that the wealthiest among us pay for most of the taxes.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Democrats often claim to support policies that will better the lives of many across the country. These policies often do the opposite of what they intend. Doing damage and making people economically dependent on the federal government. Republicans on the other hand value individual determination and individual responsibility. Our policies are those that are intended to make it easier for people to pull themselves out of poverty rather than perpetuating their poverty by giving money in exchange for bad decisions.


I think that a woman has the right to kill a fetus if she wants to. Not a baby. A fetus. The thing doesn't gain consciousness until it comes out of the womb. Maybe a little before that. I'd say months one through five are perfectly acceptable times to pull a baby out of the womb. Having a child to take care of is an immense responsibility. If parents cannot afford to take care of their children, then they have to get rid of their child somehow. The fetus is alive and human, but it is not born, and its mind is only developing. I do not fail to recognize that there are other options besides abortion. Adoption is one option. Abortion should be another option. Abortion is a great way to control the population. Would you want the human race to explode with no limits? Some parents are against adoption. By insisting that abortion is not a viable option, you're using the "false dilemma" fallacy. By insisting that human fetuses have emotions without justifying you claim, you're employing the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. From this round on, I'll provide more sources. I love the way you employ fallacies so often, sir. It's fun to catch you in the act. It might sound strange, but many parents would rather kill their child in the womb than have the kid and then hand him off to complete strangers. Adoption involves weeks of stressful paperwork and decision making. Adoption is quick and easy, and new and better birth control methods are being thought up every day. You cannot say that fetuses are entitled to life without backing that claim up. You're committing petitio principii. Democrats do, in fact, reduce the number of abortions, but we also allow women to willfully get abortions if they want. If poor people get more tax money from rich people, they will be able to bring up children better. being poor is not a "poor decision". Poor people do not make the choice to be poor. They are poor because rich people have all the money. Poor people should depend on the government for money. The government should be held responsible for poverty levels. Imagine what life today would be like if FDR hadn't implemented the "New Deal" after the Great Depression. We'd still be standing in soup lines.

I notice that you say there was a "recent study" which reported that climate change is a hoax, or, at the very least, hyperbole. Please, sir, in the next round, give me an article about this study. I'd like to know about it, since it is, according to you, very much real. Like Flat Earthers and Scientologists, you confuse NONNEGOTIABLE FACT with DEBATABLE OPINION. It cannot be denied that Carbon Dioxide, a gas produced by Fossil Fuel burning, traps sunlight within the atmosphere and melts Earth's ice. While you try and dig up that fabricated scientific article, here's some real statistics to chew on:

As you can see from this graph, the Earth's temperature skyrocketed at roughly the same time we discovered that coal could be burned to create electricity- and then refused to use more efficient, reusable methods like Nuclear or Solar. The temperature of today is not natural- it has never been this warm before, except in dinosaur times, when carbon was released from volcanoes and geysers- and be assured, that climate was by no means suitable for human life. If you want to die, then go ahead and deny it. Soon, we Democrats will be laughing up our sleeves- but, of course, we'll all pay the prie for your stupidity. Denying the effects of CO2 on our atmosphere is like denying that cigarettes give people lung cancer.

Guns are not a necessity. If you live in a region where criminal activity is common, then you should move out. Democratic states, by far, are less crime ridden. Compare the conditions of Colfax Avenue in Denver to the conditions of Miami. Florida is a Republican State. Colorado is a Democratic state. Colfax can be traversed easily. Crime is not common in Colorado. It serves as a safe haven for those who believe in gay rights and marijuana. Miami, on the other hand, is filled with drug peddlers and prostitutes. Why? because republicans ruin every state they control. Criminals would not be a threat if people did not have guns. Your hypothetical situation only works in a world where the world cannot change.

Think about this for a moment. It might seem counterintuitive to your puny mind, but it makes sense. If guns were banned- removed from every city, no longer bought and sold- then there would be no need to protect yourself anymore. There would be no criminal busting into your house at night. Would you rather prolong having a bad neighborhood by temporarily saving your family- or do you want to end gun violence for all time? You wouldn't have a gun, sure- but neither would the criminal. Guns are very efficient killing machines- more efficient than knives or clubs. It takes about the same amount of time to call 911 as it does to find a gun. And let's face it- not having guns would actually give you MORE of a chance against that criminal. Instead of hitting yourselves with bullets, you could just fist fight until the cops arrive. I would be less dangerous, less destructive to your home- and you wouldn't have a body on your hands in the end. If humans didn't have guns, just imagine what a nicer place the world would be. There would be no criminals. You wouldn't be able to defend yourself, but you wouldn't need to. Do you support violence? Don't you think violence should end?
Here's a table of all murders in the U.S. You can't deny that most of them are caused by guns.
Here's a reasonable argument by my favorite YouTuber, Videos for People:

The United States is not an authoritarian Hellhole. It is one of the nicest places to live in the whole world. An authoritarian government might happen someday, but it does not exist. You are dreaming up perceived threats where there are none. You cannot destroy violence with violence. Paranoid schizophrenics like yourself are the kind of people who commit shootings, because you see danger where there is no danger. Do you live in Call of Duty, sir? The real world is not Call of Duty, as far as I know, and the American government is not anything like the Nazi Germany government. Just so long as we have good law enforcement and speedy ambulances, we do not need guns. We should progress past weapons. We should not continue to use them. Do you lack the imagination to envision a world without weapons?

Rich people do hate Poor people. If Rich people did like Poor people, they would become Democrats and pay reasonable taxes. Democrats do support policies that better the lives of poor people. They do not better the lives of Rich people, because Rich people already have good lives. Obamacare gave cheap medical assistance to millions. We do not do damage. Democrats do not make people "Economically Dependent" on Government money, we simply pull them out of a hole and then see how well they can live on their own. Selfishness and greed are not virtues, sir. They are Vices. There's nothing WRONG with being Economically dependent on the Government. The Government is, after all, responsible for the Welfare of its citizens, and if thousands of Citizens starve to death out on the streets- well, then the Government must be held responsible for that. Not everybody can fix their lives easily, sir. If your economic theories worked, then there would be no Poor people. They'd all be doing OK. can you deny the existence of Poor people? You can't, can you? This is simple, sir, so simple that I think a Kindergartner could comprehend it. less is not more. Money is necessary to live, and if a person has no money, they cannot live. It is not because of poor decisions they made. Well, it could be that they didn't vote for Hillary. But, apart from that, they are poor because Rich people have most of the money. It's that simple, sir. You can't deny it. Not every Poor person is poor due to alcoholism or lotto tickets. Some poor people have no addictions, they are poor simply because their schools weren't funded enough from taxes that could have been paid by rich people- or maybe they were hungry because their incomes were low. Being poor is not a choice. Poverty and Wealth are inherited from generation to generation. You're selfish. Very selfish, to turn your back like that.

One last thing- In the next round, I'd like to go over marijuana, gay rights, and Black Lives Matter, for a while. Otherwise, carry on with the topics as before. I'll be waiting, sir. Your logic is very, very flawed. I hope I'll straighten you out eventually.
Debate Round No. 2


As usual, proponents of abortion rely on euphemisms to disguise what they really want. Using terms like fetus to dehumanize the baby, "terminate the pregnancy" instead of killing your baby. A fetus is a baby merely a baby that has not been born. I have already proven through my Princeton source from our previous debate that the fetus is a human baby. Semantics or not. Frankfurter concedes that there are options besides killing your baby which means if you think that killing your baby should be an option then it is without cause. He also concedes that the fetus is alive and human. But he states that because they have not been born they have no right to live. However, there is nothing magic about the vagina that confers the right to live by passing through it. Every living human being has the right to life until they infringe upon the life of another. He also states that the fetal mind is only developing. Completely irrelevant. the mind continues to be in development sometimes into the mid twenties. But even so, it is not cognitive ability that confers the right to life either.

Frankfurter also talks about overpopulation. Fun fact, human overpopulation is a myth. Unlike other species our human ingenuity has increased our ability to increase land productivity to such an extent that the land we're using can sustain us for the foreseeable future. So overpopulation cannot be used as an excuse to kill your baby. Even more, the largest demographic problem facing many areas is not too many people, but too few babies! so killing your baby will actually increase problems rather than reducing them.

He claims that since some parents are against adoption, that they should be allowed to kill their baby instead. This line of reasoning can be applied to post birth children as well. If a parent does not believe in medicine, yes they exist, and their child falls ill and the parent refuses to allow treatment, the state will remove custody from the parents and administer the treatment. Why? because you don't get to decide who gets to live and who has to die based on what you believe.

Frankfurter accuses me of utilizing a number of logical fallacies. I will explain why I haven't used them and explain how he has misapplied them. First is the false dilemma fallacy. Also known as the false dichotomy, the false dilemma fallacy is when you present only two possible options when in fact there are more. Simply eliminating one as morally reprehensible is in no way the false dichotomy fallacy. Next is the appeal to emotion fallacy. First, I never made the claim that it's emotions that confer the right to live. I never made that claim in round which means that frankfurter committed the strawman logical fallacy. Also, the example he gives is not what the appeal to emotion fallacy is. You didn't catch me committing any fallacies sorry to burst your bubble.

Just because you don't want to give your child to a stranger does not give you the right to kill your child. You make it sound as if they kill them out of concern for their well being which makes no sense. Petitio principii or "begging the question" is a fallacy that would go like this: the fetus has the right to life because they have the right to life. That's not what I said. I said the fetus is alive and human and is therefore entitled to the inalienable human rights one of which is life. Again he misuses a fallacy.

No, being poor is not a poor decision. Being poor then having a child you can't afford is a poor decision. He brings up the New Deal next. the New Deal is largely overrated in stopping the Great Depression in fact economists make the argument that the New Deal made the Depression worse. The economists over at the Mises Institute can explain it better than I.

I don't deny that climate change happens, merely that it isn't that important, and we certainly don't have the means to do anything about it now. Instead of reducing our ability to expand our economies, we should be focusing on new technologies to make renewable energy a viable option which can only happen through industry. And the study you're looking for came from the American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate. type Lewis and Curry and you'll find it. The graph that you show can be used to debunk your own point. As we can see from your model, which supports what I said earlier about us being on the tail end of a cooling period, the point coincided with the end of the little ice age. Another question is why, if coal is solely to blame, was the warmest period in earths history, the Eocene period, 53 million years before the first factory was built? Because current climate trends aren't that different from how they've always been. the earth gets cold, then it gets warm, then it gets cold again etc. Humans probably do have a hand in making the planet warmer but not in any catastrophic way.

In this next section, frankfurter says if you live in a crime riddled are then you should just move. This solution is very much against poor people. If the poor can't afford to just buy a new house, then they can't move and they need a way to defend themselves. He also compares a single street to an entire city which is an interesting move. I could just as easily draw a comparison between Democrat Detroit and Republican Jacksonville, Florida which has a much lower crime rate.

Like most gun control advocates, Frankfurter makes the fatal error of assuming that most criminals get their guns legally. A study led by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio concluded that in Pittsburgh, 80% of recovered guns were in the hands of the perpetrator illegally. Banning guns will not keep them out of the hands of criminals. When something is made illegal, it is inevitable that a black market for that good will form. Cocaine, marijuana, heroin, meth, and many more illegal substances are not excessively difficult for someone to obtain if they put their mind to it. The US government learned this during prohibition and now is relearning it as the war on drugs comes to an end. Why then would anyone assume that banning guns would mean that no one could access them? In 1994, Australia passed huge firearm legislation that banned huge numbers of semi-automatic firearms and created a buyback program that was intended to get them out of the hands of civilians. The buyback was not optional of course. If you refused to sell your firearm then you would be arrested and tried for possession of an illegal weapon. The intention of these laws was to reduce the crime rate within the country. Instead, the laws paved the way for an illegal gun trade to form in Australia that "Police admit they cannot eradicate"" as mentioned by the south Australian newspaper the Adelaide Advertiser. Many of the people that are being supplied these weapons are not even criminals. According to The Sporting Shooters" Association of Australia and Franz Csaszar"a professor at the University of Vienna"the buyback program saw a compliance level of around 19-20 percent. So people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens were made criminals by a law passed that was intended to target criminals.Australia saw almost no decrease in its homicide rate. This is comparable to background checks as it will drive criminals underground and turn law abiding citizens into criminals.

This takes down the rest of his point as well. He also commits the loaded question fallacy by asking "don't you think violence should end."

Frankfurter commits and ad hominem logical fallacy by calling me a paranoid schizophrenic after conceding that an authoritarian government could happen. News flash. The first step an authoritarian government takes is to remove guns from the people. It's evil dictator 101. Frankfurter also conveniently ignores my point on police response times.

Frankfurter does not explain why any of my points are wrong, merely says that they are. Being economically dependent on the government is bad because you can never be independent. You can never stand on your own two feet and no longer be poor. If you are dependent on the government that, by virtue of dependence, means that poverty has been perpetuated. This is damage.

People do not starve on the streets in the United States. In fact, back during the 1980's when conservative economic practices were employed, we saw massive increase in the economy which led to the betterment of peoples lives whilst also fostering their fiscal independence. our economic theories do work. it's just that whenever we get to use them some Keynesian comes along and ruins everything in four to eight years.

Rich people do not have all of the money. that's not how economics works. I don't have the characters left to explain this to you again just look back at our other debates. Frankfurter commits yet another ad hominem by calling me selfish and greedy.


As usual, proponents of abortion (according to Republicans) rely on euphemisms to disguise what they really want. Using terms like "baby" to humanize a fetus, "killing your baby" instead of terminating the pregnancy. Do you see what I'm trying to say here, sir? Terms are relative. I can state the opposite of everything you say. However, I can say even more. I can say that there is no solid evidence of fetuses having consciousness:
I can also say that denying abortions is inherently sexist:

The fetus is a human. Not a baby. It may be Homo sapiens, but it isn't going to notice if it dies. It's not murder. It's population control and very convenient for poor people who your refuse to help out. If you paid more taxes, they might be able to feed their kids. Until you do that, they won't be able to feed their kids. It's very simple, really. I'm glad Donald Trump is going to lose next year. Very, very glad. It's about time. We're gonna get somebody good. Joe Biden, maybe. Maybe Oprah. Really, anybody is better than the evil orange small genitalia carrot man. Oh, where was I? Ah, yes. Abortion. There are options besides killing your baby, but killing your baby should be an option too. Why reduce the amount of options? Seriously, you're serving up a serious false dilemma here. It has nothing to do with whether the baby has popped out yet or not. It has to do with how much money the parents are making, and whether they're OK with doing it. Why should you interfere with people you don't even know? Couples can do whatever they want. It's not murder. It's just surgery. I'm against it, after the fifth month. Not after that. But you're talking about rescuing an embryo. Why? Do you care that much about it? If a couple gets on the ball, and extracts it when it's just a little cluster of cells, there's no problem. You do know that there's a limit to what can be considered "alive," right? You have given no evidence. You make no sense. If a couple cannot support a child, they have to do something about it. You don't pay taxes, they're gonna have to go in there with a coathanger if they have to. Sorry. That's just how it goes.

Human overpopulation, I'll have you know, is not a myth. It's no more a myth than global warming is a myth. Just for reference, here's the official birth and death tracker:
As you can see, there are some deaths. But go to this website any day, any day at all, and you'll see that the births are slowly overpowering the deaths. They're gaining on them. More people are born than they die. And our population is going to peak at about 11 billion. But that is a lot, compared to what we have right now. I ask you, before we start going down again, just how many people are going to get squooshed out? Probably quite a few. Oh, sure, we here in America will be fine. We're a first world country with a Capitalist economy. What about, say, India, or China, those countries where poor people live? They really need abortion, or condoms, or something there. But why worry about them? You're a millionaire, after all. Once more, the primary Repubbo motive comes out: Selfishness and greed. I consider Republicans a hate group, just like any other hate group. At its core, the Republican Party is racist, sexist, classist- yup, same things as Jim Crow and the KKK. I don't separate the two in my mind. Why should I? They both stand for the same things.

Name one spot where UNDERpopulation is a problem. If you live in one of those areas, abortion wouldn't make sense, I agree with that. But most of the world isn't facing an UNDERpopulation problem. So your argument, especially in America, is irrelevant. That article you gave doesn't say that overpopulation isn't a PROBLEM. It says that OVERPOPULATION WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM IF WE DO THE RIGHT THINGS. If things go wrong, we'll all be dead. I'd say that banning abortions would be one way that our expected population stats go off track. Electing Trump was another pretty big mistake. He'll ban abortions and then we'll be facing lots of kids running around who can't eat.

You, sir, make no sense.

I don't think that parents should kill their baby once it comes out of the womb. I never said that. You're using the Straw Man fallacy, there. I think it's brutal to kill a baby once it's out of the womb. Even a month before it comes out of the womb. But there are clearly set legal rules for what constitutes as murder and what doesn't, and taking a fetus out doesn't count as murder. It's like rape. If a guy asks a lady to have sex, and she says no, and he's OK with that, it's not rape. Simple. All crimes have specific guidelines. Very well set guidelines. Do you support children being taken from their parents, put under the custody of the Government, and then looked after in orphanages? You said in the last round that you didn't want the government interfering with people's lives, and now you propose a nationwide ban on abortion? This is hypocritical. Republicanism is a hypocritical philosophy. It's not hypocritical, really. You don't want the government to benefit POOR people with legal abortions. You want the Government to benefit RICH people by lifting taxes on the grotesquely wealthy. What a strange way to think, sir.

Here's another example of your poorly executed logic. You say that "you don't get to decide who gets to live and who has to die based on what you believe." Isn't that exactly what you're doing? Your argument for fetuses is based on nothing but belief. You've given no evidence as to why a human fetus can't be taken out. You don't get to decide who can die and who can live. The parents should get to do that, shouldn't they? It's their child. Eh, Mr. Buttinski?

Now, I'll explain why you used those logical fallacies. You DID use false dichotomy, because you say that there are a "plethora of options" aside from abortion, but you completely ignore abortion as an option, even though it's safe, efficient, and helpful to couples who can't feed children. You certainly limit the amount of options by excluding the best one.

You DO employ the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Your claim that fetuses are alive has no proof behind it. It's all just backed by emotion, you're trying to sway the voters over to your side by insisting that fetuses know that they're being killed. You absolutely employed the appeal to emotion fallacy, back there. I wouldn't suggest trying to battle me in fallacies, sir. I'm an expert at them. You don't know what the "appeal to emotion" fallacy is, sir. You don't even have to mention the word "emotion". It's just when you use sympathy instead of reason.

You did use petitio principii. You did not prove that fetuses know when they're being aborted. You said that fetuses are alive and thus have the right to live. You did not give any evidence that they are alive. You also didn't say how the right to live is an "unalienable right," especially in a world that has more humans than it can handle. Your argument essentially boils down to this: Fetuses have the RIGHT to live, therefore they SHOULD live. That's a repititious claim, therefore, it is petitio principii. I did not use the Straw Man fallacy.

You said that being poor is a poor decision. Some people can't help having a child. What about women who are raped? Did they choose to be raped? Do they have to have a child if they're dirt poor and can't afford to have children? It strikes me as odd that you would care so much about a human fetus but have a complete lack of empathy for beggars on the street. Do you really care about that fetus, sir? Or do you use fetuses to your advantage, a way to drive the huddled masses into even more poverty? Once more, Republican philosophy reaches a bottomless pit of nonsense. Are you the best debater your political party has to offer? I was expecting a bit more of a challenge. Oh, well. All Republican philosophy fails at some point.

FDR's New Deal did end the depression. Look at the numbers, I implore you. He was a good president. Maybe he failed at it in some regards. I don't know which ones. But he did end the Depression. His New Deal gave money to people who couldn't eat. What, might I ask, caused the Great Depression to begin with? Why, a complete lack of Governmental regulations on Wall Street trade. You know, economic anarchy like you mentioned before:

Climate Change is very important. The Arctic is melting, the Antarctic is melting, penguins are dying, polar bears are dying, species are going extinct. Here, here's one fun little story about Greenland:

I've devoted too much of this argument to abortion. Tell you what, Round 4, let's go over marijuana, Black Lives Matter, and Homosexuality, and I'll devote more space to Climate Change and Guns. I'll wait for that. In the meantime, here's a video I think you can relate to:
Debate Round No. 3


First, you concede in your second paragraph that a fetus is human but then say that it is wrong to humanize a fetus in your first paragraph. You need to pick a position. It is always wrong to kill an innocent human. It's a simple as that. Consciousness does not confer the right to live the right to live has already been established when consciousness is established. If you say that only the conscious have the right to life then this can be applied to many post birth humans.

I read your article on sexism and it doesn't make any real arguments merely makes a claim. The claim is a counterfactual generalization and straw man fallacy. It completely ignores the arguments pro lifers make and instead simply fabricates arguments that weren't made. It also assumes that right wingers are inherently sexist which is objectively false. The source also commits the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy or "with this therefore because of this." in english. Even if we assume that if the pro lifers they talk about are sexist, that this is the cause of being pro life. This, again, ignores arguments and instead makes an ad hominem attack on irrelevant character traits.

Next, Frankfurter makes the claim that in order to have the right to life, you must be aware that you are being killed. This is ridiculous. If someone kills a comatose hospital patient, the patient is unaware that they have been killed yet the killer would still be considered a murderer. This ties back to my earlier point about consciousness coming after the right to life which is established at conception. Frankfurter also restates his claim on population control. He makes a claim later in this post that overpopulation is not a myth because there are more births than deaths. He points to a birth and death tracker. This completely ignores all of my previous points about WHY overpopulation isn't a problem. Also, just as a side note about his rant against President Trump, Democrats are doing so poorly that they may fail to take back congress later this year. the black vote is slipping, the millennial vote is slipping. Democrats are in trouble. the Black approval rating of President Trump doubled after the Kanye West "controversy" If Democrats lose the black vote, they will have a hard time winning elections.

In this next point about killing your baby Frankfurter again contradicts himself when he concedes that they are babies being killed. He also misuses the false dichotomy fallacy again. He also again concedes that killing your baby isn't a necessity which shows nothing but bloodlust. If you don't need to kill a human which frankfurter has already conceded they are, but want to do it anyway, that's a problem. He asks "why would you interfere with people you don't know?" because killing babies is wrong and we should stop people from killing their baby.

All of frankfurters next point boils down to parents have the right to kill their baby until it starts to look like a baby. It's DNA and chromosomes that make you human not what you look like. The single cellular zygote is a human life and is thus entitled to the right to life. Just because it's a "bundle of cells' doesn't mean anything. At our core, we're all bundles of cells. We just have more of them than the Zygote. He says there are qualifications to be considered alive. True. and the fetus meets them. I could use my princeton source as usual, but this time I will cite the Lozier institute.

I don't know what my taxes have to do with anything, but I do pay income tax just like everyone else just to name one. In fact, the city that I live in levies an additional tax on income that many cities don't. So odds are I'm paying more taxes than you are. If they go in with a coat hanger, and a ban on abortion passes, this would be considered homicide and most wouldn't risk it.

His paragraph restating his point on overpopulation has already been addressed and the sources I cited last time answer all of his questions. He concludes the paragraph with unfounded ad hominem logical fallacies.

He asks me to name one place where underpopulation is the problem. I never claimed underpopulation was the problem. I claimed that too few babies was the problem. One such place, believe it or not, is China. There is a low birth rate in china according to the source I cited previously, and by 2030 they will be forced to shoulder the burden of an elderly population while having a shrinking work force. This is a major problem. He is correct in saying that it isn't a problem if we do the right things, but killing your babies isn't the right thing because it leads to problems of it's own. (not to mention the baby killing.) If you read my source it talks about other things that are correct to do. Abortion isn't one of them.

He says that I have contradicted myself by when I say "you don't get to decide who gets to live and who has to die based on what you believe." because I am deciding who lives. The default is life. Always. Life continues in most cases in the womb unless we take actions to end it. I advocate for not taking lethal action. This is different from taking a lethal action. Did you call me Mr. Buttinski? What are you? two? Parents don't get to kill their child. That isn't a choice they get to make.

False Dichotomy is when you say that there are only two options when there are more. limiting the number of options while acknowledging the existence of many other options is not false dichotomy. It's pretty close to the opposite actually. puts it like this When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by "either this or that" language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. The "omission of choices part would be if I were to say that abortion is not a possible thing to do. Saying that the choice is morally repugnant and should not be allowed is not pretending it isn't a possible course of action. it is an option, just an evil one. And I don't use that word lightly.

I have in fact provided evidence that the fetus is alive, and my arguments are completely emotionless. I appeal to morality, to science, but not to emotions. Even if I did, using emotions alone is not fallacious. If I said that dead babies are sad therefore vote for me, that would be fallacious reasoning. But I didn't say that. If you think that you're an expert at fallacies think again, I've been studying these for a long time. I know them when I see them and you are misapplying the terms.

Again, I did provide evidence that they were alive, and for another thing, saying that something is a right therefore it should be granted is not circular reasoning. look back at my example, "the fetus has the right to life therefore it has the right to life" is different from " the fetus has the right to life therefore they should be granted that right."

At no point did I say that being poor is a decision in fact, I said the opposite of that. I said "No, being poor is not a poor decision. Being poor then having a child you can't afford is a poor decision." You also keep saying that there are other ways to not have to pay for your child, conceding my point. But then you say that they would need to pay for their child. This is objectively false as I've already shown numerous times throughout this debate. Also, in a capitalist system, the rich to not benefit from everyone else being poor because poor people can't buy their product then they too become poor. It's only in a moneyless system like communism that a government can keep it's citizens poor without consequences.

Frankfurters point on the new deal ignores the source I cited from the Mises institute that outlines exactly how FDR made the depression worse. He also gave the federal government a massive credit card that they've been swiping ever since burying the country in debt. World War Two ended the depression not FDR.

Now that frankfurter got the study from a reliable source he drops all of my arguments about climate change. There's little we can do right now to help the polar bears without driving millions around the world into poverty and severely stunting the growth of developing countries. We need to invest in technology to help. not prevent that technology from being produced by diminishing industry.

Something tells me that we're going to agree on more things in the next round given your outline. but okay.


I think we'll do a "part 2" to this debate, sir. It's just TOO COMPLEX to be discussed in only 50,000 characters. Here I go again. Well, well, well. First, I'll wrap up your incompetent arguments from round 3, than I'll go ahead with round 4. Kind of a potpourri of rebuttals, if you will. Let's go for it.

After you post your link to the thing about FDR and the New Deal, you state that climate change isn't important and that we can't do anything about it. Do you hear what you're saying, sir? Before, you stated that climate change was natural. Now, you concede that it exists. I can catch your slip-ups just as well as you can catch mine, sir. As for what we can do about it- well, the answers are pretty simple. Use less water, less electricity, recycle. Saving energy does not mean we're reducing our economies. It simply means that we're growing our economies. Alternative technology options can't just be found by industry- whatever that means. Are you proposing that we use fossil-fuel powered machines to produce solar panels? That would be like feeding a cow her own milk. Instead, we should use solar panels and wind turbines to power the machines that produce solar panels and wind turbines. The answers are clear, sir. Might I remind you that Democrat Al Gore is a climate change advocate, whereas his opponent, George Bush, Republican, is not. maybe you ought to go see An Inconvenient Truth and awaken to reality. Here's some ways to reduce Climate Change, all of which are sensible:

I looked up Lewis and Curry, sir. Here's some of the first things that came up- some articles disproving their fraudulent claims. Posting a Climate Change skepticism article is like posting a Flat earth article. You can say it, but it isn't true:

The denial of climate change is as insane as the denial of evolution. We can see it happening. To answer your quandary about the Little Ice Age, I'd like to point out the key word- being "little". The Little Ice Age was a colder period after roughly 1500. That was the time when Russians needed fur coats. It was not technically an ice age. It was by no means a severe ice age, such as the one that involved woolly Mammoths. And our continually rising temperatures are not the result of the end of that cold period- to the contrary, if the Little Ice Age is over, which it has been for several centuries, then our temperatures should stay relatively constant, and not rise little by little, each year. You might note that the temperatures started rising near the Industrial Revolution- when coal started being burned. This is not rocket science, sir. You cannot deny the effects of CO2 on our atmosphere. It traps sunlight and makes everything hotter. Here, have a look: Now don't tell me NASA is wrong, OK?

The answer to your second question is simply that you don't need factories to produce CO2. That's like saying you need cavemen who can build a fire for there to be fire. Fire existed before us. We just discovered it. Anyway, you don't need to know how the CO2 got into the atmosphere It probably came from volcanoes or fossil deposits or some other Carbon deposit. All that matters is, it was there, and the Earth was a real hellhole. Not a very nice place to live in. Here, take a look into real science:

My solution of moving is not against the poor. People who are in a dangerous area should move out. They could look for the cheapest apartment possible. They could walk by foot if they wanted to. Of course, a better solution would be to improve slummy neighborhoods and educate them about the danger of guns- but you Repubbos would never do that, would you? Instead of improving Detroit, let's keep it Anarchic and give all the residents guns so they can defend themselves. I see. You're not looking for a solution to the problem. You want to prolong it. Why have poor people move up in life, to better places? Have them fight it out on the streets and kill themselves. How practical- for rich people.

I know that most criminals don't get their guns legally. But making them illegal would be a smart step, really. Think about Meth. You can obtain some- but if a cop sees you with it, he arrests you. That's called INTENT. it doesn't matter if you smoked the Meth or not- all that matters is that you had it and it can do harm to people. Making guns illegal certainly wouldn't keep all criminals from obtaining guns, but it would make finding them a lot harder, and it would make holding one out in the middle of the street a criminal offense. Say our criminal wants to shoot some people up, so he goes to his local gun shop, where he usually gets all his killing machines, but it's closed. Will he be willing to search through the Black Market and risk getting caught? It all depends on how determined he is. What do you think laws are for? They're to stop things from happening. laws can't stop crime. Crime will never come to a complete halt. Laws just REDUCE it.

Do you want more dead people- or less? That's not a loaded question. It's a question that makes perfect sense. It might be loaded up with simple logic- in which case, it's like a gun loaded with bullets. Deadly, and highly effective.

I don't think I've committed any logical fallacies. Maybe an Ad Hominem. maybe not even that- because Ad Hominem fallacies are insults designed to strengthen an argument. I'm not calling you a selfish, greedy jerk to strengthen my argument. That insult has very little to do with my argument. It's not an Ad Hominem, just a plain insult. I think they spice up debates quite a bit. Even if I am making some Ad Hominems, they're the least meaningful fallacies you can point out. You can do better. or can you?

Is Australia an authoritarian government to remove all guns from its citizens? No, it's a great country, and it has a bunch of ruthless outlaws in the Outback who shoot endangered species like kangaroos. Maybe the Government should destroy all its weapons, too, just to reassure people that it's not hiding anything. Or maybe people could just make the choice to be less violent. That'd be nice. And it could happen if people have will power.

I have explained in great detail why all your points are wrong. I expect you to do the same.

The 1980s were a bad period while Ronnie Reagan was in charge. Ever hear the term "Reaganomics?" Look here, I implore you. Wikipedia points out what a loon Ronald was with his Conservative stuff. Look at this. He was a complete failure. Not for rich people, maybe. Look at this. Reaganomics 101:

Now, on to round 4:

I said that a fetus is TECHNICALLY human. It's our species. But it has no emotion, no senses. The eyes and ears don't start working until the fifth month. Would you save an embryo? At some point, it's just a cluster of cells. We don't need more humans. It's wrong to kill an innocent human. It's not wrong to kill something without a fully developed mind that hasn't even been born yet. Once it starts moving around, you shouldn't take it out. Once it can hear and see, you shouldn't take it out. But there's a point where things start living. We just need to find that point. Are you against killing bacteria, for Gosh sakes? There's a point when fetuses are only three inches long. If a mother is fine with having an abortion, and she's positive that she can't support it, and she doesn't want to be forced to bring it into being and then hand it over to somebody else- then it's her choice. After all, she's a rational adult. The fetus is a fetus. I think that the baby would be grateful for dying and not being brought into this lousy world- that way, he won't have to know that Donald Trump exists.

My article on sexism does make a real argument. To ban abortions is to strip a woman of her bodily rights. She should be able to do whatever she wants with her body. The argument is not counterfactual, it is not a Straw Man fallacy. It does not fabricate arguments. It is rational. It makes complete sense. Right wingers are inherently sexist. It's in your ideology. You're Conservative. You like the past. You loved the "Good Old days" when women stayed at home and didn't have careers. Don't you see? Sexism is one of the reasons why people are against abortion. They want the women to have more responsibility.

You should be considered conscious to be considered murdered. In addition, your comatose patient metaphor is irrelevant because comatose patients are grown people with fully developed brains, and they've had lives, and families, and memories. However, your metaphor is somewhat accurate, because if somebody is comatose for too long, they have to be unplugged, because there's simply no hope for them and they're taking up hospital beds. Same with fetuses.

The right to life is established at conception? A fertilized egg cell has the right to live? I'm not sure how you're able to set rules like this. It seems that your argument is based more on belief than on reality.

"The fetus has the right to life therefore it has the right to life" is exactly the same as " the fetus has the right to life therefore they should be granted that right." You do not specify where the right comes from, or whether it is a rational right. You're making things up.

OK. One more round, then part 2. I'll wait.
Debate Round No. 4


The two statements I made, that climate change exists and that it is largely natural are not contradictory. Something needs to exist in order to be natural. Frankfurter makes the claim that stopping people from using electricity and water would actually grow the economy but makes no attempt to prove that claim. He says that new technologies can't be discovered through industry. Let me explain it to you. Restricting industry--> Stunted economy--> less funding for research--> slower development time. The problem with just switching over to 100% renewable energy is that it doesn't produce enough power to meet our demands. This ties into the point I made that you dropped about how passing international laws (which would be required for this to be effective at all.) to make people reduce industry would devastate developing countries. How many people are you willing to impoverish, to literally let die in the developing world just to prevent the planet from getting a infinitesimal amount warmer over the next 100 years?

I read the article you posted and here's my problem with your interpretation. First, your skepticalscience link leads to nothing relevant. Second, your andthenntheresphysics article actually says that what Lewis and curry came up with are possible. The point I'm making, is that there is no big magical consensus. There is real math, real science that can produce real results that show that climate sensitivity isn't that large. I followed some of the non lewis and curry related links in the skeptical science page which made the claim that rising temperatures are bad. It can be. But in order to do anything about it we need real solutions. Not just "shut down everything and hope for the best" that solution would destroy so much that we've worked to achieve over the past centuries. It would impoverish millions around the globe. Instead, we need to be working with the industry we have in order to develop technologies such as the Graphene Sieve that is being developed and can turn saltwater to drinking water. These are the solutions we need.

Also, I know what the little ice age is. The point is, that we're on the tail end of a global cooling period, the little ice age, and we're due for the earth to get warmer anyway. This is not to say that humans have nothing to do with it. I'd wager we have some amount of a hand in rising temperatures. I disagree with your solution and some of the alarmism that has arisen pretending there are no mathematical models which show little climate sensitivity.

The point of my Eocene period argument was to show that the climate changes on its own. After the Eocene period there was a massive cooling period that led to the extinction of many aquatic species. The Earth's temperatures change all of the time. If we want to break the cycle we need the technology to do so.

many poor people can't afford to just quit their job and move out somewhere else. If they could they probably wouldn't choose to live in high crime areas. No one wants to live where there is high crime so if they do it stands to reason that's their last option. You would improve all of these neighborhoods on whose dime exactly? the rich? you can't tax them enough to do that. Secondly, making nicer neighborhoods wouldn't help the poor, it would push them out. Unless you want to magically guarantee them all good jobs (which you can't) they would be priced out of their homes. This process is called gentrification or "making a neighborhood more suitable to middle class tastes." You make a lower class neighborhood a middle class neighborhood and the old population gets priced out.

As for giving people guns, it's like Cesare Beccaria said in his famous essay (this quote is often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson.) Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one. There's a reason that mass shootings happen almost exclusively in gun free zones. If I shoot up a school I'll get a high body count because no one can do anything about it. If I try to shoot up an NRA convention I'll have 50 bullets in me in a matter of seconds. People are far less likely to be confident attacking someone if they think there's a good chance they have a weapon too. and since you already conceded that most criminals don't get their guns legally, it stands to reason that you would only disarm those who don't want to commit crimes. Also, the wealthy don't gain from dead poor people. Dead people can't buy products. The rich have zero motive to want the poor dead.

First, if the criminal is concealing his weapon how would the police know he has one. Stop and frisk? I thought Democrats hated that. Next, driving the few criminals who buy their weapons legally underground will only make them harder to catch. I made this point a lot in a recent public forum debate topic. If a someone buys their gun legally then commits a crime its a hell of a lot easier to find them than if its a gun that they bought from some black market dealer. Secondly, it isn't all that difficult to access the black market just ask any of the drug users you know how hard it is to get some. Also, Making guns illegal would only make illegal firearm dealers more powerful. Similar to the criminal empires that sprung up around booze during prohibition, making things illegal makes dangerous black market dealers more powerful. Just in my dropped point about Australia, many of the people who have illegal guns there aren't criminals. They just want to be able to defend their families. Better to have these people dealing with a Federally registered firearms dealer who's on the up and up than some dealer in a dark alley. it's much safer.

I don't want dead people and just because I disagree with how we can go about getting less dead people doesn't mean that I want more people dead.

Australia is behaving like an authoritarian government when they strip the people of the ability to defend themselves yes. Also, if the government gets rid of all of their weapons then there will be literally no one left to defend people from criminals who get their guns illegally. You would give criminals free reign to take over.

Actually, the economy was booming during the 80's despite Reagan inheriting Jimmy Carters mess.
I don't see Wikipedia as a reliable source.

None of these things you point out confer the right to live. None of them. there is a point when life begins and it's at conception. All science supports this. It is wrong to kill an innocent person even if they can't hear, if they're blind, braindead, emotionally stunted, none of this matters. All living humans have the right to life. No i'm not against killing bacteria because bacteria isn't human. The argument that because something doesn't look like a human therefore it doesn't deserve to live is disgusting. the only thing that determines whether or not something else has the right to live is whether or not it is a living organism that contains the human genome.

A fetus is not a part of anyone's body. A fetus has a completely unique genetic and somatic identity separate from the mother. No one has the right to kill their baby.

Let me explain conservative ideology to you because you clearly don't understand it. Let's look at it with this analogy. A conservative and a liberal buy a field. In this field there is a fence that goes around a part of the field. the liberal says: I don't see why this fence is here so i'm going to tear it out. the conservative says. I don't know why this fence is here. I'm going to find out why, then if I don't need it i'll tear it out. Women can have careers if they want to. That fence was not necessary. The "no killing your babies" fence is necessary so we should keep it.

Again, having a fully developed brain does not confer personhood. Neither of us has a fully developed brain. Killing us is still murder. it isn't up to you or anyone else to decide what kind of life is deserving of preservation and what kind of life is worthless. Because I've already scientifically proven that the fetus is alive. Also, we don't unplug coma patients without either their consent before they fell into one or their guardian. Because they, like all other living humans have the right to live whether or not they're conscious.

I'll answer both of your next questions together. I set the rule and say where the right comes from like this: you're profile says you're Catholic. Same as me. If you follow our doctrines then you believe that these human rights came from God. all of these human rights including the right to life come from the same primordial force.

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman"s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" (Exodus 21:22-25)
Should a Child Conceived as a Result of Rape or Incest Be Aborted?

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16)
"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)


You admitted that climate change exists. But you said that it's largely natural, which is false. I'm not sure what you mean when you state that "something needs to exist in order to be natural," but I can say with absolute certainty that climate change is not natural. It is a real phenomenon, brought about by our burning coal. I am not saying that we need to stop using electricity and water. I never said that. you're using Straw Man. We do not need to stop using electricity and water to stop burning fossil fuels. We simply need to install more wind turbines and solar panels. And we shouldn't produce those wind turbines and solar panels by burning fossil fuels. That would be counterproductive. Solar panels and wind turbines, if installed all over, could absolutely produce sufficient energy. Putting wind turbines and solar panels into developing countries would actually be great for a developing country. One thing a developing country shouldn't have to deal with is pollution. The Earth is not going to become an infinitesimal amount warmer. It's going to be so warm that it will melt all the Polar ice caps and flood most major coastal cities. Here's a map of the United States once all the ice melts: And here's some articles about solar panels and wind turbines. Both of them are efficient and helpful. They release no CO2 and can power homes well.

My SkepticalScience link is incredibly relevant, as it does mention both Lewis and Curry- and says that climate change is very reasonable. My AndThenTheresPhysics link does say that the paper is somewhat PLAUSIBLE, but also says that Lewis and Curry manipulated data to better prove their hypothesis like the shameless frauds that they are. Their paper is only one among thousands which say otherwise, sir. They made their paper for a reason. It has one diabolical purpose. That purpose is to lie.

There is a big consensus, but it is by no means magical. There is real math, and real science. And that science and that math all leads to one undeniable conclusion: that our burning of fossil fuels could spell the end of civilization as we know it. We do need real solutions. One real solution is to stop burning fossil fuels and use alternative energy instead. Do you know why we don't use alternate energy, sir? It's because the oil and fossil fuel industry is run by Republicans, big Corporate execs who would let their planet die for a quick buck. I'll tell you what real science is not, Sir. Real science isn't a denial of real science. Real science cannot be interpreted in more than one way. Real science is not used to prove a hypothesis, but to prove or disprove it. We do not need to stop everything. We simply need to recycle more and stop digging up dinosaur remains. That Graphene Sieve you mentioned does sound nifty. We should also stop burning fossil fuels. That helps too.

You don't know what The Little Ice Age is. The Little Ice Age, sir, is not a true ice age. It was just a cold spell. And the Medieval Warm Period, the period right before it, was warm- but not as warm as it is now, sir. The Earth is at an unprecedented point of warmth. Things are going to be heating up quite a bit from now on- and all because people like you never stopped to listen. We have everything to do with it. Before us, there was no species that burned coal. The climate began to change when WE began to change. You, sir, are ignorant.

If poor people live in a violent area, they should move. That's my solution, sir, in a Republican-controlled economy. My ideal situation would be for a gun ban, and I'd like it if the slums were spruced up a little, with Republican taxpayer money, so that black and lower income families wouldn't need to live in fear of being mauled by gunmen at every second of their lives. But, in a Republican controlled economy, where guns are bought and sold freely, with no rules or restrictions placed upon them- well, I hope that every non-criminal family in the slums finds a better place to live. They probably won't be able to, you're right. I just hope they do. I care about people, you know?

The rich can be taxed enough to improve the sums, but they won't, because rich people want to keep their money. Such is the bizarre, counter-intuitive nature of Capitalism. I think making nicer neighborhoods would help the poor. You wouldn't have to gentrify anything. All it would take is a better, more just police force, some rules on guns, and a few trees. If a family doesn't constantly have to worry for their lives, they might be able to concentrate on getting a job. Gentrification is a choice, sir. You can make a neighborhood more livable without gentrifying it.

I'm glad that Thomas Jefferson didn't say that. If he had, I would have lost some respect for him. Guns are machines designed for killing. Think about what a better place the world would be without them. We're not savages anymore, sir. Have you no civility? There's a reason mass shootings happen in gun free zones. They happen in gun free zones because that particular region isn't free enough of guns. They can still be traded around, on the black market. Think about Colorado, home of the Columbine massacre and the Aurora Theater shooting. It might be a region that's opposed to guns, but they're not illegal. No state has yet made guns illegal. Once a state makes guns illegal, we'll see a big decrease in shootings. Guns are for killing. They are not for defense. You reduce the amount of killing machines sold, less people are killed. It's as simple as that.

You don't decrease the amount of people dead by increasing the amount of killing machines. That's not how it works, sir. people in schools might get shot, but they'll have gone out not as ferocious cowards, but as symbols of the atrocious nature of guns- and every shooting will make Congress change its mind just a bit more, until the killing machines are banned in every single state. Crime will go down. I'd rather keep a criminal alive. I'm not sure why. I think that prison is bad enough. They don't need to get shot at by insane redneck vigilantes.

The wealthy do gain from dead poor people. Dead poor people don't buy products, but they don't provide any competition for rich people. They don't ask for any charity. Rich people wouldn't have to worry if all poor people were dead. that why you give them guns. You know. Like handing booze out to native Americans. They can kill themselves- and you'll be guilt free.

The police can stop and frisk. Metal detectors only take a few seconds. Let's say that the criminal isn't even concealing it, because gun laws are so easy. On the other hand, though, they're pretty hard to conceal. But police need to do a better job of searching places for guns. In places where gun laws are easier, criminals can get their guns easily. Also, police can keep records of past offenders, keep a close eye on all gun owners- there are lots of things they can do to save lives. They can also infiltrate the black market. You make the Black Market sound as if it's a supermarket. Police can easily figure out if anybody is buying anything from a black market. this isn't the days of Al Capone anymore. Forensic Science has gotten better and better, almost perfect- and if it isn't, and people can still easily access the Black Market like you say, then we just need to improve forensic science a little more. It's as easy as that.

Australia is acting like a safe, sane government when they ban killing machines. If the Government gets rid of all their weapons, they won't be giving criminals free reign. remember what I said? there are no guns in my hypothetical situation. I know it might be a hard concept to wrap your puny little mind around, but let's just say that all trade on guns is shut off, and we blow the things into space, where they can never be accessed again, and police can use bows and arrows and other, less dangerous weapons to stop crime. Things will be much, much safer.

Wikipedia is a reliable source. try and vandalize it, and see how quickly your vandalism gets taken down. But you have your doubts- so here's some more articles about Reaganomics. it had nothing to do with Jimmy carter. Reagan made bad choices on his own.

Everything I have pointed out indicates that abortions are a good idea for poor families. You simply won't listen. Life does not begin at conception. Life begins at roughly the fifth month. Before that, the thing inside the mother's womb is a lump of cellular matter. All science supports this. I have never heard of science that says a sperm cell and an egg cell have the "right to live". I've asked you about this "right to live," several times over the course of this debate, and now I can finally see where it comes from. You made a very weak move, sir. very weak indeed. I didn't know this was a religious debate. Instead of relying on facts, or statistics, or real, undeniable science, what do you rely on? Belief, Religion, plain and simple, and quotes from a 2,000 year old book that was written before abortion existed. I'm a Catholic, sir, but a tolerant one, and if a woman isn't a Catholic, or if she doesn't follow the Bible word for word, and if she has trust in her doctors and her own sense of judgment- well, then she can do whatever the Hell she pleases with her uterus. That's not up for you to decide. it never will be. You don't get to decide what life is- especially not by looking at archaic Gospels and declaring them the truth. If you follow nothing but Religion, then you have no mind.

I'll send you part 2 soon. Voters, vote wisely. I'm outta here.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 3 years ago
It is. Why have a child if you're just going to give it away? Most parents would rather stay with their children forever or not have children. Also, adoption doesn't solve overpopulation. You want the orphanages to be stocked up to their brims again, like in Oliver Twist?
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
Not wanting to go through the hassle of putting a child up for adoption is not sufficient to kill your baby.
Posted by frankfurter50 3 years ago
What if she doesn't want to?
Posted by asta 3 years ago
Cons abortion complaint: "Republicans don't support abortion yet they don't support the funds to take care of the child". If a woman can't afford to take care of the child, she can set the kid up for adoption.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.