PDA

View Full Version : [War] Season 5: Debate Section


Lord Celebi
07-14-2006, 03:39 AM
[The WAR Debate Section is now CLOSED. Please come back next year if you wish to debate for WAR Points again.]

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/9641/debate8ou.png

Welcome to the WAR Season 5 Debate Section. Each week, I will introduce a controversial topic for you to defend your views on it valiantly. New Topics will be posted at 12:00 AM ET Late Saturday/Early Sunday.

On the Monday after the topic is introduced, I will make a post detailing where each post excels and fails. There will be no debating the debate judge, because there will be a new topic. If you wish to debate my response to your post, start a new topic. There, I will pwn you with my 1337 h4x0r debate skills.

There will be three points given out in this section. One point for the best post made for the Pro view of the topic and one for the best post made for Anti view of the topic. For example, if the topic was Abortion, the Pro-Life side would get a point and the Pro-Choice would get a point. The final point will be given out to the person that makes the best debate post (If the best is a tie, then the tied winners will each recieve a point).

Why did I make it like this? Because, I can't be accused of being biased if I have to give one point to each side :P

Topics:

Week 1: Cloning (http://pokemonelite2000.com/forum/showpost.php?p=510465&postcount=44)
Week 2: Iraq War (http://pokemonelite2000.com/forum/showpost.php?p=564497&postcount=78)
Week 3: George Bush (http://pokemonelite2000.com/forum/showpost.php?p=564513&postcount=79)
Week 4: Abortion (http://pokemonelite2000.com/forum/showpost.php?p=564520&postcount=80)
Week 5: Ghosts (http://pokemonelite2000.com/forum/showpost.php?p=569323&postcount=98)

Winners:

Week 1: Cloning
-Pro: Kenny
-Anti: DarkUmbreon
-Best Team Effort: La Res

Week 2: Iraq War
-Pro: DarkUmbreon
-Anti: Kenny
-Best Team Effort: La Res

Week 3: George Bush
-Pro: DU
-Anti: Kenny
-Best Team Effort: N/A

Week 4: Abortion
-Pro: Finch
-Anti: N/A
-Best Team Effort: Aqua

Week 5: Ghosts
-Pro: Chaos
-Anti: ChronoPika
-Best Post Overall: Neo Pikachu
-Random Dice Roll: gamedude
-Team Effort (2): Aqua

Awards

Best Debater: DarkUmbreon
Most Improved Debater: Espeon Rinage
Most Active Debater: DarkUmbreon
Overall Best Team Effort: Team Aqua...

Da Rules
1. No Whining (Ex: Nooooo! God is Real!)
2. No Weak Arguements (Ex: Bush is a bad man because my parents said so.)
3. No Flaming/Personal Attacks (Ex: You f*cker!)

Da Punishments
First Offense:
If you whine, you're out of the debate for the week. If you present a weak arguement, you have no chance of getting a point. If you flame or personally attack someone, you're out for 2 weeks.

Second Offense:
If you whine again, you're out of the debate for two weeks. If you present a weak arguement again, you're out of the debate for one week. If you flame or personally attack someone, you're out of the debate forever.

Third Offense:
If you whine for a third time, you're out of the debate forever. If you present a weak arguement a third time, you're out forever.

If Return while you're banned:
If you return while you're out for a week or two or banned, you're team cannot get any points from the debate for the week. If you return and personally attack someone, your team will not be able to get any points from the debate section for the week, AND I will see to it that you are banned.

[The WAR Debate Section is now CLOSED. Please come back next year if you wish to debate for WAR Points again.]

Dakota
07-14-2006, 03:37 PM
I need to commend you. This is a pretty cool idea. You think you'll be able to keep a structured debate on the internet though? Who's to stop the average idiot from coming and not contributing anything but "BUSHH SUXXZORS!!"

Are you guys gonna delete bad posts and give warnings er somethin?

Lord Celebi
07-14-2006, 06:08 PM
I need to commend you. This is a pretty cool idea. You think you'll be able to keep a structured debate on the internet though? Who's to stop the average idiot from coming and not contributing anything but "BUSHH SUXXZORS!!"

Are you guys gonna delete bad posts and give warnings er somethin?

You're not in the war, are you?

Go to the Groups/Clubs section and read up on the War...

Lord Celebi
07-16-2006, 01:37 AM
First Week's Topic:

Cloning

Do you believe that cloning should be legal or illegal?

Sides:
Legalize Cloning: 1 Point
Illegalize Cloning: 1 Point
Best Debater Overall: 1 Point

Incongruity
07-16-2006, 02:50 AM
First of all, let's establish a few obvious, unbiased, and fairly undeniable facts. Currently, cloning is not perfect. Dolly required 277 eggs. Of those, 29 embryos were made. Of those, three lambs were actually born, and of those three lambs, only "Dolly" survived. Hey, try this on humans! Oh wait, that's an obvious ethical dilemma. But then again, the entire argument of cloning has to assume comfortably safe levels of operation, such that damaging of the DNA is prevented, and that minimal eggs (and more importantly, embryos) are "wasted." Otherwise, the verdict would be far too obvious and undebatable. We can take the above as a given, as research and technology for cloning is developing and maturing at a rapid rate, such that by the time cloning becomes a major (as in, major major) issue, it'll have been perfected to reasonable standards Cloning does not (necessarily) mean killing an embryo. Only an unfertilized egg is killed. If that's murder, then so is sexual reproduction, when thousands of sperm are wasted. Cloning can only be murder when the artificially fertilized egg (the female egg which had its sexual DNA removed and replaced with somatic DNA of the potential clone) is unable to fully come to birth, and it is essentially (as in Dolly's case) "wasted" Movies like The Island are completely off-base, in that if we were so advanced that we happened to master both cloning, human psychology, and perfectly integrated computer systems (as shown by the facilities there), we most CERTAINLY would have mastered manipulation of stem cells, such that "whole" beings would not need to be "created," and then "harvested" for parts. Instead, only a liver or a kidney would have to be "grown." (Therapeutic cloning)

Now, there are some obvious issues with cloning. Anyone who's completely comfortable without hesitation when it comes to cloning is either a liar or a heartless bastard. Why? There are obvious secular ramifications, in that we've been so inculcated with literature and cinema that condemns cloning as a practice that would theoretically create "partial" or "second class" humans, that have no true place in society. Not only that, there is something inherently uncomfortable about disrupting the natural process of sexual reproduction. Well, natural for humans that is. I mean, we've all heard of parthenogenesis and my ranting about it when it comes to how women can take over the world. But, that's only in insects. Are humans insects? If I recall correctly, no. So, cloning for us is fairly unnatural.

I mean, just think for a second, without any political biases you may or may not have. If cloning becomes advanced, and we allow it, what will happen to regular sex? I mean, will we just reproduce the best people? And if we move further along, will we splice DNA to make a Gattaca-type dystopia? I mean, let's forget how creepy it could be to adopt yourself as a son/daughter, but think of how (even more) horrible it would be for the "naturally" born, who may be disadvantaged compared to perfect clones! And, let's not forget that we have not fully taken control of nature. We still need a varied gene pool so that we can evolve when necessary. I mean, if we just have two distinct people in the world, and three billion clones of each, a single disease (which would be minor in the highly varied human population today), could wipe out the world! Creepy, no?

And even though I've already established before that there's no point in arguing the current imperfections in cloning technology, at the moment it is ridiculous to waste human life in experiments that may not lead anywhere! Of course, we have to assume that such an argument would be moot when cloning becomes a truly debatable topic (when it's satisfactorily perfected).

Now, let's get to the real thing. Cloning is not only slightly disturbing in general, it just goes against some major religions! I mean, who are humans to take the place of God in the proliferation of humankind? Who are we to play God? Does anyone remember last time we tried to do imitate God? Yeah, it's called Tower of Babel. Genesis 11, check it out. Obviously, God doesn't want us to let our pride consume us. Last time, we lost our ability to naturally communicate. I daresay that cloning may piss him off slightly more? And if you don't believe in God, so what? More than 50% of the world seems to believe in some version of this Biblical parable. Admittedly not all of them will be against cloning, but not all non-Jewish non-Christian non-Muslim people will be for it either.


Unfortunately, while I'm not a religious person nor a slave to anti-cloning literature, I amcreeped out by cloning, which is why it saddens me to see that there is actually very little substance (aside from religion and general creepiness) to use against cloning.




I mean, think about it, there's a strong argument for cloning out there. The thing is, you're not killing anyone (except yourself). And sadly, the only case other than religious beliefs and general sentiment is that cloning is murder. Of course, this is a flawed belief.

-Extract egg. This isn't killing anyone. If anything, it's killing an egg cell. So what, you kill hundreds of skin cells a day. As I said earlier, thousands of sperm are lost in sexual reproduction. A non-fertilized egg cell is no different.
-Remove original sexual DNA. This isn't killing anyone. While disturbing, it's just removing DNA.
-Replace with patient's somatic [body] DNA. Nope. Again, while creepy, it's not murder.
-Allow that asexually "fertilized" "embryo" to either grow in the womb of a "mother." This is the creepiest part of cloning, but if cloning technology is "perfected," there should be no "casualties." Of course, there's something inherently strange about creating a younger clone of someone, whether the original is living or dead.
-OR "kill" it, take its stem cells and let them grow into an organ in you. Of course, this is what's most debated. The thing is, though, you're not really killing any human. You're killing yourself. This isn't like a son or daughter, this is YOU. Or, except for the mitochondria, it's YOU. You're then killing two separate things, yourself, and someone else's mitochondria. But then again, you could kill thousands of cells and many thousands of mitochondria just by touching them and rubbing some skin off. So no, how anyone could classify the usage of embryonic stem cells (which are one's own) as "murder" is absolutely preposterous. You're not even killing a potential real human, as it's not someone unborn, that embryo is already born, as YOU. There's no potential Einstein that you're using to make your replacement liver (and note, ONLY replacement liver. The stem cells are harvested from the embryo, which at that point is little more than a small conglomeration of cells with no superficial resemblance to a human, no sentience, and no independence. The stem cells would presumably be made into a LIVER, NOT a human which is then harvested for a liver) You're not killing a full-grown human, you're killing an embryo of yourself, which isn't even noticably yourself yet. The only thing that's NOT you is the mitochondria; if killing mitochondria is a felony, it looks we're all genocidal murderers.

And the thing is, there are several legitimate uses for therapeutic cloning. I mean, we love medicine right? We love new medical research, ways to be healthy, and all that! So wouldn't a new kidney, new liver, or dare I say, new lung be a great thing? Organ transplants are suddenly far less complicated. In addition, research of cloning should almost definitely provide us with better information concerning human genetics in general. What, you don't want to replace that part of your heart you lost in a heart attack? Not only that, infertile parents could have offspring (that is, if we master DNA splicing too). Of course, this and all medicine disrupts the natural process in that we're essentially outpacing Darwin, or more pessimistically, delaying our inevitable extinction to such a point that when it comes it will be swift and unforeseen. Unless, humanity's natural advantage (which allowed it to be "naturally selected" over other hominoid species) is its intelligence, which would lead to such "artificial" processes). But, I think we can all agree that not all of humanity's intellectual developments have been absolutely beneficial. See: Gunpowder, Atlantic Slave Trade, Industrial Revolution, Nuclear weaponry)

However, cloning does remain seemingly beneficial on the most basic level, in that it will improve health care. Of course, the instant availability of identical organs could discourage people from living rigorously healthy lives, but the availability of casts and crutches doesn't seem to encourage breaking bones, so it should all be fine.

The only flaw with the pro-cloning argument is that it looks at cloning from a stance which ignores all natural emotion! It is very natural to feel somewhat uncomfortable about cloning. To highlight the benefits of cloning and to denounce the criticisms of it while ignoring the inherent hesitation one should feel is just blinding oneself.




I still oppose cloning (especially reproductive cloning to create a full human), but simply because it is just weird and unnatural. The unseen consequences are far too much to risk, while I see very few benefits of whole-human reproduction (aside from temporary appeasement for those who recently lost a loved one). Therapeutic cloning is a far more tricky issue, in that it shares some of the generally uneasy feelings that come with reproductive cloning, but at the same time, it offers a lot while having a weaker case against it.

Kenny_C.002
07-16-2006, 03:52 AM
There are currently three types of cloning in the scientific world:
1. Recombinant DNA cloning
2. Reproductive cloning
3. Therapeutic cloning

Recombinant DNA cloning is exactly how it sounds. It is the duplication of DNA fragments from an organism and transplanting it to another organism (usually bacteria) via the use of plasmids. Recombinant DNA cloning is considered to be ethical and is widely used in the scientific community.

Reproductive cloning had been described in excruciating detail by sk, thus I will ignore its explanation. This goes for the same in Therapeutic cloning.

Of the cloning possibilities, it is easy to get caught in the controversy with its ethical dilemma, but it is clear that cloning is an important part of the scientific community, medicine, and thus humanity in all. It would be foolish to think that we can ban cloning altogether and be against it.

First, the undisputed argument of recombinant DNA cloning. The technique itself does not go against any and all ethical standards. We take DNA from humans (which is not killing a human), isolate their DNA (which is not killing anything, unless you're using live cells), isolate the important strand of DNA (which does not kill anything, since we're using restriction enzymes), put that into a plasmid (again, plasmids are just DNA rings), insert them into bacteria (which does not kill the bacteria), and let the bacteria reporduce to clone the DNA fragment. This entire procedure does not endanger any lives, and is by no ethical standards morally wrong.

The benefits of this recombinant DNA technology is so useful nowadays that it is now indispensible. Insulin is currently made, tailored to each person, via this technology. Many other organic molecules for medicinal needs can also be produced in a similar fashion.

Not only that, recombinant DNA technology allows for research in the scientific community using bacteria and not have to endanger lives.

Gene therapy, another important medical application of recombinant DNA, is also tested under recombinant DNA technology, so we don't have to risk lives. Simply said, recombinant DNA is effective, moral, and useful. It is too useful to discard just because it is cloning.


Therapeutic cloning has more problems going for it, as we are not using stem cells and what not to produce an organ. Again, no ethical issues when this is perfected. According to medical directions, the fertilized egg must be at least in the implantation stage before it is considered a life, and thus the harvesting of stem cells for use of regenerating organs and more importantly the nervous system, far outweights the "ethical issues" presented in sk's argument.

Finally, reproductive cloning is currently highly inefficient and is the most controversial of cloning (it is also the most well known form of cloning, not to mention the main reason why people would even bother go against cloning). As of now, there are few animals that have undergone cloning, and many problems are associated with it. For example, cloning cannot deal with the problem that telomeres shorten with age. This means that the cloned organism ages faster, as their starting age is literally the age of the original donor. The associated problems of such a cloning technique certainly is unethical? It would depend on the point of view. First of all, the technique itself is not killing humans or organisms. The problem here is the aftermath of the technique, as the death rate is so high and thus terribly inefficient and imperfect. But if the cloning process is perfected, then there would not be any ethical issues in that aspect.

On the plus side, infertile couples can finally have a child they dream for. Of course, this also comes in with the fear of the ability to essentially clone any person, and thus create a potential storm of the hypothetical scenerio that sk proposed. However, with strict regulations to limit cloning down to strictly embryonic cloning, this can all be avoided. Thus the social and economical impacts of cloning is then minimized.

In light of this information, it would be a true wonder why cloning should be banned.

Lord Celebi
07-16-2006, 03:56 AM
:clap:

Marvelous posts, guys. I'd love to come in the debate... but I'm judge.

I might debate in the slower weeks to get things going...

Espeon Rinage
07-16-2006, 10:02 AM
Cloning, It shouldn't be allowed. We humans are natural creatures, cloning would just be wrong, It also wouldn't be fair on the clones, think about rasism and how serious it is, we could be looking at an even worse form of that. Cloning would be also wrong in the form that it isnt even perfected yet, they still have alot to go, it's taking up alot of time, while we should be out trying to cure other desieses and knock down polution, insted we are making more humans to pollute. The clones them selfes could feel upset, like a freak of nature, wishing they had real parents, reggreting who they are. They probibly could't even make there own personality or brain, the scientists would have to do that. All the testing is costing alot of money, while it could be used in alot better areas.

OCC: Sorry that its short, but im not that good.

Kenny_C.002
07-16-2006, 03:43 PM
Cloning, It shouldn't be allowed. We humans are natural creatures, cloning would just be wrong, It also wouldn't be fair on the clones, think about rasism and how serious it is, we could be looking at an even worse form of that.

Under strict regulations and procedures, cloning would not cause any form of racism, as likely nobody except the officials and the parents would know that they are clones. Recall that clones, once perfected, would look normal, and would be difficult to determine. This is analogous in even the anime world, where in Gundam SEED, one of the main characters had always been a "genetically engineered" person, but was raised as a "natural". This caused no suspicion to anybody, and thus this character was treated equally like everyone else, even when there was such racism against these "genetically engineered" people. Again, the racism portion in the actual anime itself would have been completely prevented if there were strict regulations and procedures to begin with.

Cloning would be also wrong in the form that it isnt even perfected yet, they still have alot to go, it's taking up alot of time, while we should be out trying to cure other desieses and knock down polution, insted we are making more humans to pollute.

Again, this only applies to reproductive cloning. Cloning technology can be used for medical purposes, and thus it would be foolish to stop everything now, especially when we already have put so much time and effort into it.

Pollution is an economic problem, not a scientific problem. The areas of the world where pollution is highest (being third world countries) cannot have access to cloning techniques due to its potential cost. Therefore, cloning will have minimal impact on pollution on the whole.

The clones them selfes could feel upset, like a freak of nature, wishing they had real parents, reggreting who they are. They probibly could't even make there own personality or brain, the scientists would have to do that. All the testing is costing alot of money, while it could be used in alot better areas.

Clones are like you an I, except they have the same genetic makeup as another person. This is analogous to identical twins, where their personality do not have to be "programmed" into them. They indeed have real parents, as they are just clones of the original, and thus the parents of the original will also be the parents of the clone. This brings up the point that cloning can be used to "revive" people who die prematurely. The amount of pain and suffering to the family can be alleviated by cloning techniques. Also, again cloning itself has much to offer in terms of medical impact. Simply discarding cloning as a whole is rather stupid.

DaRkUmBrEoN
07-16-2006, 05:26 PM
Iíve read a book once, fiction of course, which portrayed the life of a 16 year old girl from first person point of view. She had normal parents, whom she shared many attributes and interests with, but suddenly she developed an interest in rock climbing. Her parents immediately wondered where she had gotten the urge to scale hundreds of feet rock cliff by bare hands and feet. However, it wasnít the dangerous aspect of rock climbing that appalled them; it was the costs attached to it.

In this book, everyone has a part of their biological parents in them along with some attributes of societyís most perfect individuals. Thanks to cloning, scientist could unravel the many mysteries encased into our DNA, thus being able to predict almost every thing ranging from personality to aptitude. Ignoring the current nature versus nurture debate, we could safely say that in the hypothetical case of nature winning, the above example could become a problem.

Why, you ask? Well, because the girl in the book ends up with a lot of psychological issues sprouting from the realization that something had gone wrong. She had strongly believed for 16 years that she had been born normally, but that was proved to be a lie. The costs to repair the psychological damage would be enormous, if the girl hadnít done herself in at the end.

My point being, if cloning was allowed, would you tell your children that they were made by taking an egg cell and stuffing it with your DNA into a womb, human or artificial. Look at the problems in nowadaysí society with children growing up without their biological parents, and the problems they face when they discover that the people they called mom and dad for so long, didnít have a sexual relationship leading to their birth. Societyís burden would be heavily increased, which isnít a good thing in the present individualistic mindset of most people.

Cloning could, as mentioned before, lead to insight in the human genome, making it easy for us to navigate with our map of DNA. Of course, diseases could be cured, but wouldnít a fallacy be to presume new ones could be cured so easily? AIDS has proved this to us, as well as the common cold. Weíve got cures for what not, and if we map the human genome thanks to extensive practice of cloning, we could easily ban almost all the genetically inherited diseases, and some other ones. However, it would only take one randomly mutated virus, and we would be back at the drawing board.

That aside, do you really think that religious zealots like the current assumed head of the free world George W. Bush would let this slide so easily? We are talking about shattering the cornerstone of society, or whatís left it.

As for SKís notion:

Of course, the instant availability of identical organs could discourage people from living rigorously healthy lives, but the availability of casts and crutches doesn't seem to encourage breaking bones, so it should all be fine.

Do you know why casts and crutches donít seem to encourage? Itís because they are instruments to aid your bodyís natural healing ability. We all know that you wonít die from a broken leg; it will only be uncomfortable for six weeks, and after that itíll either leave a scar on your body or a scar on your memories. Unlike the implementations of identical organs, it is easy to oversee, but those rigorously healthy lives are not for the filthy rich. Even now they can permit more luxuries stuff than the ordinary citizens can.

Firstly, it would cost massive storage space to store a private collection of organs for each human being on the face of this earth, already counting 6 billion and over. Weíre overcrowded as it is, and unless we can find an unpopulated Homeworld, I strongly think that we can just do this unashamedly.

Secondly, if you decide to clone specific organs, you must note that some can only be preserved for a limited amount of time. Meaning that if you ever got hit by a car, and you had to get a new heart ASAP, you would probably die. Because, cloning something as complicated as a heart would require at least 72 hours in a best case scenario. As for stem cells, who knows? But I canít imagine my health plan covering something as expensive and time consuming for something bordering on worst case scenario. Even then, a stem cell canít do much, unless youíre attached to a heart-lung machine, which could leave you in coma for quite awhile, because you need to grow various layers of tissue. Even babies take a relaxed vacation spanning 9 months generally to do the same thing.

Thirdly, like in the scenario SK mentioned in the movie ĎThe Islandí, rich people have living insurances. Only problem is, what would the peasant gain when cloning? Sure, they can get kids, even if he or she is incapable of activating the growth of a zygote. I Is there anything besides that? No, donít think so. Basically this means that whatever additional benefits cloning may have, they will be limited to the reasonably rich for quite awhile. Of course, if I was the head of a company researching cloning, I would like to regain my investments as soon as possible. Agreed, this happened when developing the car, but there were horses, boats, and trains at that time, and you could always walk around. With health care, normal people donít have that luxury.

Basically, my all-round point is: while cloning may be okay for simple medical practices, all the additional benefits will be limited to the upper class of society for a long while. My case being that cloning should be allowed, but prohibited for commercial use until it is reasonably cost efficient. How to do that would be another story, but thatís more political than social.

Kenny_C.002
07-16-2006, 06:14 PM
The start of DU's arguments dealt with arguments AGAINST cloning, and thus I will address the issues there.

My point being, if cloning was allowed, would you tell your children that they were made by taking an egg cell and stuffing it with your DNA into a womb, human or artificial. Look at the problems in nowadays’ society with children growing up without their biological parents, and the problems they face when they discover that the people they called mom and dad for so long, didn’t have a sexual relationship leading to their birth. Society’s burden would be heavily increased, which isn’t a good thing in the present individualistic mindset of most people.

And interesting dilemma with adoption is this: they either die due to a lack of an adoption, or have a 50% chance at actually having a normal life (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16832325&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum). In the light of this argument, adoption and cloning therefore now cannot be considered analogous to each other. Also, there is generally problems in terms of communication between everybody else and the family with adopted children (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16719423&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum). Simply said, the 50% is likely much higher if people realize that communication is that iportant to the children. However, this is still an analogy that cannot be used for reproductive cloning.

In terms of reproductive cloning, the line blurs. Birth without the act of sexual intercourse is already possible in these parts of the world via artificial insemination. In that case, you're saying that these children are supposed to have a burden? No. The mother still gave birth to the child. And in reproductive cloning, the mother still gave birth to the child.

Cloning could, as mentioned before, lead to insight in the human genome, making it easy for us to navigate with our map of DNA. Of course, diseases could be cured, but wouldn’t a fallacy be to presume new ones could be cured so easily? AIDS has proved this to us, as well as the common cold. We’ve got cures for what not, and if we map the human genome thanks to extensive practice of cloning, we could easily ban almost all the genetically inherited diseases, and some other ones. However, it would only take one randomly mutated virus, and we would be back at the drawing board.

Virus studies have nothing to do with genetic studies. The ability to study and correct genetic diseases have no impact on diseases such as viruses, bacteria, etc. This argument is invalidate for the against side. (DU, you're for, so it doesn't matter for you.)

That aside, do you really think that religious zealots like the current assumed head of the free world George W. Bush would let this slide so easily? We are talking about shattering the cornerstone of society, or what’s left it.

This has nothing to do with cloning. The administration of the United States have no right to put religion with state to begin with. Again, it is religious zealots working their muscle against cloning using codes such as "morality" to deceive the ignorant masses. And don't get me started on mitochrondrial eve.

DU's arguments for problems with society for cloning I have discussed, and the only solution is to use rigorous and strict regulations. DU is FOR cloning, and thus I have no additional comments.

Crossfire Chaos
07-16-2006, 07:37 PM
This topic is only on cloning in general, therefore I do not have to address human cloning at all.

Now cloning never actualy kills anything. (unless there is some sort of freak accident) So with that aside, any "ethical" issues with breading perfect creatures and some accidentaly destroyed before birth (and "life") has no ground to stand on.

Think of it this way, you could take one specific creature that has special traits that either make it a great source of food, energy, nuitrition or some other product. And then you could clone it and make a whole line of specific "supercreatures" that could be used for those resources. Leaving the rest of the species intact and fine and not driven to the brink of extinction. Humans could benifit with healthier food, tastier food or medicinal food (such as (soon or present, not sure) cow-milk that gives anti-bodies and medicine to humans who milk it.

Also cloning can be used to right the mistakes mankind has done in it's past by bringing back a species that died as a result of human growth.

For the record, I am FOR Cloning.

Sleepy Sheep
07-16-2006, 07:52 PM
Cloning, illegal or legal never actually got us anywhere.

You could see things splattered over newspapers, saying a scientist cloned...Chompy the Goat. Bad example, but one in the least. How much recognition do they actually get? I believe more than science comes into play.

Why do you think animal clones ended up dieing a short period of time later? All of God's creatures are completley indivudal creatures. What does this have to do with anything, you ask? Alot, actually. God can give and take lives, he is the only one and he does it all for a reason. Scientists have struggled for years to clone dogs, cats, sheep and other animals, to find their creations die. I never found cloning very impressive anyway, because obviously, cloning was never meant to be.

So, illegal, because it is not right, and through my eyes, quite pointless.

Kenny_C.002
07-16-2006, 07:53 PM
Think of it this way, you could take one specific creature that has special traits that either make it a great source of food, energy, nuitrition or some other product. And then you could clone it and make a whole line of specific "supercreatures" that could be used for those resources. Leaving the rest of the species intact and fine and not driven to the brink of extinction. Humans could benifit with healthier food, tastier food or medicinal food (such as (soon or present, not sure) cow-milk that gives anti-bodies and medicine to humans who milk it.

Also cloning can be used to right the mistakes mankind has done in it's past by bringing back a species that died as a result of human growth.


First argument there. This is considered to be GMO, which is by itself a controversy.

Second: cloning cannot revive extinct species, as we do not have suitable lifeforms that have the exact same gene transcription mechanisms (i.e. the stuff inside the egg outside of the whole DNA molecule) as extinct species. That means you can't clone humans with sheep eggs, nor can you clone a sabertooth tiger with a lion's egg.

Cloning, illegal or legal never actually got us anywhere.

For the record, cloning allowed for diabetics to survive, and allowed for gene therapy to be possible.

You could see things splattered over newspapers, saying a scientist cloned...Chompy the Goat. Bad example, but one in the least. How much recognition do they actually get? I believe more than science comes into play.

I'm thinking you're talking about Dolly the sheep, which they have gained recognition for the first successfully cloned sheep in the world. How would you know if more than science came into play?

Why do you think animal clones ended up dieing a short period of time later? All of God's creatures are completley indivudal creatures. What does this have to do with anything, you ask? Alot, actually. God can give and take lives, he is the only one and he does it all for a reason. Scientists have struggled for years to clone dogs, cats, sheep and other animals, to find their creations die. I never found cloning very impressive anyway, because obviously, cloning was never meant to be.

The reason they die quickly is mainly due to the telomere shortening. Religion has no place in cloning. Cloning has important medical implications. Banning it would be foolish.

So, illegal, because it is not right, and through my eyes, quite pointless.

How is it not right? Nothing in the process of reproductive cloning is morally wrong, so how is it not right? Faith and religion? If I can get past things with weak arguments like that, I would have been a millionaire by now, because my religion says that I must have at least 1 million dollars in my bank account.

Pointless? Without cloning, more people suffer. This miracle (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm22in.html) would have never gone off the ground to the state we're in, without cloning.

Sleepy Sheep
07-16-2006, 07:56 PM
First argument there. This is considered to be GMO, which is by itself a controversy.

Second: cloning cannot revive extinct species, as we do not have suitable lifeforms that have the exact same gene transcription mechanisms (i.e. the stuff inside the egg outside of the whole DNA molecule) as extinct species. That means you can't clone humans with sheep eggs, nor can you clone a sabertooth tiger with a lion's egg.

That's mainly because they don't have the same DNA. You'd have to go through an entirely different process to bring back an extinct animal, in which case would never happen. The became extinct for a reason, and again, God let that happen for a reson.

Kenny_C.002
07-16-2006, 08:04 PM
That's mainly because they don't have the same DNA. You'd have to go through an entirely different process to bring back an extinct animal, in which case would never happen. The became extinct for a reason, and again, God let that happen for a reson.

Source? If you're so solid on gene regulation and the like, give me some source. Mine would be "The Molecular Biology of the Cell" 4th ed. by Alberts et al.

Again, religion is a weak argument.

DaRkUmBrEoN
07-16-2006, 08:28 PM
And interesting dilemma with adoption is this: they either die due to a lack of an adoption, or have a 50% chance at actually having a normal life (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16832325&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum). In the light of this argument, adoption and cloning therefore now cannot be considered analogous to each other. Also, there is generally problems in terms of communication between everybody else and the family with adopted children (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16719423&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum). Simply said, the 50% is likely much higher if people realize that communication is that iportant to the children. However, this is still an analogy that cannot be used for reproductive cloning.My point was asking how you would feel when you found out that you were a product ordered by society. Look at the problem adopted children have nowaday. Besides, that second link is completely biased, since it only did research with 10 adopting and 55 biological families. It's completely unsignificant.

In terms of reproductive cloning, the line blurs. Birth without the act of sexual intercourse is already possible in these parts of the world via artificial insemination. In that case, you're saying that these children are supposed to have a burden? No. The mother still gave birth to the child. And in reproductive cloning, the mother still gave birth to the child. At least these children don't have the burden on them of - when they find out what happened - to be perfect. If you start cloning, you could give the child the unsubconcious message that it needs to be perfect. If the child doens't live up to these expectations, it could feel depressed and suffer the consequences.

Virus studies have nothing to do with genetic studies. The ability to study and correct genetic diseases have no impact on diseases such as viruses, bacteria, etc. This argument is invalidate for the against side. (DU, you're for, so it doesn't matter for you.)
Aids, more exactly the HIV-virus, links to a specific antigen on the white blood cells. Now if we could genetically disable this antigen, we wouldn't be able to get HIV, let stand AIDS, until it mutates.

This has nothing to do with cloning. The administration of the United States have no right to put religion with state to begin with. Again, it is religious zealots working their muscle against cloning using codes such as "morality" to deceive the ignorant masses. And don't get me started on mitochrondrial eve. As long as a good portion of the world listens to some kind of religious believe, there's no way in getting out of that line of thinking.

DU's arguments for problems with society for cloning I have discussed, and the only solution is to use rigorous and strict regulations. DU is FOR cloning, and thus I have no additional comments.For the record, I'm AGAINST, but with limitations.

Crossfire Chaos
07-16-2006, 08:28 PM
My source was Popular Science Magazine 02/06. In it it had an arcticle on cloning extinct animals. Now, they were talking about cloning a Tasmanian Tiger. It said that in order to have a suragate mother for it the mother had to be of a "cousin" species. Namely the Tasmanian Devil. The only big problem is reconstructing the degraded DNA so that it is truest to the original animal.

So you are wrong Kenny. It is possible to clone extinct animals as long as there is a very similar species to them, and it has to be able to contain and release something as big as the animal you are trying to clone. (However you were right when you said we cannot clone humans with sheep eggs and sabertooth tigers with lion eggs. Sabertooth's cannot be cloned though because nothing is close enough in relation to be a suitable surragate mother or egg cell.)

Kenny_C.002
07-16-2006, 08:48 PM
My point was asking how you would feel when you found out that you were a product ordered by society. Look at the problem adopted children have nowaday. Besides, that second link is completely biased, since it only did research with 10 adopting and 55 biological families. It's completely unsignificant.

Thus you are agreeing with my first argument. Thank you.

At least these children don't have the burden on them of - when they find out what happened - to be perfect. If you start cloning, you could give the child the unsubconcious message that it needs to be perfect. If the child doens't live up to these expectations, it could feel depressed and suffer the consequences.

Expectations of being perfect? Clones are clones, they are supposed to be a duplicate of a person. People are not perfect, and thus there is no expectation of perfection.

Aids, more exactly the HIV-virus, links to a specific antigen on the white blood cells. Now if we could genetically disable this antigen, we wouldn't be able to get HIV, let stand AIDS, until it mutates.

That is still in the realm of immunology, and not genetics. Antigen modifications are too difficult to manipulate through genetics.

As long as a good portion of the world listens to some kind of religious believe, there's no way in getting out of that line of thinking.

And it has already been said that state should separate from church for many years now. This is one case.

My source was Popular Science Magazine 02/06. In it it had an arcticle on cloning extinct animals. Now, they were talking about cloning a Tasmanian Tiger. It said that in order to have a suragate mother for it the mother had to be of a "cousin" species. Namely the Tasmanian Devil. The only big problem is reconstructing the degraded DNA so that it is truest to the original animal.

Correct. This is due to the pool of mRNA being similar enough to the actual species themselves. I'm sorry, as I should have said "extinct species that have no close cousins". However, as you said, the problem presented is a very large problem.

Sleepy Sheep
07-16-2006, 10:51 PM
My source was Popular Science Magazine 02/06. In it it had an arcticle on cloning extinct animals. Now, they were talking about cloning a Tasmanian Tiger. It said that in order to have a suragate mother for it the mother had to be of a "cousin" species. Namely the Tasmanian Devil. The only big problem is reconstructing the degraded DNA so that it is truest to the original animal.

So you are wrong Kenny. It is possible to clone extinct animals as long as there is a very similar species to them, and it has to be able to contain and release something as big as the animal you are trying to clone. (However you were right when you said we cannot clone humans with sheep eggs and sabertooth tigers with lion eggs. Sabertooth's cannot be cloned though because nothing is close enough in relation to be a suitable surragate mother or egg cell.)


Yes, but then wouldn't that DNA create another Tasmanian Devil? Cloning is creating an exact copy, so it would make a replicate of the source of the DNA. Namely, another Tasmanian Devil.

Kenny_C.002
07-16-2006, 11:37 PM
Yes, but then wouldn't that DNA create another Tasmanian Devil? Cloning is creating an exact copy, so it would make a replicate of the source of the DNA. Namely, another Tasmanian Devil.
As long as the inserted DNA is a geniune Tasmanian Tiger DNA, in theory it should work in creating a tasmanian tiger, as the rest of the machinery in the egg cell is similar enough to work.

Crossfire Chaos
07-16-2006, 11:50 PM
The Tasmanian Tiger is cloned because the DNA is the same as the Tasmanian Tiger the once did live. It will not create another Tasmanian Devil because the DNA is not of a Tasmanian Devil.

Incongruity
07-17-2006, 01:29 PM
Iíve read a book once, fiction of course, which portrayed the life of a 16 year old girl from first person point of view. She had normal parents, whom she shared many attributes and interests with, but suddenly she developed an interest in rock climbing. Her parents immediately wondered where she had gotten the urge to scale hundreds of feet rock cliff by bare hands and feet. However, it wasnít the dangerous aspect of rock climbing that appalled them; it was the costs attached to it.

In this book, everyone has a part of their biological parents in them along with some attributes of societyís most perfect individuals. Thanks to cloning, scientist could unravel the many mysteries encased into our DNA, thus being able to predict almost every thing ranging from personality to aptitude. Ignoring the current nature versus nurture debate, we could safely say that in the hypothetical case of nature winning, the above example could become a problem.

Why, you ask? Well, because the girl in the book ends up with a lot of psychological issues sprouting from the realization that something had gone wrong. She had strongly believed for 16 years that she had been born normally, but that was proved to be a lie. The costs to repair the psychological damage would be enormous, if the girl hadnít done herself in at the end.

My point being, if cloning was allowed, would you tell your children that they were made by taking an egg cell and stuffing it with your DNA into a womb, human or artificial. Look at the problems in nowadaysí society with children growing up without their biological parents, and the problems they face when they discover that the people they called mom and dad for so long, didnít have a sexual relationship leading to their birth. Societyís burden would be heavily increased, which isnít a good thing in the present individualistic mindset of most people.

That's not actual cloning though. That's DNA splicing (which is disgusting, because if EVERYONE has certain genes, it's semi-incest with everybody. Or did I just blow your mind). If we actually happen to manage DNA splicing so that we can actually achieve that kind of thing, well that's an incredible notion with which to start off a novel, no matter how fictitious; but again, I make the notion that if we have managed to master the human genome to such an extent that we can literally create the utopian human, why haven't we mastered human psychology so that there would be no mad-at-my-dad emo kids?

I agree with you on the notion that clones would indeed feel out of place, but that wasn't the proper example. But I get your general idea, and I agree. Children who are born of that kind of genetic manipulation will feel awkward, especially if they're just a "second," or possibly, a "third," of someone who already exists or existed. Even younger siblings feel as if they're in the shadow of their older sibling. Imagine that for clones. Oh, what are you gonna do, separate them? What's the point of that? What is the POINT of reproductive cloning if you keep them miles away so psychological problems don't develop. The way I see it, there are two options. Imprison these clones as false vessels to be extracted whenever you want, which is both unnecessary and atrocious, OR, use these clones as a "replacement" for an early death (whether it be from an accident or from a birth defect). But EVEN THEN, they would feel awkward and out of place, and then utterly crushed when they hear they're just a replacement. But this is assuming we're talking about cloning and not mastery of the human genome.

Cloning could, as mentioned before, lead to insight in the human genome, making it easy for us to navigate with our map of DNA. Of course, diseases could be cured, but wouldnít a fallacy be to presume new ones could be cured so easily? AIDS has proved this to us, as well as the common cold. Weíve got cures for what not, and if we map the human genome thanks to extensive practice of cloning, we could easily ban almost all the genetically inherited diseases, and some other ones. However, it would only take one randomly mutated virus, and we would be back at the drawing board.

Oh, no no no. I actually support the DNA studying that comes from cloning research. But as Kenny said, DNA study would help against genetic "defects" as they are called. And of course, the human genome might actually mutate, but what's the point of not stopping a previous defect? You can either have five defects now and one later, or five defects now and twenty later. Whether or not you attempt to cure a "defect," mutations will always occur anyways, so there's no point in just giving up on medical treatment.

That aside, do you really think that religious zealots like the current assumed head of the free world George W. Bush would let this slide so easily? We are talking about shattering the cornerstone of society, or whatís left it.

Religious zealots? Please, even very secular people would feel uncomfortable about bypassing nature to such an extreme extent. And as I said before, judeo-christian religions do seem to have a reason not to support cloning

As for SKís notion:



Do you know why casts and crutches donít seem to encourage? Itís because they are instruments to aid your bodyís natural healing ability. We all know that you wonít die from a broken leg; it will only be uncomfortable for six weeks, and after that itíll either leave a scar on your body or a scar on your memories. Unlike the implementations of identical organs, it is easy to oversee, but those rigorously healthy lives are not for the filthy rich. Even now they can permit more luxuries stuff than the ordinary citizens can.

Uh, what? What? My point was that some people would suggest that having organs fresh and available would encourage people to live dangerously, because there are always extras. That would be a point someone would inevitably bring up, because people also seem to suggest that condoms encourage rampant sex, because STDs won't happen. It's not true. Medical care is always a "backup" in the human psyche. Do you go out naked in the rain and then into an air-conditioned office building just so you can get a cold, which is okay because there is medicine for that? Does anyone really like getting treated? No! Even though there is medicine for everything, it doesn't encourage the maladies that are cured, so new organs wouldn't do that either.

Firstly, it would cost massive storage space to store a private collection of organs for each human being on the face of this earth, already counting 6 billion and over. Weíre overcrowded as it is, and unless we can find an unpopulated Homeworld, I strongly think that we can just do this unashamedly.

What? If I recall correctly, only the rich people would have this anyways, because unless we happened to master cloning so that it became readily available, only the upper middle class would be able to afford it. Ethically wrong? Well, not everyone can have medicine either. I support therapeutic cloning to an extent, so I have to clarify that we probably wouldn't be storing mass organs. I mean, people would probably store the stem cells alone, and then differentiate them into tissue/organ later, but obviously, that would take space too. Honestly tho, this would be a special service available only to those who could afford it (or had health care providers willing to pay for it; hey, if you live longer, you pay more premiums!). I mean, third-world countries barely get necessary first aid supplies, it's impractical to even consider that they would get cloning. It may be unethical to just not give it to them, but it's quixotic to think that advanced (scientific codeword for expensive) medical technologies would be widespread

Secondly, if you decide to clone specific organs, you must note that some can only be preserved for a limited amount of time. Meaning that if you ever got hit by a car, and you had to get a new heart ASAP, you would probably die. Because, cloning something as complicated as a heart would require at least 72 hours in a best case scenario. As for stem cells, who knows? But I canít imagine my health plan covering something as expensive and time consuming for something bordering on worst case scenario. Even then, a stem cell canít do much, unless youíre attached to a heart-lung machine, which could leave you in coma for quite awhile, because you need to grow various layers of tissue. Even babies take a relaxed vacation spanning 9 months generally to do the same thing.

I'm for therapeutic cloning, which is why I have to say again, that the organs themselves probably wouldn't be grown (differentiated) until called for. I mean, most people wait on organ donor lists for months, or even years, before they die (or get an organ). "Growing" the organ, presumably a little outside of the body, and then actually inside the body wouldn't be that impractical. Sure, for a few weeks or maybe months, depending on what you got, you would be weaker than peak, but that's to be expected from any transplant.

And as I said before, health care providers DO want longer life spans, because that means you inevitably pay more for a longer time. The second that some actuary calculates that providing for stem cells would be profitable, BAM, provided with your plan.

Thirdly, like in the scenario SK mentioned in the movie ĎThe Islandí, rich people have living insurances. Only problem is, what would the peasant gain when cloning? Sure, they can get kids, even if he or she is incapable of activating the growth of a zygote. I Is there anything besides that? No, donít think so. Basically this means that whatever additional benefits cloning may have, they will be limited to the reasonably rich for quite awhile. Of course, if I was the head of a company researching cloning, I would like to regain my investments as soon as possible. Agreed, this happened when developing the car, but there were horses, boats, and trains at that time, and you could always walk around. With health care, normal people donít have that luxury.

Is this therapeutic or reproductive cloning? I mean, in The Island, it was unnecessary reproductive cloning, but the availability of organs is therapeutic. And as I said before, it's impractical to think that the "peasantry," as you call it, would get this technology. I mean, come on, let's just look at the US for one. Both the # and % of uninsured have been going up for a few years, with the exception of a small dip at the end of Clinton's administration. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf) I mean, let's not get into the fingerpointing game, but it looks like this # is just going to keep going up. I'm all for equal opportunity for all, but come on. You can't possibly expect that whether or not the lower classes would get any sort of cloning technology immediately is even debatable, because such advancements are inherently expected to be for the upper class (at first)

Basically, my all-round point is: while cloning may be okay for simple medical practices, all the additional benefits will be limited to the upper class of society for a long while. My case being that cloning should be allowed, but prohibited for commercial use until it is reasonably cost efficient. How to do that would be another story, but thatís more political than social.

Incongruity
07-17-2006, 01:30 PM
Two posts: (apparently quoting DU took up a lot of characters)

My stance, if it was ambiguous before, is that knowledge is good, but that we shouldn't push ourselves just for curiousity when the negative consequences and practical considerations outweigh the potential uses. In other words, I'm for the inevitable knowledge of the genome we will obtain from DNA studies, I'm for therapeutic cloning despite the fact that it won't be widespread initially, but I'm against reproductive cloning.

I hate to use this, but let me bring out my ultimate apocalypse conspirator alternate personality. What is the point of reproductive cloning (aside from the obvious help for infertile couples, and those who lost a child because of a defect during birth [as in, one that's not hereditary])? What, you just want a mini-you? Or what, bring back your grandfather as a little brother? What exactly is the benefit of that other than just fulfilling your curiousity? Want to adopt a child? Why not just have one yourself, or is it that you want to adopt baby-Hitler like a sick freak? There just aren't that many real uses for reproductive cloning, unless we're going into the genetically modified humans issue. Obviously, that has benefits for those who ARE genetically modified, but I'm shocked if anyone doesn't find something wrong with eugenics. Personally, I don't like the dysgenics that seems to occur today, but come on, you really want that scientific "field" to be widespread? Just to frighten your inner conspiracy theorist, I suggest you watch Gattaca.

But if we're just cloning for the f*** of it, don't you see what could go wrong with this? Hello! What if someone builds a clone army with which to overthrow the Republic! I mean, I'm sure a wealthy nation like Luxembourg could easily build up thousands of clones rather quickly. Aside from ridiculous military notions, though, just think about it. What if everyone goes around cloning random people. What if clones just meld into society? But they won't! It's not like they're just going to be accepted by "normal" people. If anything, there will be a massive struggle between the "normals" and the "clones," and whichever side comes out on top will oppress the losers. Why? The clones were probably cloned because the original was good, right? Well, there's the obvious envy that would emerge, just look at how people hate Asians because they're better. Now imagine a race of people EVEN BETTER than Asians! Yes, they just took your place in college. And your good job. And your promotion. Oh, and don't even try joining a sports team or military unit. With a cohesive (as in, identical) group, the perfect team has already been made. Don't worry, your initial reaction to OPPRESS THEM BEFORE THEY CAN RISE UP is perfectly natural. And, it would work, because clones WOULD feel out of place at first. They WOULD feel like just copies, they WOULD feel as if they had no "natural" place. But then, when they begin to grow in number, they would start getting rebellious! Forgetting their originals/parents/society, and forming a subculture of clones! Then they just take over in a massive class struggle. Then in the future, people are not born, but farmed...

No, I'm not completely serious, but still. If we're going to have the good of reproductive cloning, and we assume that nobody will abuse this technology, Kenny's idea is legitimate. We need STRICT regulations for cloning, so that we don't allow cloning for no reason. While disturbing for any reason, cloning definitely shouldn't be done for a reason other than what we've established before (infertile parents if we master DNA splicing, and those who lost a child early).



And my question is, where exactly did they get that Tasmanian Tiger DNA? Personally, I wouldn't mind having a pet Pterodactyl to ride around, assuming they took out the gene which made it into a ferocious human-hunting monster, and replaced it with the gene that makes dogs so cute and cuddly.

Sleepy Sheep
07-17-2006, 01:48 PM
The Tasmanian Tiger is cloned because the DNA is the same as the Tasmanian Tiger the once did live. It will not create another Tasmanian Devil because the DNA is not of a Tasmanian Devil.

So you're just flat out saying to resurrect some dinosaur we would use the DNA of an alligator? It would not work because the DNA is direct from the alligator. Like with the Tasmanian Tiger talk, to create one of those long lost creatures we would have to have DNA from that creature.

Crossfire Chaos
07-17-2006, 02:54 PM
Please reread and understand. I said you needed DNA from the Tasmanian Tiger, not the Tasmananian Devil to make a clone. The Egg cell is from the Tasmanian Devil. You remove the devil's DNA then replace it with the tiger's DNA and then put the Egg cell back into the mother devil.

And we do have Tasmanian Tiger DNA. It's inside the fur of the stuffed ones that Rich Hunters keep in their homes.

And an aligator is no where near the size it would recuire to release an egg the size a dinosaur could grow from. (plus the DNA you find in the dinosaur bones is so broken and degenerated that it's missing more then is left. Making it too hard to get the exact same creature because you have to remake the parts that are left. Kinda hard if you barely know a handfull of what specific combinations of DNA rungs do.)

Finglonger
07-17-2006, 09:26 PM
An issue I have with cloning, which I havce seen just barely touched on in this debate is the idea of humanity. What makes us humans? The theme of Mary Shelleys Frankenstein
tocuhes on just that subject. As most of you know in the book a scientist(Victor frankenstein) decides to create a life, for the better of humanity, but what he doesn't count on is that the creature he bore was too hideous a being for him to even gaze upon. For most of the novel, the creature wanders around, unable to gain acceptance in society, and unable to reconcile with himself the fact that he has no soul, that he is apart from god/victor his creator.

The point is, the creature was inextricable inhuman, clones also by definition are unatural, and undeniably outside the realm of humanity. Humans become gods, clones become their lessers. Where do we draw the line, how can we just create life? there are some things humans were not meant to do, and creating life was one of them.

Let me pose these questions. Would a clone have the same rights as a normal human? Should the clone? would clones be allowed and/or able to reproduce? what if a clone falls in love and wants to marry? what if it falls in love with a normal human? do clones have souls? are clones allowed to hold public office?

there are a whole plethora of questions that we can ponder on, but not neccesarily answer. the real important question to consider is what makes a human being? what gives us our humanity? and are we ethically prepared to create something which is by definition in human?

Sleepy Sheep
07-17-2006, 10:51 PM
Please reread and understand. I said you needed DNA from the Tasmanian Tiger, not the Tasmananian Devil to make a clone. The Egg cell is from the Tasmanian Devil. You remove the devil's DNA then replace it with the tiger's DNA and then put the Egg cell back into the mother devil.

And we do have Tasmanian Tiger DNA. It's inside the fur of the stuffed ones that Rich Hunters keep in their homes.

And an aligator is no where near the size it would recuire to release an egg the size a dinosaur could grow from. (plus the DNA you find in the dinosaur bones is so broken and degenerated that it's missing more then is left. Making it too hard to get the exact same creature because you have to remake the parts that are left. Kinda hard if you barely know a handfull of what specific combinations of DNA rungs do.)

Okay, I understand.

But, this brings up something else. You said we couldn't clone a human form a lion egg. Actually, I hope you relalize it's impossible to clone a human at all. Even if attempted, no results would come up. It wouldn't even be brought in to existence for a mere second. It would seem cloning a human is ethically impossible.

Matt
07-17-2006, 10:58 PM
FINGLONGER:

I'm not looking for points for this discussion, I just want to touch on this subject...

There is a vast difference beween Shelly's dipiction of the creation of Frankenstein's monster and the creation process that goes, or would go, into animal and human cloning. If we were to take a look at Shelly's idea, she is seeing pieces of human fused with pieces of inorganic technology, combined with an electrical trigger to abruptly begin a life at the climax of its being. What we look for in cloning is the starting of the animal/human as an egg, and it undergoing a full process of growth before essentially growing into a full-grown replica. Here we see a mirror to the meiosis/growth process of a normal human being or animal. In accordance to this idea, besides the way the cell began to grow, this is entirely a human, and should/will be treated as one, will the time come. There is no question that the cloned being will ever be differentiated from the original.

Kenny_C.002
07-18-2006, 12:41 AM
Okay, I understand.

But, this brings up something else. You said we couldn't clone a human form a lion egg. Actually, I hope you relalize it's impossible to clone a human at all. Even if attempted, no results would come up. It wouldn't even be brought in to existence for a mere second. It would seem cloning a human is ethically impossible.
Of course, scientifically speaking, cloning a human is the same as cloning a dog/cat/sheep/goat/etc.

Again, the technique of cloning is not morally or ethically incorrect. We are not killing anybody this way.

Finglonger
07-18-2006, 08:19 PM
FINGLONGER:

I'm not looking for points for this discussion, I just want to touch on this subject...

There is a vast difference beween Shelly's dipiction of the creation of Frankenstein's monster and the creation process that goes, or would go, into animal and human cloning.


I see no real difference, all I see is logistical differences. The concept remains the same, a human clone is inherently inhuman, it is outside the realm of nature. It was not created naturally, ergo it is not a natural being. To go in and create an entirely new being makes humans gods...do you realize that? It makes us creators, it puts us up above a step in the order of things. does that not strike anybody else as grotesque? as wrong? as abhorrent to the nature of humanity?

Frankenstein was by no means about the medium of which the creature was created, but rather what happened as a result of it. The book doesn't focus too much on the creation, but rather on the state of the creature, who was not a part of nature, not a part of man, and not a part of society.

Incongruity
07-18-2006, 08:25 PM
I see no real difference, all I see is logistical differences. The concept remains the same, a human clone is inherently inhuman, it is outside the realm of nature. It was not created naturally, ergo it is not a natural being. To go in and create an entirely new being makes humans gods...do you realize that? It makes us creators, it puts us up above a step in the order of things. does that not strike anybody else as grotesque? as wrong? as abhorrent to the nature of humanity?

Frankenstein was by no means about the medium of which the creature was created, but rather what happened as a result of it. The book doesn't focus too much on the creation, but rather on the state of the creature, who was not a part of nature, not a part of man, and not a part of society.
Yes it does strike meas grotesque, fing. That is exactly what I am saying concerning cloning. Of course, the effect of this argument is really only fully realized when it concerns reproductive cloning. And as Kenny said and I agreed, strict regulations should be instated so that there is actual reason to clone a full human. As in, to splice DNA and then make a child for infertile couples, and to "rebirth" someone who died early because of a birth defect. Of course, that second usage could inevitably become controversial. What if there's a birth defect that won't be there in a "cloned" baby, but that birth defect isn't fatal, at least for several years. Do you euthanize the "defective" child and then clone a "normal" one? What if the person dies several years later from that birth defect, after living a rather full life. Do you just clone another copy of him? After all, that would give him a chance to live a "full" life, even though it's technically a different person, same DNA (except the mitochondria I guess). If you revive that person, what's to stop someone from suggesting that a different adult is cloned? It spins out of control.

As we can see, even with strict regulations, there are ethical dilemmas.

Dakota
07-20-2006, 02:40 AM
I'm against cloning.

I basically see it as humans trying to play God. Trying to make perfect little babies. If a scientist "makes" a baby, does that mean the baby is his? The labs? The goverments? Who gets to pick and choose? Is it still a baby or is it an experiment? Who gets to decide who gets cloned? And for what reason?

I like to keep my points of view nice and simple. I'm all for o'natural baby making. Through sex.

Lord Celebi
07-20-2006, 02:44 AM
I'm against cloning.

I basically see it as humans trying to play God. Trying to make perfect little babies. If a scientist "makes" a baby, does that mean the baby is his? The labs? The goverments? Who gets to pick and choose? Is it still a baby or is it an experiment? Who gets to decide who gets cloned? And for what reason?

I like to keep my points of view nice and simple. I'm all for o'natural baby making. Through sex.
You forget the other forms of cloning :P And trust me, sex won't become unpopular, even if we can clone babies...

Also, what WAR Team are you on?

Dakota
07-20-2006, 02:50 AM
Also, what WAR Team are you on?

I'm against it. I'm for whatever side is against it.

...I don't really know what you're talking about for a WAR team. Ask me on PM so we don't clutter the thread.

Lord Celebi
07-20-2006, 02:54 AM
I'm against it. I'm for whatever side is against it.

...I don't really know what you're talking about for a WAR team. Ask me on PM so we don't clutter the thread.

I can do whatever the hell I want with this thread... I'm judge... :P

I'm going to have to ask you to join a WAR Team before you can debate any further. The WAR Teams are located in the Groups/Clubs section. And no team is against cloning, its the individuals on the team that decide what they are going to debate...

Kenny_C.002
07-20-2006, 04:38 PM
Dakota belongs to no teams currently. :P

I see no real difference, all I see is logistical differences. The concept remains the same, a human clone is inherently inhuman, it is outside the realm of nature. It was not created naturally, ergo it is not a natural being. To go in and create an entirely new being makes humans gods...do you realize that? It makes us creators, it puts us up above a step in the order of things. does that not strike anybody else as grotesque? as wrong? as abhorrent to the nature of humanity?

By the same logic, artificial insemination should be considered an abomination considering it is not "natural", as we created a human that otherwise cannot be created. By that exact same logic, DNA cloning is considered unnatural and should be banned, as we are clearly creating new beings. Clearly genetically modifications, gene therapy, the creation of insulin through transgenic bacteria, etc. are all created beings and thus make us gods, no? Then why are we giving DNA cloning the green light? Why is artificial insemination acceptable in society?

Crossfire Chaos
07-20-2006, 04:55 PM
Some "companies" that create certain material in video or picture form probobly would dislike that their main form of material basis is being replaced by something else. They are all against it to keep their jobs. (I'm specificaly being vague because this post will be deleted if I mentioned exactly what kind of "companies")

Also, I have to join into the human discussion it apears. There will be no "perfect" babies with cloning. Simply because when you clone you clone another unperfect human or animal you cannot create something perfect unless you change the DNA. Not making it a "true" clone.

(Plus I'm the only example of perfection there is so you have nothing to worry about. :P)

Finglonger
07-20-2006, 11:02 PM
Dakota belongs to no teams currently. :P



By the same logic, artificial insemination should be considered an abomination considering it is not "natural", as we created a human that otherwise cannot be created. By that exact same logic, DNA cloning is considered unnatural and should be banned, as we are clearly creating new beings. Clearly genetically modifications, gene therapy, the creation of insulin through transgenic bacteria, etc. are all created beings and thus make us gods, no? Then why are we giving DNA cloning the green light? Why is artificial insemination acceptable in society?

artificial insemination furthers a purpose, it gives people who cannot bear children the chance to bear children. Not that I'm for that either, adoption is a much better road to take, though I dont want to get on a tangent so I wont get into those beliefs. Creating insulin like wise helps to treat diabetes, those things all serve a general purpose. creating a human out of nothing, is in itself usel;ess. creating new parts, well maybe I can see that being beneficial, but what is the benefit of creating an entirely new person? any benefit is outweighed by the moral and ethical problems.

Not only does it seem that the bemnefits are highly overrated, but cloning will hurt the human species and any species that it is effected by in the long run, because it will stop genetic improvements to a species or at least slow them down. genetic improvements happen through sexual reproduction, which will not occur through cloning. cloning will make the population susceptible to certain kinds of diseases, since their genetic material is the same. simply put, cloning is the same thing as inbreeding, do you support inbreeding? of course not, nobody in their right mind does, so then the question must lead to do you support cloning? if you dont support inbreeding you shouldnt support cloning

Kenny_C.002
07-21-2006, 04:41 AM
artificial insemination furthers a purpose, it gives people who cannot bear children the chance to bear children. Not that I'm for that either, adoption is a much better road to take, though I dont want to get on a tangent so I wont get into those beliefs. Creating insulin like wise helps to treat diabetes, those things all serve a general purpose.

Outside of the beliefs of artificial insemination, I've been trying to put things into perspective for you. Your ideas of cloning and how it is a hinderance to humanity already dismisses DNA cloning. By that analogy, you're technically saying that we should just let the diabetics die, and let those with cystic fibrosis die, when we have the tools to help them.

creating a human out of nothing, is in itself usel;ess. creating new parts, well maybe I can see that being beneficial, but what is the benefit of creating an entirely new person? any benefit is outweighed by the moral and ethical problems.

Again, the technique is neither morally nor ethically wrong. With strict regulations and procedures, the benefits of "creating" a person through cloning can heal some wounds in the minds of people, an ability that can never be done otherwise. I must admit that this is the weakest part of my statement as this deals a lot with religious beliefs, but it is that we must separate from the debate. Moral issues as dictated by law? Sure, but never religious issues.

Not only does it seem that the bemnefits are highly overrated, but cloning will hurt the human species and any species that it is effected by in the long run, because it will stop genetic improvements to a species or at least slow them down. genetic improvements happen through sexual reproduction, which will not occur through cloning. cloning will make the population susceptible to certain kinds of diseases, since their genetic material is the same. simply put, cloning is the same thing as inbreeding, do you support inbreeding? of course not, nobody in their right mind does, so then the question must lead to do you support cloning? if you dont support inbreeding you shouldnt support cloning

Cloning and inbreeding are completely different concepts. Inbreeding is the concept at which the frequency of exposing genetic defects in a population will increase from due to reproduction between organisms of similar descent. This entire argument is blown completely out of the water, as cloning does not expose genetic defects of humans into the population as inbreeding would. They are essentially different things.

Careful throwing the word evolution (genetic improvements don't exist, Fing. Sorry to burst your bubble) around, as cloning has nothing to do with evolution. Why? First of all, cloning would never take over the world, and thus that will never create a scenerio described above. Evolution also does not, by contrary belief, appear strictly from sexual intercourse. By all means bacteria evolve much more quickly than humans, and they primarily undergo asexual reproduction. Their method of "sexual intercourse" comes strictly from DNA donation either from the environment or from other bacteria (not of the same species, usually). However, this deals with adaptation, which is not the same as evolution.

Many people think that evolution must come from sexual intercourse. Wrong. Sexual intercourse, and the production of an offspring only does something called "DNA recombination", which shuffles the DNA of the parent around. And via meiosis, the parents pass exactly half of their genes to their offspring. None of the above is concerned with in evolution. Why? Evolution is not a directional process, evolution is not adaptation. Evolution is a mechanistic random process that happens randomly throughout the population (Barret 2005, Rowe 2005-2006, Moran 2006). It happens strictly by natural selection and genetic drift, which are random processes.

What does this all mean? Simple: unless you're saying cloning creates a completely homoegenous society where the genetic material of every living human is the same, evolution will NOT SLOW DOWN. Will that ever happen? No. Case closed.

Lord Celebi
07-22-2006, 04:38 PM
Here are this week's Debate points:

Pro: Kenny
Con: sk
Best: sk

3 Points to la res.

Yippee [/sarcasm]

Post reviews will be up by Monday, hopefully.

-

Week #2
This week, the topic is the Iraq War. Do you beleive it is going well, or do you believe it has taken a turn for the worse?

Points:
Believe the War is doing Well:
Believe the War is not doing well:
Best Overall Deabter:

Kenny_C.002
07-23-2006, 08:32 PM
The war on Iraq began in 2003 under the flag of the Bush administration, after the tragic act of terrorism on the World Trade Centres and the pentagon in September 11, 2001. Under Bush's flag of "war on terror", they invaded Iraq using the US troops. Several other countries such as the United Kingdom, Poland, Spain, Australia, and Japan also joined in on the attack. The unit, under the command of Tommy Franks, is named the Coalition.

This war itself is not authorized by the United Nations (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2003/01/30/end_un030130.html), and thus is deemed an illegal war by the UN. However, this did not stop the Coalition forces from entering Iraq to destroy the so called "weapons of mass destruction (WMD)" that have been alledgedly been found in Iraq, none of which were actually found (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2003/06/02/blix_weapons030602.html) (Don't bulls**** me on this. CBC is the leading Canadian news broadcaster, its legitmacy is garanteed).

So the question remained. Was the illegal war worth the time, effort, money, and lives?

As of now, the casualties are significant. Close to 3000 deaths (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/) have occured during this time, discounting nonlethal casualties. The cost of the actual war would be rather disturbing, clocking more than $150,000 per minute (http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2004/200403/20040317.html) of the war. The time and effort required for this war is understood.

The fact remained: Was the cost of this war justified? No.

First, the major reason with which the Bush Administration wished to attack Iraq with was literally to destroy weapons of mass destruction. There must be another reason for this attack, as obviously the Bush Administration wasn't attacking solely to rid of a "bad bug". There is strong evidence (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#ultimate), according to the biased paper I linked, that it is likely oil. Why did I say biased? It is an interpretation of the actual going-ons (the references are actual facts, I'd take it), and thus bias must be established. However, the evidence was enough to point fingers into oil by deduction. Would the cost of this war be worthwhile simply for oil? What if the money was poured into energy research instead? Clocking at the rate of $150,000 per minute, it can be easily seen that a single hour's worth of the war would be enough to employ 90 fully trained energy research professionals for an entire year (estimated salary $100,000). In less than a day of this war, This sector (http://www.nrel.gov/) can grow to the size of the CDC.

Of course, the cost of war itself would leave a large economic impact on the United States. It was noted in a previous paragraph on the cost of the war, and at the same time, an estimate on the national deficit. That's right, the economic impact such a large increase of deficit in such a short term is dramatic. The fact that the US dollar would plummet is no surprise to any economist. What we do know is that the drop on the dollar would only increase as the deficit increases. This trade deficit also means that it is impossible to save the United States from any downswing in the business cycle. That was an inevitable conlcusion.

The life cost was probably the most important cost of them all. Does the cost of nearly 3000 lives, and numerous injuries that may or may not cripple the person, worth it for oil? No. Quite frankly, it's obvious that, from an economic impact of losing labour, and from an emotional point of view of the families losing loved ones for something as pitiful as energy is truely unjustified.

Also, time and effort spent on the war contributed to this problem also, another economic impact that cannot be reverse. Again, from the economic perspective, this war was a disaster.

However, many people in the opposing front would be saying, "but we've freed the people from the oppression of Hussein." True and false. The truth is that Hussein is captured and locked away. The problem is that while this may free many, it also exposes them to the dangers of a dying nation, and daily attacks by the resistance still continues to this day. How can these people be truly free when the problems still exist? And wasn't the whole point in the beginning to fight against terrorism, namely Bin Laden? Why is that man still out there (there is no indication of his death, and he was definitely not captured), potentially causing oppression in a revolution in Iraq? These questions come up with an answer: Iraq is not free, even after the war. The war itself was still unnecessary, if that was the case. For a lack of a better word to say, an assassination on Hussein would have been better for the country (since you're going against UN anyway), as the country would not be completely crippled like it is now.

So is that war worthwhile? No. There is no other answer.

Lord Celebi
07-23-2006, 11:44 PM
Because I can't give out two points to a person, I'm chaging Best Overall to Best Team Effort in debating. The team that has the most and best deabters wins.

Lord Celebi
07-24-2006, 03:32 AM
Okay, here are the summaries of everyone's posts. The main reason why the ones who didn't earn points didn't earn points was because you only argued against one form of cloning, although there are others that have been mentioned in the thread... Anyways:

sk: Marvelously written posts.

Kenny: Marvelously written posts.

ER: There are other forms of cloning, besides just creating a clone for the hell of it. Also, cloning will help us cure some diseases...

DU: Marvelously written posts.

Chaos: Good post, it could be a little longer, and mention the other forms of cloning.

Grumpiguno: God is a weak arguement to fall back on. Unless you're going to prove god's existance in a debate (And even then, no one would convert) its better to just stay away from the god arugement.

Fing: Marvelously written post, it could be longer and mention other forms of cloning.

Defense: You didn't state your views on cloning :P

Finglonger
07-25-2006, 11:34 PM
In order to fully view the scope of the war in iraq we have to at least go back to the first gulf war, normally you may want to go farther, but for all intensive purposes we will start at the end of that war. Saddam Husseins invading forces had been crushed by a joint force of US and international forces, and allowed to stay in power to serve the purpose of a stable strongman, cause if there is one thing the UN likes, its strongmen who wont cause trouble. But Hussein wasn't one of those strongmen, he gassed the kurds, and generally caused trouble by re arming. After a few years it became obvious that UN sanctions had failed to control Hussein.

While I agree with Kenny on a moral ground against the war, I have to support the war in part, if not for its uses in taking down an insane leader, who would have commited genocide against the kurds and the shiites if he had the chance. How do we know this? In the late 1980s the iraqi government waged an anti kurd campaign called Anfal, in which they destroyed at least 2,000 kurdish villages, and murdered 300,000 kurds. That astounding number of dead cannot even match up to the casulaties as a result of the war in Iraq, and the liberation of the Kurds is as good a reason as any to support the war in iraq. This is one of Husseins many crimes against humanity.

I'm not stupid though, perhaps the war was waged for oil, perhaps the war was waged to gain a foothold in the mideast, perhaps it was just to settle an old score...but none of that matters, because a result of the war was the deposition of an insane leader, a monster who killed hundreds of thousands, whose soldiers raped shiites and kurdish women, a madman who gassed thousands of villages, who tortured innocent civllians. The united states and the united nations had the moral obligation to take him down years ago, but they didn't do it.

As the 18th century political philosopher edmund burke said “All that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

DaRkUmBrEoN
07-27-2006, 08:44 PM
There has always been war, in more ways than one. War mostly starts with a verbal dispute between several parties. In this case Iraq's presidential dictator, Saddam Hussein, and the leader of the so called free world, George W. Bush. If it's justified. Well, to quote a certain Dutch politician:

It's the winner who puts history on paper.

This Dutch politician, a socialist for the record, also said that the resistance in WWII is pretty much the same as present terrorisme. The resistance blew up German government buildings, killed soldiers and pretty much everything nowadays terrorists do. The only difference is that the resistance won the war, while the terrorists aren't at the moment.

With that cleared out of the way, lets address the main issue, which is currently holding the entire world in its grasp. Yes, I mean the War against Terrorisme.

This, in my humble opinion, is a war like no other. War used to be a clash of arms between two (souvereign) countries, or whatever region a king, duke, or president controlled. Everyone knew who was who on the battlefield. The problem nowadays is that terrorists aren't countries or specific regions. They are certain extremist who are willing to fight for a cause they believe in.

Now, on to the Iraq war. It might have started out as a 'get the president off the commanding chair' kind of war, but then one of the worst case scenarios happened: terrorists began to call the shots.

In the beginning, the war was doing average - scaling on previous fights of this magnitude -, but after the terrorist roll call, it went for the worst. The war got uglier and the price tag and death toll increased.

But let's put this in retrospec...

Of course, it's a rotten job, and the wages aren't that great, but what's $150,000 a minute in a war like this? We are currently a money-obsessed society, who have to express everything in a numberic value. Even the lives of people.

Secondly, 3,000 casualties on American side isn't that high actually. The Battle of Marathon in September 490 BC between the Persians and the Athenians resulted in 192 Athenians and 11 Plateans dead, against 6,400 dead Persians. Is it me, or is twice the amount of deaths in a month against 3,000 in a couple of years not that bad.

Seriously, you might come to me with arguments like 'with brand new weapons and stuff we could reduce the death toll'. Sure we can, but who's stopping the opponents from doing the same. The Persians were overpowering the Athenians more than 2 to 1, and they still lost. So basically, advanced, expensive, and new equipment isn't a guarantee someone will live, it only makes it more likely.

Basically, judging from these objective arguments, I can only conclude - against my better judgement - that the war in Iraq is actually quite justified if put in the proper historic context, and not let our emotions get the better of us. As I said before, the winners write down history, so who knows whether people will see this war as good in 50 years?

Incongruity
07-28-2006, 01:20 AM
Crackas PLEASE. The topic was NOT whether or not the second Gulf War was justified. Just because it says "war" or "Iraq" doesn't mean you should share your opinions on whether the war is good or not. The topic was: "Do you beleive it is going well, or do you believe it has taken a turn for the worse?" That means do you think it's going WELL. Right now. As in, the military viewpoint. As in, are we winning. As in, should we just give up. Right now, if one compare the war to normal life, it's obviously tragic, but it's going as one could expect it to go. Did you guys seriously expect an easy war? It's an unknown territory in which we are culturally despised. It's a war with unconventional tactics, but lots of chances for collateral damage. It's a war in an arena we were familiar with, but with different rules. Any scrub could have realized this. Guess what, Shinseki did. It's obviously not going as well as we could has potentially made it go, but it's going as poorly/well as I would have expected.

So by my low standards, the war in Iraq seems to be going fine. Sure, people are dying, but as DU said, 3,000 is nothing. Just to put this into perspective, these are all soldiers. They all know that they are risking their lives. What, they only joined the military because they thought the US would be at peace? Any death whether it be in war or by genocide is a tragedy in and of itself, but these were soldiers. They should have thought themselves as dead already. Oh, and let me take a quote from America (The Book)2,000 Massacred Congolese = 500 Drowned Bangladeshies = 45 Fired-bombed Iraqis = 12 Car-bombed Europeans = 1 Snipered American.Liberals overemphasize these deaths, but come on. People are dying all the time. I mean, if you want, just look at Africa and the almost constant genocide. Look at Hussein's own genocides! Oh, and need I mention the most forgotten series of genocides of all? Japanese imperialism? Most kids will know about the deaths in Iraq. Instantly Hussein brings up an image. Ask them about Tojo or Ishii and they'll just think it's one of those genitally challenged small-eyed smart kids.

So, no. 3,000 deaths is far less than I would have expected from a ruthless group of terrorists. And yes, terrorists appeared in Iraq... albeit after we invaded. But would we rather have another ruthless dictator? Oh come on, I'm sure anyone could point out all of the dictatorships going on, but that just means you'd rather maintain the status quo while arguing forever on which one to depose. No, for what we're trying to accomplish, and based on the setting/enemy, we're doing great. In fact, we might have been doing too good, because of how quickly we managed to own that official Iraqi military.

And come on, if anyone really thinks the war is going poorly, it's not like the US is going to run out of money. Before we complain about massive military budgets, how about we complain about the massive pork barrel policies going on in Congress... on BOTH sides of the aisle.


And seriously, no matter how poorly we ever do, do you really think we're even going half of our full force? It's not like we can ever really lose any war, seeing as how we not only have the largest military budget, the most advanced military, and the most easily accessible nuclear weapons (seeing as how Russia will never organize itself. Ever), we can always take things a step further if we really want to win the war. Of course, liberal hippies are always stopping that, so we can never send in enough troops to win. We always send a fraction of what's needed, so the situation becomes even worse.

Quite honestly, it's not like this war's going to be endless. We can win this war. And, our part in it should actually be about over soon. Seeing as how, once we install a stable civilian government with the strength to enforce democratically chosen laws, Iraq could ideally modernize like other oil-rich Middle-Eastern nations. Of course, with religious fundamentalists and all, it might just end up like the Mecca for idiocy like the United States. But if they democratically choose stupidity, that is their choice they placed upon themselves. I would rather live a terrible life with freedom than a decent life under a dictator. We basically accomplished our goal of spreading democracy, or are almost done with it. If I recall correctly, accomplishing a goal means the process went adequately well.

Kenny_C.002
07-28-2006, 04:49 AM
Of course, it's a rotten job, and the wages aren't that great, but what's $150,000 a minute in a war like this? We are currently a money-obsessed society, who have to express everything in a numberic value. Even the lives of people.

What's $150,000 a minute in a war like this? Check the US trade deficit. The more warring they do, the higher the deficit, the harder the US falls when it drops into an economic slowdown, which is inevitable due to the business cycle.

Secondly, 3,000 casualties on American side isn't that high actually. The Battle of Marathon in September 490 BC between the Persians and the Athenians resulted in 192 Athenians and 11 Plateans dead, against 6,400 dead Persians. Is it me, or is twice the amount of deaths in a month against 3,000 in a couple of years not that bad.

We're all putting in statistics now aren't we? The point is that a life is a life is a life. There is no replacement. I don't care if it's 3000 in 20 years compared to several hundred thousand a day (A-bombing, anyone?). A life is a life. The economic impacts of a measily 3000 has important aspects to it, not to mention the psychological impacts of lives lost. I'm sure anyone who has lost a loved one would agree that losing 1 is terrible, but imagine losing many more. War is not justified under any circumstance. Period. Don't give me the bull about how soldiers are supposed to be dead anyway. If that was the case, then we might as well fold the US and state that its population is in fact much smaller.

Seriously, you might come to me with arguments like 'with brand new weapons and stuff we could reduce the death toll'. Sure we can, but who's stopping the opponents from doing the same. The Persians were overpowering the Athenians more than 2 to 1, and they still lost. So basically, advanced, expensive, and new equipment isn't a guarantee someone will live, it only makes it more likely.

Basically, judging from these objective arguments, I can only conclude - against my better judgement - that the war in Iraq is actually quite justified if put in the proper historic context, and not let our emotions get the better of us. As I said before, the winners write down history, so who knows whether people will see this war as good in 50 years?

And I suggested alternatives to throwing Saddam out. Why not snipe him out for good? If we're going against UN standards anyway, we might as well take the easiest way out.

And come on, if anyone really thinks the war is going poorly, it's not like the US is going to run out of money. Before we complain about massive military budgets, how about we complain about the massive pork barrel policies going on in Congress... on BOTH sides of the aisle.

And I'm certain that the US has the power to just puff all the trade deficit away without having its dollar plummet. Good luck, as Bill Gates can't pay for even half of the deficit with his entire fortune. Did I mention that if the dollar does plummet, the United States will also lose everything? Just look at the 97 Thailand crisis for a taste of what may happen, except magnify that problem several fold.

And seriously, no matter how poorly we ever do, do you really think we're even going half of our full force? It's not like we can ever really lose any war, seeing as how we not only have the largest military budget, the most advanced military, and the most easily accessible nuclear weapons (seeing as how Russia will never organize itself. Ever), we can always take things a step further if we really want to win the war. Of course, liberal hippies are always stopping that, so we can never send in enough troops to win. We always send a fraction of what's needed, so the situation becomes even worse.

Right. We'll nuke and kill millions of innocent civilians, then cause a chain reaction, resulting in over 6 billion deaths worldwide, and the extinction of mankind.

Quite honestly, it's not like this war's going to be endless. We can win this war. And, our part in it should actually be about over soon. Seeing as how, once we install a stable civilian government with the strength to enforce democratically chosen laws, Iraq could ideally modernize like other oil-rich Middle-Eastern nations. Of course, with religious fundamentalists and all, it might just end up like the Mecca for idiocy like the United States. But if they democratically choose stupidity, that is their choice they placed upon themselves. I would rather live a terrible life with freedom than a decent life under a dictator. We basically accomplished our goal of spreading democracy, or are almost done with it. If I recall correctly, accomplishing a goal means the process went adequately well.

Ends justifies the means. They can easily snipe off Hussein, then roll over the broken army with little resistance, and then establish government. Minimal deaths, even. You also forgot to mention the fact that once America leaves Iraq, the Iraqi can do whatever the hell they want, including establishing dictatorship.

DaRkUmBrEoN
07-28-2006, 02:30 PM
Crackas PLEASE. The topic was NOT whether or not the second Gulf War was justified. Just because it says "war" or "Iraq" doesn't mean you should share your opinions on whether the war is good or not. The topic was: "Do you beleive it is going well, or do you believe it has taken a turn for the worse?"
I was kinda replying to what Kenny said, so excuse me if I oversaw the small side notes in this post:
So is that war worthwhile? No. There is no other answer.

Now for what Kenny said…

What's $150,000 a minute in a war like this? Check the US trade deficit. The more warring they do, the higher the deficit, the harder the US falls when it drops into an economic slowdown, which is inevitable due to the business cycle.
The deficit has been increasing ever since Bush went in office. Bill Clinton was in office for 8 years, and had to take several small crises on his account, but he managed to lower the deficit. So, what’s stopping George from acting to this goal?


We're all putting in statistics now aren't we? The point is that a life is a life is a life. There is no replacement. I don't care if it's 3000 in 20 years compared to several hundred thousand a day (A-bombing, anyone?). A life is a life. The economic impacts of a measily 3000 has important aspects to it, not to mention the psychological impacts of lives lost. I'm sure anyone who has lost a loved one would agree that losing 1 is terrible, but imagine losing many more. War is not justified under any circumstance. Period. Don't give me the bull about how soldiers are supposed to be dead anyway. If that was the case, then we might as well fold the US and state that its population is in fact much smaller.
Oh, so we’re bringing emotions into this? What about all those family members throughout the world losing their loved ones due to AIDS? Shall we just stop the space program and spent all the billions of dollars invested into that for HIV research? Death is just a natural part of life, as is killing. It happens, even if you try to stop it. The reason why we developed politics is to murder the other party with words and sanctions, instead of bullets and bombs. Though, when that fails, there’s no other option. War is a last resource, and you know it.

And I suggested alternatives to throwing Saddam out. Why not snipe him out for good? If we're going against UN standards anyway, we might as well take the easiest way out.
The easiest way isn’t the smartest way. Destroying something is always quick, but building it up is as hard as hell. Ask the Lebanese. A couple of decennia ago, they were in a post-war climate, and now they’ve finally regained some peace, only to see it blown into smithereens by the Israelis in like two weeks. Someone see a resemblance with Iraq? If so, the US are duty bound to clean up the mess they caused.

Sniping Saddam isn’t the answer. His brother or his same minded right hand would just take the power and govern Iraq in the same way. Just like in North Korea, although the circumstances are a bit different.

If you want to change something, you need to play an active roll. Sitting back and doing nothing, after rolling the die, hardly helps.


And I'm certain that the US has the power to just puff all the trade deficit away without having its dollar plummet. Good luck, as Bill Gates can't pay for even half of the deficit with his entire fortune. Did I mention that if the dollar does plummet, the United States will also lose everything? Just look at the 97 Thailand crisis for a taste of what may happen, except magnify that problem several fold.
Name one country that doesn’t have a deficit. If you wanted to US to be deficit-free, run it like a company. However, that’s not the socialistic thing to do, so forget about having a reasonable deficit, let stand a surplus.


Right. We'll nuke and kill millions of innocent civilians, then cause a chain reaction, resulting in over 6 billion deaths worldwide, and the extinction of mankind.
Ehm, yeah. Doomsday scenarios aren’t that convincing. This isn’t the Cold War, and the Cold War didn’t turn out a bit like that.


Ends justifies the means. They can easily snipe off Hussein, then roll over the broken army with little resistance, and then establish government. Minimal deaths, even. You also forgot to mention the fact that once America leaves Iraq, the Iraqi can do whatever the hell they want, including establishing dictatorship.
Someone forgot about the terrorist I see. Minimal deaths, huh? Of those 3,000 death soldiers, most of them were killed not by the Iraq military, but by car bombings and so forth. Besides, don’t you think that the US could possibly finance a pro-western dictator?

Lord Celebi
07-28-2006, 10:54 PM
Since I won't be here tomorrow, I'm handing out points today...
This week's points:

For Iraq War: DarkUmbreon
Against Iraq War: Kenny
Best Team Effort: La Res

Week #3
Is President Bush helping America, or is he hurting it?

Start now...

MystiKal
07-28-2006, 11:48 PM
Since I won't be here tomorrow, I'm handing out points today...
This week's points:

For Iraq War: DarkUmbreon
Against Iraq War: Kenny
Best Team Effort: La Res

Week #3
Is President Bush helping America, or is he hurting it?

Start now...
Can we see why they get the points?

Incongruity
07-29-2006, 12:59 AM
Can we see why they get the points?
He does that afterwards anyways.

Lord Celebi
07-29-2006, 02:59 AM
Can we see why they get the points?

Yes, on Monday or Tuesday, whichever day I feel like posting it...

Kenny_C.002
07-30-2006, 03:34 PM
Alright. Let's get this show on the road.

In my debate topic, I will this time focus on three topics instead of thinning my argument to cover more topics more shallowly. Keep this in mind. ;)

Simply said, is the Bush administration doing its part in helping America? The blatant and obvious answer is no.

According to CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/13/national/main600034.shtml), the US trade deficit increased during 2003, setting new records. Of course, the update (http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html) on that situation in 2005 also did not improve that problem, as the total trade balance again came to a negative. Why such a big fuss about trade deficits? According to most economic theories, the trade deficit can be fixed by selling government bonds, buying them back, and then reselling the same bonds to generate "virtual money". There is one major problem to that: you have to pay interest. A small deficit, bonds are ideal, as the interest is also small and quite manageable from the government's income (i.e. they put aside some tax money to pay out interest for the bonds). As you can see, a trade deficit numbering in the hundred billions cannot use this method of dealing with the trade deficit. Therefore, the US has opted the other method: just keep the deficit around and see what happens. Problem is that money is the cause of the balance. A flexible currency exchange rate was adopted in the US, however this is artifically kept much higher than it should be right now, as the dollar should be the solution to some of trade deficit problems (i.e. any imbalance in trade is reflected directly proportional to the dollar movements). For example, the Canadian exports currently are strong, and we are running a surplus, the Canadian dollar increases to compensate for that surplus. Not similarly, the US has a massive trade deficit, but no drop in the US dollar to compensate for that.

It has been said that the US dollar will plummet by many economists (Hare, 2005-2006, University of Toronto). The problem here is that while this is inevitable, the drop will increase as the trade deficit increases (Hare, 2005-2006, University of Toronto). So what would keep Bush from reducing the trade deficit like Bill Clinton did?

1) Bill Clinton came into power near the bottom of the business cycle. At that point, it is clear that the trade deficit can be reduced more easily from less domestic consumption, when unemployment is higher than normal.
2) Bill Clinton did not spend the ridiculous amounts of money in the War on Iraq. Mind you, he spent money on the gulf war and what not, but not to the ridiculousness that Bush has displayed.
3) The US is a consumption-based economy. There is no average savings. Most of the money people in the US earn go straight into consumption. This means that the leading contribution to the trade deficit is still a thorn. Bush CAN and HAS taking policies to increase interest to hopefully do that. But with all due respect, I've never seen so much interest rate increases in such a short period ever. Has it worked? No. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/11/BUGSMH6KGD1.DTL&type=business)

Simply said, Bush is hurting America economically mainly with the War on Iraq. Instead of spending the same money to increase research and development in the US, he goes to spend so much on the War on Iraq. Even a casual watcher can see that the 3rd option has just been a last ditch effort by Bush to make him look like he did something.

Another alarming problem (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/01/national/w200833D87.DTL) in the Bush's administration is that Bush himself, having so many religious voters, has taken the stance that church and state should not separate. It is evident from the article I linked here that Bush wants Intelligent Design to be taught in school...in the science classroom. So what are the implications of that? It obviously has 2 problems that I need to ress, and I will address them together.

1) Intelligent design promotes religious thinking. In a science classroom, the children learn to think objectively and critically, two things that are essential to making successful and useful labour in adulthood. However, the introduction to ID contradicts this exact promotion. It promotes religious thinking and to think of everything not objectively, but subjectively, according to their emotion. The whole thing about Bush wanting to label all books on evolution as "evolution is a theory and not a fact" is laughable, theory means fact. Even the Pope (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html) agreed that evolution does not contradict with faith. Let's not forget the counterarguments (http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html) that just clearly demonstrates the problem quite nicely.
2) Bush makes no attempt to separate church from state. I think that the statement is strong enough by itself that it requires no additional information.
3) By deduction, Bush promotes Christianity and is against other religions. This is definitely the tough one here. As we can see, ID is designed specifically for Christianity (see the Pope vs. the "believers" in 1). Now as far as I'm concerned, the US had always been a melting pot, but this additional problem of indrectly promoting Christianity only is ludicris.
4) Gay marriage. Again, emotionally-based problem. Bush is against gay marriage, and so do the Christians. But one begs the question: do gays really have anything against them to deserve segregation from the general public? No. Bush's openness about being anti-gay is poisoning the minds of young Americans, that it's okay to be openly anti-gay, and that it's okay to deny the freedom of gays in a country that promotes freedom is ridiculous.

So is Bush helping America? From an economic standpoint, no. From a social standpoint, definitely not.

~* Esper *~
08-03-2006, 09:48 PM
Week #3
Is President Bush helping America, or is he hurting it?

Start now...

Wow, I think that has been done already last season ..... By you in fact, for the one time you substituted for me, odd huh ? ......

Lord Celebi
08-03-2006, 09:55 PM
Wow, I think that has been done already last season ..... By you in fact, for the one time you substituted for me, odd huh ? ......

Yeah... there aren't too many other political subjects that a lot of people already have opinions on, and are quite knowledgeable in...

DaRkUmBrEoN
08-04-2006, 10:10 PM
1) Intelligent design promotes religious thinking. In a science classroom, the children learn to think objectively and critically, two things that are essential to making successful and useful labour in adulthood. However, the introduction to ID contradicts this exact promotion. It promotes religious thinking and to think of everything not objectively, but subjectively, according to their emotion. The whole thing about Bush wanting to label all books on evolution as "evolution is a theory and not a fact" is laughable, theory means fact. Even the Pope (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html) agreed that evolution does not contradict with faith. Let's not forget the counterarguments (http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html) that just clearly demonstrates the problem quite nicely.
Are conspiracy theories also facts? Ehm, guess not. Evolution is just a commonly accepted concept, which seems to fullfil the requirments of Occams razor. The most easy explanation, is most likely the best one. But who are we to know how it started. People hate to think that we were just a freak of nature evolved by chance into a haphazard creature.

Religion has a purpose; there's no questioning that.


3) By deduction, Bush promotes Christianity and is against other religions. This is definitely the tough one here. As we can see, ID is designed specifically for Christianity (see the Pope vs. the "believers" in 1). Now as far as I'm concerned, the US had always been a melting pot, but this additional problem of indrectly promoting Christianity only is ludicris.
I live as a muslim in a Christian society. My little brother goes to a reformed Lower school. He has no troubles with it whatsoever, nor do the other 7000 muslim children who do the same. We adapt, that's what humans are good in.

As for religion; we currently live in a demoralizing society. We(in the Netherlands) have a legal politic party promotiong pedophilia. I don't see that happening in the US. Ok, the vote system is way different, but would you think the people would agree to it? No. They'd ask the president to push through a law.

So yes, Bush is doing a good job. Being president doesn't mean you should be like God. He's human, so cut him some slack. I don't see you getting A+ for all your tests.

Lord Celebi
08-04-2006, 10:25 PM
I say bush is hurting america. From my perspective, He went to war with Iraq for the oil. Also, look who is surrounding him. Dick Cheney saying the "F-word" in front of the entire senate. Plus, the story with the CIA agent whos identity was discovered, because of that guy,(what his name was I can't remember) and Cheney and Carl Rove supposedly had something to do with it. Correct me if I am wrong.:tongue:

My god... that was the worst debate post I've ever seen...

You need to go into detail about why you believe this... why you believe that, etc. You should also have your facts straight. 'That guy' isn't going to cut it. 'That guy' could be any random hobo on the streets... And you spelled Karl Rove wrong :P

We Taste Pies...
08-04-2006, 10:29 PM
My god... that was the worst debate post I've ever seen...

You need to go into detail about why you believe this... why you believe that, etc. You should also have your facts straight. 'That guy' isn't going to cut it. 'That guy' could be any random hobo on the streets... And you spelled Karl Rove wrong :P

DU just told me to post here, he didn't explain why, lol. This is why I don't normally do debate.

Kenny_C.002
08-04-2006, 10:46 PM
Are conspiracy theories also facts? Ehm, guess not. Evolution is just a commonly accepted concept, which seems to fullfil the requirments of Occams razor. The most easy explanation, is most likely the best one. But who are we to know how it started. People hate to think that we were just a freak of nature evolved by chance into a haphazard creature.

Religion has a purpose; there's no questioning that.

Relearn the scientific definition of "theory" before saying anything with that regards. Somebody's been using the common definition of "theory" and not the scientific definition here.

I live as a muslim in a Christian society. My little brother goes to a reformed Lower school. He has no troubles with it whatsoever, nor do the other 7000 muslim children who do the same. We adapt, that's what humans are good in.

Fair enough. It's clear that this is a difference in perspective, and I won't go into it all.

As for religion; we currently live in a demoralizing society. We(in the Netherlands) have a legal politic party promotiong pedophilia. I don't see that happening in the US. Ok, the vote system is way different, but would you think the people would agree to it? No. They'd ask the president to push through a law.

Right, and according to you, this political party is also a weak political party that is not holding any ground. Face it, even the Canadians have crazy political parties like that around. This is no different in America, or any other part of the world where there is a democratic system.

So yes, Bush is doing a good job. Being president doesn't mean you should be like God. He's human, so cut him some slack. I don't see you getting A+ for all your tests.

Correct. He should not act like a god, rather he should act like a fair president. He's not acting like a fair president. Understand that we've had better presidents in the past, and if Bush, being a weak president himself, cannot at least put himself near their levels, then he is clearly hurting America, as he is lowering the standards of how a president should be like, and that in itself hurts America. Understand that I am not asking of Bush to rise to the level of political genius like Claudius or Kennedy. But that at least he should be as good as say Clinton, which he is also failing at doing.

The A+ argument is idiotic. Don't do that in debate again. (This is a personal statement, and not part of my arguments)

Seven
08-05-2006, 01:53 PM
I live as a muslim in a Christian society. My little brother goes to a reformed Lower school. He has no troubles with it whatsoever, nor do the other 7000 muslim children who do the same. We adapt, that's what humans are good in.


Thing is though, that your parents made the decision to send your brother to a Reformed school, even though there are plenty of alternatives. What should people do when their supposedly secular country slowly but surely doesn't define the boundary between religion and state anymore? Move to a different country? I think we can agree that that isn't compatible with a demorcatic, free society.
What Kenny is saying, is that if one teaches Intelligent Design in classrooms it per definition is the Christian version of it - and we are not speaking about religious schools here, mind you.


As for religion; we currently live in a demoralizing society. We(in the Netherlands) have a legal politic party promotiong pedophilia. I don't see that happening in the US. Ok, the vote system is way different, but would you think the people would agree to it? No. They'd ask the president to push through a law.

You know as well as I do that there is no legal ground whatsoever to forbid that party. Strictly it doesn't promote pedophilia, it wants to lower ages of consent, there is a difference. Any party has the right to include points in its programme that change current laws, it's the basis for democracy. What do you propose then? Public opinion going "NU UH DEY DAT PEDOPHILESZZ!!!!!!" and then they get outlawed for stating their views? That's called censorship, and restriction of freedom.
Don't start the "DEMORALIZING SOCIETY OML" crap, HONESTLY. If anything, the opposite is happening! Do you think these things are new? Do you think the existence of pedophilia just happened and spread like a virus because this party was started? Of course not. You should be proud that these things can happen openly in your country. The altnerative is what happens in so many other countries in the world, denial of the problem, denial of the people, denial of everything that has to do with it really.
FYI, Bush would also have no legal ground to ban this party, if he would, he'd be violating probably the Constitution or something.


So yes, Bush is doing a good job. Being president doesn't mean you should be like God. He's human, so cut him some slack. I don't see you getting A+ for all your tests.

OMG. Bush is the leader of the most powerful country in the world, and you think he can slack?! You compare grades in school to international politics?! When I get a B in school, it doesn't result in the deaths of THOUSANDS of people, destabilization of a region, generations of hatred against my country and more. Please! Bush didn't make "mistakes". With the WMD of mass destruction in Iraq, he WILLINGLY went to war, but completely misjudged the outcomes. That is not a "mistake". That is complete lack of insight. Rebuilding of Iraq? It's heavily strained. Mistake? No. Lack of insight.

But, serioursly, WTF kind of a thing to say is that...Well...Hitler was wrong with his Holocaust...but...I don't see you getting straight As either! :D He did do a great thing for the German infrastructure :cool:.

You make it sound as if Bush made "a" mistake, even though Kenny stated in his first post what a staggering amount of things he does wrong. And what good has he done?

Lord Celebi
08-05-2006, 03:01 PM
You're too late, Seven :P

Week #3

Winners: Kenny and DU
Why there isn't a third point: Trainer doesn't deserve the best team effort, because there was no effort in WTP's post. There actually has to be EFFORT in the team's posts for them to win :P

Week #4 Topic: Abortion
Do you agree with abortion or disagree?

DaRkUmBrEoN
08-05-2006, 03:02 PM
You're too late, Seven :P

Week #3

Winners: Kenny and DU
Why there isn't a third point: Trainer doesn't deserve the best team effort, because there was no effort in WTP's post. There actually has to be EFFORT in the team's posts for them to win :P

I love to take the easy side... :D
Btw, you still need to explain the posts of Week #2.

Lord Celebi
08-05-2006, 10:35 PM
I love to take the easy side... :D
Btw, you still need to explain the posts of Week #2.

Thanks for reminding me... I thought I had done it already...

Finch
08-10-2006, 10:34 PM
Welcome to Finchland..

Abortion. It's a topic which always turns heads, and rightly so. After all, in simple terms, it is the termination of a human life, made possible by the choice of another to do so. Many would argue that this is uncalled for, wrong, and even murderous. I'm not going to argue, either, that it can be so in some cases. However, in today's world it has become the only option for many young mothers.

Take the following, for example. You're a young British girl. You're currently in Year 11, studying for your GCSE's (you'd be 16 years old) and there's a lot of pressure on you to do well and study further into A-level and even university. However, something happens. A few weeks after a party, you realise something's not right. You're showing all the early signs of pregnancy. So, sure enough, you go to your local clinic to discover that you are, in fact, pregnant. You have no clue who the father is. You have a few options:

1. Quit school after GCSE's and raise your baby, with barely enough qualifications to get by in today's competitive world.

2. Dump the baby on your reluctant single mother, who will have to care for both of you on top of her own career while you're still studying.

3. Adoption.

4. Abortion.

Now, the type of person who would call abortion "murderous" would obviously be screaming at this point "1, 2 or 3!" but it really isn't that simple. Obviously, your education and career are currently of utmost importance. The first two choices would jeopardise both beyond measure, as even with the second, your parents aren't going to hold out forever. Sometime, you're going to have to drop your own life to look after another's. And chances are, you'll still be alone. What's more, the baby would also suffer from a lower standard of living than you'd be able to provide after having settled down in a decent home with a decent guy. The timing is terrible. This would become a problem if you put your child up for adoption. Not only would their future be uncertain, but they'd almost definitely resent you for giving them up.

I guess the point I'm trying to make in this short and simple first post is that, despite its horrible implications, abortion is still necessary to those in such dire circumstances.

Feel free to rip me apart, debaters.

Lord Celebi
08-11-2006, 04:11 PM
Results!

Winners: Finch and Aqua
Week: 4
Comments: Finch was the only one who posted at all... and he was the only one to ACTUALLY post... that's a lot of effort... 2 points for Aqua...

Week 5:
Here's an interesting topic: Ghosts. Do you believe ghosts and other wandering spirits are real?

Finch
08-11-2006, 05:22 PM
Winners: Finch and Aqua
Week: 4
Comments: Finch was the only one who posted at all... and he was the only one to ACTUALLY post... that's a lot of effort... 2 points for Aqua...

Liek, lawl lawl lawl. It would've been pretty easy to pwn my lame argument, too..

theEND
08-11-2006, 05:44 PM
Ghosts are ultimately figures of transcendal information made up by one person who got the theory going. It's believed that ghosts are actually the remnants of humans and other beings that have either passed onto the second phase in life, getting out of their bodily shell and towards their spiritual conscious. However, there isn't any real proof in the world ghosts exist nor are people. We don't even know if they are of existence. We could just pass onto this "Heaven" or "Hell" but that's another story, now isn't it? However, people in the world have claimed they have seen ghosts, made contact with them, hell even talk to them in their dreams while they're at it. So what's the truth? Ghosts do not exist. Even though there are some logical and illogical explanations, the human soul cannot be transfixed into a spiritual form of conscious unless it there is a shell in which it can bear itself in.

In the middle of the 10 years of 1980 to 1990, there was a TV show broadcasted and its synopsis was rather obvious, another program that was designated to prove ghosts are the real deal. The producers of this program had mostly interviewed young ladies, married woman, and some men with them. Upon their stories, one have claimed that when she had went into a new house that was still not furnished with furniture such as carpets and was still all wood, she was in there to do some work of hers in private. However, she says she had somehow fell into a sleep where she thought she was still in the world, but was then solved later she was not. She tells that she had heard sounds and voices you wouldn't normally. After she woke up, she quickly ran for the door, which was suddenly locked. It was some what a weird locking. The door has to be locked from the inside, but when she turned the locks and tried to open the door, it was still the same way as before, locked. Later that night, she was found by the Police and Firemen that passed by and claimed she had experienced a horrible and scary night.

The next story implies on a young and married woman who had just been in her house with her 20-year old daughter knitting scarfs. When her lamp had grownt faint next to her, she turned her head and claimed she had seen a floating green/reddish head. She also saw a skeleton in image on her bed. She reported this to the producers of the program and was never heard from again.

Even if these stories implie truth from the people interviewed, it could not be true. The fact is many people can find theirselve's hallucinating from stress, overwork, and fatigue that they start believing they see whack images. If this is true, we can all see to it that ghosts were complete lies started by people telling these fables.
-------------------------------------

My proof? I watched the program rerun itself on the Sci-fi channel two years ago.

Kenny_C.002
08-11-2006, 06:22 PM
As far as I know, week 4 hasn't actually ended yet (it's Friday -.-). Also, rust giving Aqua a point is obviously a strict violation of his own rules. Good job boy. :P

The first two choices would jeopardise both beyond measure, as even with the second, your parents aren't going to hold out forever. Sometime, you're going to have to drop your own life to look after another's. And chances are, you'll still be alone. What's more, the baby would also suffer from a lower standard of living than you'd be able to provide after having settled down in a decent home with a decent guy. The timing is terrible. This would become a problem if you put your child up for adoption. Not only would their future be uncertain, but they'd almost definitely resent you for giving them up.

A human being is obviously any living organism containing more than 8 cells and has already implanted into the uterine lining. And thus it is clear that abortion is the destruction of a human life. That said, all humans should have the right to life, whether it be an infant or a zygote. That said, it is clear that abortion is not a choice to begin with. It is clear that in the three above cases:

1 and 2. These are hypothetical situations that are technically only happening within the low-income families. Of that is the case, there is government support to aid these low-income families to reduce this problem. Again, there is help out there to put things back on track. There situations rarely happen in middle to high-income families.

3. This is also a very useful solution. Generally speaking studies out there have shown that adopted children generally have a 50% rate of living a healthy normal life (with suggestively biased studies that do suggest this number can increase). Adoption allows the child to at least have a chance at life, and abortion kills the child. I think the choice is obvious.

Not only that, but there are complications for the mother from abortion. It is clear that abortions cause complications later on and that the women who do have an abortion are very unlikely to have children again, whether it be a psychological or a physiological problem. There is slight evidence that abortion can increase the chance of breast cancer, also. That being said, abortion kills a child and also jeoperdizes the mother's future.

I'll do week 5 later.

Lord Celebi
08-11-2006, 06:26 PM
As far as I know, week 4 hasn't actually ended yet (it's Friday -.-). Also, rust giving Aqua a point is obviously a strict violation of his own rules. Good job boy. :P

Oh really? Crap... I thought it was Saturday... Lol, I'm still sposed to have the results in by Friday night...

Kenny_C.002
08-11-2006, 07:00 PM
Oh really? Crap... I thought it was Saturday... Lol, I'm still sposed to have the results in by Friday night...
Correct. But entries are allowed until Friday night, techically speaking. :P

Week 5's gonna be a hard battle for the pro-guys (me). -.-

Gamedude
08-14-2006, 09:43 PM
Ghost are not real, the people who made ghost are the old/new flim and Tv people

Finch
08-14-2006, 09:52 PM
Ghost are not real, the people who made ghost are the old/new flim and Tv people
Now look what you've done, rust..

Kenny_C.002
08-15-2006, 04:20 AM
Well when you have a topic where the pro side is back completely by a lack of ANYTHING, it's hard to debate, really. The fact that there are no credible stories, no experiment that is completely systematic, nothing printed in any journals, etc. doesn't help either. It's like, for a lack of a better way of saying it, overdosing on aspirin. -.-

Crossfire Chaos
08-16-2006, 05:10 PM
Kind of a lazy topic rust... There is almost nothing supporting the existance of ghosts. But nevertheless I must try to earn something for my team so expect a edit soon. (Your ideas also never relate to pokemon, where the hell is the "Is Giovani Ash's Father?" topic?)

Kenny_C.002
08-16-2006, 11:08 PM
It's very similar to trying to argue for God actually. If you can understand that both are supernatural (i.e. they are above the existence of the natural world), then it is clear that this isn't a debate to choose.

However, since rust chose this topic, I guess somebody has to BS something out.

Lord Celebi
08-18-2006, 02:03 AM
I was looking for something Original that DU wouldn't complain about :P

Anyways, since I have six points to hand out this week, these are this week's point winning categories:

Best Pro Post
Best Con Post
Best Team Effort (Now worth 2 Points!)
Best Post Overall
Worst Post (j/k)

I'm still deciding how to give out the sixth point...

EDIT: I have decided on the sixth point... Everyone who participates in debate this week will be assigned a number. I will then roll a dice, and whoever's number matches up to the dice roll will get an extra point for their team

Lord Celebi
08-18-2006, 02:33 AM
I'm finally getting around to posting the post critiques, lol...

Week #2 Posts:

Kenny: Marvelous Post

Finglonger: Didn't really stick to topic... The topic wasn't the Gulf War, it was how is the current war going...

DU: Marvelous Post

sk: Several problems with your post... Main problem:

And come on, if anyone really thinks the war is going poorly, it's not like the US is going to run out of money. Before we complain about massive military budgets, how about we complain about the massive pork barrel policies going on in Congress... on BOTH sides of the aisle.
We're in trillions of dollars of debt. Congress had to raise the Maximum Amount of Debt to $9 Trillion... We've run out of money already :P Please check your facts before debating again...

Lord Celebi
08-18-2006, 02:39 AM
Week #3 Posts:

Kenny: Marvelous Post.

DU: Your post was... kind of bad... In the two or three sentences you actually talked about Bush, you said:

So yes, Bush is doing a good job. Being president doesn't mean you should be like God. He's human, so cut him some slack. I don't see you getting A+ for all your tests.
Why cut him slack if according to other debaters (And myself) he's been failing every test? Would your teacher cut slack to the dumb kid in the back who fails everything?

WTP: Your post just sucked, but you just posted cuz DU told you to... I've already gone into detail about your pot...

You need to go into detail about why you believe this... why you believe that, etc. You should also have your facts straight. 'That guy' isn't going to cut it. 'That guy' could be any random hobo on the streets... And you spelled Karl Rove wrong :P

Seven: Pretty good post. You woulda gotten a point if Kenny didn't post :P

Lord Celebi
08-18-2006, 02:41 AM
Week #4 Posts:

Finch: You were the only one that posted, lol... You did make a pretty good post actually.

Neo Emolga
08-18-2006, 05:17 PM
I for one believe that ghosts do in fact exist, and not just in horror genres films, media, and fiction either. Not to mention, New Jersey alone, has plenty of haunted locations (http://theshadowlands.net/places/newjersey.htm ) that have been locked up, and are actively patrolled to make sure no one passes. Near South Orange at the college I used to go to, a few of these locations and descriptions were confirmed by local students that publish the Setonian. They confirmed the Bernardsville - Long Rd. - Devil's Tree location as True, wrote and article about it, and it matches exactly what this website mentioned.

Meanwhile, one of my brotherís friends tried and confirmed both the Franklin Lake - Gravity Hill - Route 208 Exit location, the Alpine - Devil's Tower location, and the Allamuchy - Shades of Death location using his Jetta. So many locations and proof that goes behind them, please donít tell me theyíre all lies. Not to mention several of these are patrolled by police and other authorities. Police wouldnít be doing that if there was nothing even there.

Also, I havenít been there, but in Morristown New Jersey, there is one restaurant/night club called Jimmyís Haunt (http://www.jimmyshaunt.com) that is confirmed to be haunted. My own parents have been to that location, and they confirmed that one of the rooms was far colder than usual. We donít go here simply because Iíve heard the food sucks.

Keep in mind, this is just New Jersey alone. One state out of fifty states, one country out of many countries in the world, with all these haunted locations, many of which have been confirmed by investigators, caught on tape, and have been confirmed by close friends and family.

Many people who donít believe in ghosts simply havenít been to any of these or similar locations, nothing else to say here. There are some things science can not prove.

Lord Celebi
08-18-2006, 11:54 PM
Okay everyone, I have an announcement...

1. All WAR Debate Entries are due Saturday Night.

2. For the random point roll, here are the current numbers:

1 - ChronoPika
2 - Gamadude
3 - Neo Pikachu

3. I am still discussing Debate Awards with Harry (Log On, Harry :susp: )

Incongruity
08-19-2006, 04:31 AM
Rust, I'm afraid you might have to check your brain cells for some serious mental problems, because lately, you've become very arrogant. Why am I saying this? I have heard of your blasphemy rust.

Do you HONESTLY think that the United States of America will run out of money? Cracka please, I know about the government debt, I'm talking about the nation. Think of it this way, hunter-gatherer style. If you didn't have access to news services, would you have known about the debt at all? No. You would have gone on with life. You're still using the internet, right? You can still buy things, the police still come if there's a crime, the fire department still comes if there's a fire. The actual United States (which US stands for, last I checked; in fact, I scoured the internet, and nowhere have I found that US stands for "United States Government," which is obviously in debt) isn't in a deep crisis. We're still surviving aren't we? We're still the strongest economy. We still have the largest accessible pool of money. In fact, if we stopped all unnecessary expenditure, stopped pork barrel policies, and raised taxes for the wealthy, we'd be out of debt in no time. You honestly think this is the first time we've ever been in debt? All nations borrow money all the time. But the United States is still moving on. We're still a massive force in terms of brute economic power. So again, do you honestly think the United States will run out of money? If we can apparently still borrow money from other nations, they seem to think our credit is good enough. People are still buying government bonds with expectation of future repayment aren't they? People can still buy food, clothes, etc. I'm sorry, last I checked, money or expectation of money was required for those things.

Did you honestly think I even supported the Iraq war at all? What kind of debate topic is that anyways? The situation in Iraq? It's quite obviously ****** up to the max. What do you expect me to be able to say? I can say I support it, that it was justified, that's doable. But to say that the actual situation there is fine and dandy? Half of my post was ********. You're a horrible debate judge, rust. Your topics are either uninspiring or uncontroversial. But apparently, you think you're all that because some people think that you've livened up the rp? Ohnoz, I guess I should bow down to your ultimate judgement too? No, rust, I have checked my facts before debating, and the facts say that you are either deliberately ignorant because of your inherent biases, or just in possession of an uncapacious brain.


And I've got a few shout-outs/requests from some people.

Request 1: I love lamp
http://rxreed.net/images/2004/12/leg-lamp.jpg

Request 2: rust... go die in a fire

MystiKal
08-19-2006, 05:01 AM
rust just got owned.

I also agree with that rust seems really arrogant, you'r not that good homie.

Diruga
08-19-2006, 06:00 AM
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/9641/debate8ou.png

Welcome to the WAR Season 5 Debate Section. Each week, I will introduce a controversial topic for you to defend your views on it valiantly. New Topics will be posted at 12:00 AM ET Late Saturday/Early Sunday.

On the Monday after the topic is introduced, I will make a post detailing where each post excels and fails. There will be no debating the debate judge, because there will be a new topic. If you wish to debate my response to your post, start a new topic. There, I will pwn you with my 1337 h4x0r debate skills.

There will be three points given out in this section. One point for the best post made for the Pro view of the topic and one for the best post made for Anti view of the topic. For example, if the topic was Abortion, the Pro-Life side would get a point and the Pro-Choice would get a point. The final point will be given out to the person that makes the best debate post (If the best is a tie, then the tied winners will each recieve a point).

Why did I make it like this? Because, I can't be accused of being biased if I have to give one point to each side :P

Topics:

Week 1: Cloning (http://pokemonelite2000.com/forum/showpost.php?p=510465&postcount=44)
Week 2: Iraq War (http://pokemonelite2000.com/forum/showpost.php?p=564497&postcount=78)
Week 3: George Bush (http://pokemonelite2000.com/forum/showpost.php?p=564513&postcount=79)
Week 4: Abortion (http://pokemonelite2000.com/forum/showpost.php?p=564520&postcount=80)
Week 5: Ghosts

Winners:

Week 1: Cloning
-Pro: Kenny
-Anti: DarkUmbreon
-Best Team Effort: La Res

Week 2: Iraq War
-Pro: DarkUmbreon
-Anti: Kenny
-Best Team Effort: La Res

Week 3: George Bush
-Pro: DU
-Anti: Kenny
-Best Team Effort: N/A

Week 4: Abortion
-Pro: Finch
-Anti: N/A
-Best Team Effort: Aqua

Week 5: Ghosts
-Pro:
-Anti:
-Best Post Overall:
-Random Dice Roll:
-Team Effort (2):

Awards
Currently, my Debate Awards idea is in the process of being approved by HKim.

Da Rules
1. No Whining (Ex: Nooooo! God is Real!)
2. No Weak Arguements (Ex: Bush is a bad man because my parents said so.)
3. No Flaming/Personal Attacks (Ex: You f*cker!)

Da Punishments
First Offense:
If you whine, you're out of the debate for the week. If you present a weak arguement, you have no chance of getting a point. If you flame or personally attack someone, you're out for 2 weeks.

Second Offense:
If you whine again, you're out of the debate for two weeks. If you present a weak arguement again, you're out of the debate for one week. If you flame or personally attack someone, you're out of the debate forever.

Third Offense:
If you whine for a third time, you're out of the debate forever. If you present a weak arguement a third time, you're out forever.

If Return while you're banned:
If you return while you're out for a week or two or banned, you're team cannot get any points from the debate for the week. If you return and personally attack someone, your team will not be able to get any points from the debate section for the week, AND I will see to it that you are banned.

cool

Seawolf
08-19-2006, 06:03 AM
cool

Lapraslvr, you are so funny! :rolleyes:

*Banned

Go away.

Espeon Rinage
08-19-2006, 09:15 AM
Ghosts are a mystery to many people; lots of people have different opinions.

I do believe that Ghosts do exist.

Look at it from this point, what happens with your soul after you're gone, does it just sleep? What happens with you as a person? Do you just no longer exist?
At many times, people report sightings of these creatures, like something foggy moving in there mirror, what causes this? Is it just something like a cat? Think about these.

Strange cold chills; I believe that this is just the wind I, but things moving when they are solid, with no wind.

Crossfire Chaos
08-19-2006, 02:54 PM
There are many explanations for ghosts one of my favorite is the teenage mental abilities. Now some scientists believe that when a person is a teenager their mind starts changing rapidly, some believe that during this time they can without trying to start to move things, cause things to engulf in flames and lots of other things with no explanation. The scientists believe that they developed some sort of subconcious psychic abilities that fire off when the person is under a lot of stress. Most of the time when this happens they believe that this is the work of ghosts.

I swear that this is true, that scientists actualy tried to prove this was true. Whether or not this is true... well you can look at tests done by other scientists where humans try to influence a random number generator. From those tests it shows that humans do have some sort of psychic abilities.

Now I could have said that ghosts don't exists because a being entirely made of energy could not contain itself in one whole. But where is the fun in that? I'd rather do something unique like this.

On another note: SK, I know how busy you are telling rust he's an idiot but please continue the trivia section. I liked the hard thinking involved with it. And please continue it past the war if you have the time.

Lord Celebi
08-19-2006, 03:47 PM
*Breaks out t3h hax0rz debate skillz*
Rust, I'm afraid you might have to check your brain cells for some serious mental problems, because lately, you've become very arrogant. O RLY? Why am I saying this? I have heard of your blasphemy rust.

Do you HONESTLY think that the United States of America will run out of money? Cracka please, I know about the government debt, I'm talking about the nation. Think of it this way, hunter-gatherer style. If you didn't have access to news services, would you have known about the debt at all? No. You would have gone on with life. You're still using the internet, right? You can still buy things, the police still come if there's a crime, the fire department still comes if there's a fire. The actual United States (which US stands for, last I checked; in fact, I scoured the internet, and nowhere have I found that US stands for "United States Government," which is obviously in debt) isn't in a deep crisis. You implied that you were talking about the government, and yes, the government is funding the WAR. We're still surviving aren't we? We're still the strongest economy. We still have the largest accessible pool of money. In fact, if we stopped all unnecessary expenditure, stopped pork barrel policies, and raised taxes for the wealthy, we'd be out of debt in no time. And you seriously think that's going to happen with a man as icompetant as Bush president? You honestly think this is the first time we've ever been in debt? Yes, actually... All nations borrow money all the time. But the United States is still moving on. We're still a massive force in terms of brute economic power. So again, do you honestly think the United States will run out of money? Okay, then explain this: Why did we have to raise the maximum amount of debt we could have to 9 Trillion? If we aren't in debt, then we shouldn't need to do that. If we can apparently still borrow money from other nations, they seem to think our credit is good enough. People are still buying government bonds with expectation of future repayment aren't they? People can still buy food, clothes, etc. I'm sorry, last I checked, money or expectation of money was required for those things.

Did you honestly think I even supported the Iraq war at all? No, actually... What kind of debate topic is that anyways? You are supposed to debate about the Iraq War. Is it going well (Is the money worth it, are the soldiers' deaths worth it, did we accomplish our goals in Iraq). The situation in Iraq? It's quite obviously fuсked up to the max. Why thank you... What do you expect me to be able to say? Something similar to what Kenny said... :rolleyes: I can say I support it, that it was justified, that's doable. But to say that the actual situation there is fine and dandy? Half of my post was bullѕhit. Tell me, what does this sentence mean in the first post?
Each week, I will introduce a controversial topic for you to defend [b]your views on it valiantly.
You're supposed to defend YOUR views. If you post fake views for a point, you're going to end up posting the bullshit you did...
You're a horrible debate judge, rust. Your topics are either uninspiring or uncontroversial. Hey, excuse me for picking topics that a lot of people know about. God forbid I actually want the Debate Section active... But apparently, you think you're all that because some people think that you've livened up the rp? At least I RP... Ohnoz, I guess I should bow down to your ultimate judgement too? That would be nice :P No, rust, I have checked my facts before debating, O RLY? and the facts say that you are either deliberately ignorant because of your inherent biases, or just in possession of an uncapacious brain.


And I've got a few shout-outs/requests from some people.

Request 1: I love lamp
http://rxreed.net/images/2004/12/leg-lamp.jpg

Request 2: rust... go die in a fire
Now, sk, your post also violates the rules. You personally attacked me several times. You are no longer able to participate in the debate section for the rest of the day. IF you return, La Res has NO chance whatsoever of getting any of my 12 points I'm handing out this week.

I'm also tired of you being malicious to everyone, including me. I don't give a damn about your mom being a hooker and your dad being a drunkard (Which, BTW, that story is udder ********), you should know what to RESPECT people. I never had any malicious intentions towards you, why do you against me? Hell, I'm nice to people, unlike you...

Until you can respect people, I'd advise you to STFU...

Incongruity
08-19-2006, 06:18 PM
What I'm saying is that the United States has such a massive pool of money that can be accessed if we really need it, and apparently everyone else thinks so too, if they keep loaning us money. I never implied taht the government was wealthy, you inferred that. The government can at any time activate the obvious policies to get that money, because the actual nation has enormously good credit. You might want to take an elementary course in economics rust; basically, in order for lenders to loan money in any form, people have to expect to be repaid. Everyone (at least, everyone with money) apparently thinks that the government can eventually tap the nation's massive resources and pay back whatever debt is there. That is, everyone except apparently you, who seemingly thinks the United States is a third-world nation with unclothed starving children. That is, you want to feel victimized.

And no, deficit spending has been going on for years, and that's just common knowledge rust. Oh but of course, I almost forgot how you love to conveniently ignore basic understanding of the world.

Also, the problem with your debate topics is that they are inherently undebatable. It is IMPOSSIBLE to say that the war is going "well." It is very possible to support it personally, but the "situation" in iraq? Justified or unjustified would be an okay topic, but well or poor is a horribly incompetent topic. Come the **** on rust. Yet you complain about me being malicious? You make yourself inherently unrespectable. You were the one that called me out, asking me to check my facts. You expect me not to respond, when you are seemingly unable to understand elementary arguments?

And rust, ohnoz. Please, have mercy on my pitiful soul! Don't ban me from the debate section! Quite honestly, I couldn't give less of a ****. The war jumped the shark the moment you were considered a plausible contributor to it.



Addendum: Rust, don't act like I'm being malicious to "everyone." I have never made fun of a single newb on pe2k (as in, someone legitimately new to the forums). I have never attacked anyone worthy of respect. It's people like you that need to be checked once in a while. Don't act like I'm some evil figure deliberately picking you out while everyone else loves you. No, I'm not hating you groundlessly, it's just that I know how to express myself when necessary. Trust me, I'm not the only one who feels this way about you.


And if we're going to go into the whole idea that I'm violating rules, I think you seriously need to check up on your rules rust. You need to respect me. Yes rust, you called me out with that post. Implying that I should "check up on my facts before debating"? I knew my facts rust, and that was actually fairly clear in my post for anyone with an IQ above that of a koala. Thus, your comment was very disrespectful. I'm sure at least twenty different people will pop up saying that two wrongs don't make a right, but last I checked, one wrong sure as hell didn't make a right either. And perhaps you should do something else rust. You told me to "STFU" in your last post. What, you don't want to hear my opinion (My opinion being that you need to reevaluate yourself)? I believe you're not "respecting my opinion," thus violating Rule 3. Basically, let's not get into the whole rules-violation thing. I'm sure that you as a liberal know the abusability of activist judicial interpretation of the law.

JohtoTrainer
08-19-2006, 07:47 PM
What I'm saying is that the United States has such a massive pool of money that can be accessed if we really need it, and apparently everyone else thinks so too, if they keep loaning us money. I never implied taht the government was wealthy, you inferred that. The government can at any time activate the obvious policies to get that money, because the actual nation has enormously good credit. You might want to take an elementary course in economics rust; basically, in order for lenders to loan money in any form, people have to expect to be repaid. Everyone (at least, everyone with money) apparently thinks that the government can eventually tap the nation's massive resources and pay back whatever debt is there. That is, everyone except apparently you, who seemingly thinks the United States is a third-world nation with unclothed starving children. That is, you want to feel victimized.

And no, deficit spending has been going on for years, and that's just common knowledge rust. Oh but of course, I almost forgot how you love to conveniently ignore basic understanding of the world.

Also, the problem with your debate topics is that they are inherently undebatable. It is IMPOSSIBLE to say that the war is going "well." It is very possible to support it personally, but the "situation" in iraq? Justified or unjustified would be an okay topic, but well or poor is a horribly incompetent topic. Come the fuсk on rust. Yet you complain about me being malicious? You make yourself inherently unrespectable. You were the one that called me out, asking me to check my facts. You expect me not to respond, when you are seemingly unable to understand elementary arguments?

And rust, ohnoz. Please, have mercy on my pitiful soul! Don't ban me from the debate section! Quite honestly, I couldn't give less of a fuсk. The war jumped the shark the moment you were considered a plausible contributor to it.



Addendum: Rust, don't act like I'm being malicious to "everyone." I have never made fun of a single newb on pe2k (as in, someone legitimately new to the forums). I have never attacked anyone worthy of respect. It's people like you that need to be checked once in a while. Don't act like I'm some evil figure deliberately picking you out while everyone else loves you. No, I'm not hating you groundlessly, it's just that I know how to express myself when necessary. Trust me, I'm not the only one who feels this way about you.


And if we're going to go into the whole idea that I'm violating rules, I think you seriously need to check up on your rules rust. You need to respect me. Yes rust, you called me out with that post. Implying that I should "check up on my facts before debating"? I knew my facts rust, and that was actually fairly clear in my post for anyone with an IQ above that of a koala. Thus, your comment was very disrespectful. I'm sure at least twenty different people will pop up saying that two wrongs don't make a right, but last I checked, one wrong sure as hell didn't make a right either. And perhaps you should do something else rust. You told me to "STFU" in your last post. What, you don't want to hear my opinion (My opinion being that you need to reevaluate yourself)? I believe you're not "respecting my opinion," thus violating Rule 3. Basically, let's not get into the whole rules-violation thing. I'm sure that you as a liberal know the abusability of activist judicial interpretation of the law.
Lmfao. Rust loses again.

Neo Emolga
08-19-2006, 07:54 PM
Guys, seriously. This isn't necessary.

And SK, rust, watch the swearing. You know it's against the rules and I don't need to remind you of that.

Lord Celebi
08-19-2006, 10:12 PM
Guys, seriously. This isn't necessary.

And SK, rust, watch the swearing. You know it's against the rules and I don't need to remind you of that.

Sorry NP, I got a little carried away...

BTW, sk, you've violated the rules again... you've returned to the thread before your punishment time was up... I'm contemplating not giving La Res any points this week (As the rules say will happen)...

MystiKal
08-20-2006, 12:29 AM
Guys, seriously. This isn't necessary.

And SK, rust, watch the swearing. You know it's against the rules and I don't need to remind you of that.
It's the debate board and their debating. The only thing I saw wrong was the swearing, so why stop the whole debate?

JohtoTrainer
08-20-2006, 12:33 AM
I like how the judge bans people from the thread that he loses a debate to. Way to go.

Neo Emolga
08-20-2006, 12:57 AM
It's the debate board and their debating. The only thing I saw wrong was the swearing, so why stop the whole debate?

I'm not saying that, SK has the right to question rust's methods of judging, just as much as anyone can question my methods for judging War RP, but insulting him in the process isn't necessary.

They're debating and this is the Other Discussion board... yes, but yeah... the debate here wasn't meant to be a whole debate regarding rust's performance as judge of the debate section...

Lord Celebi
08-20-2006, 04:14 AM
Week #5 Results:

Best Pro Post: Chaos
Best Con Post: ChronoPika
Best Post Overall: Neo Pikachu
Best Team Effort (Worth 2 points): Aqua... most posts (3 Total, 2 good ones)
Random Dice Roll: The die was 2... meaning gamedude gets Aqua another point (Yippee... I honestly didn't expect that :P)

Debate Awards:

Best Debater (2 Points): It Would Be sk, but since he screwed up... The winner is... Dark Umbreon...
Most Improved Debater (2 Points): Espeon Rinage, goes from posting completely whiny crap to asking a bunch of questions... that's a minor improvement... since no one else improved :P
Most Active Debater (1 Point): Would be Kenny, but sk screwed up... So, the winner is Dark Umbreon...
Overall Best Team Effort (1 Point): Would be La Res, but sk screwed up, so its Team Aqua...

Happy Trails...

Lord Celebi
08-20-2006, 05:17 AM
Week #5 Posts

ChronoPika: Pretty good, you just need to cite a bit more proof and a source or two would be nice.

gamedude: Terrible... You need to back up your arguements, and not just post 'Ghosts aren't real.' But hey, you got Aqua a point, so I have no qualms with you :P

Neo Pikachu: Mervelous :clap:

Chaos: Pretty Good...

Espeon Rinage: All you did was ask questions. Although it was an improvement from your last post, you could have backed up your arguement a bit more...

Lord Celebi
08-20-2006, 05:35 AM
There, every spot of work has been finished for the Debate section. I just need to edit the first post one more time, and this can be unpinned and locked...

EDIT: Edited the first post. This can be locked and unpinned whenever any G-Mod feels like it :P

(Funny, the hundredth post here will also be the one that locks it)...

[The WAR Debate Section is now CLOSED. Please come back next year if you wish to debate for WAR Points again.]

Seawolf
08-20-2006, 09:41 PM
How about I not post at all and leave this at 99 posts?

Oh ... crap.

*Locked